Comment: Gee Josf, that's actually a pretty sweet verbal concoction of

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: No argument (see in situ)

Gee Josf, that's actually a pretty sweet verbal concoction of

a whole lot of apt and irrelevant non sequiturs.0)

Very well stated, nonetheless.

I think you and I both agree on the essential concepts being discussed here: Voluntary vs. Coercive.

But sticking to the initial point of contention is the definition of the terms "collect-ivism" and VOLUNTARY "collect-ive."

That said, indeed what is the point if you and I can't even agree on word definitions?

A Collective does not automatically mean that a member of that group is a collect-ivist.

So...the whole punk rock band example didn't take, eh?

C'est la vie.

Now, I wouldn't ask anyone to 'look at what I was discussing with someone else, before you reply on that particular matter.' That said, seeing as how you decided to bring it up, I'd direct you to this previous comment I stated with another member, to illustrate the point that you're expending words on points not made nor promoted by me:

Can I leave freely?" was obviously a rhetorical point, if you read down further and found the following:

Yes, you CAN fully expatriate (on paper),

As for me, personally? I CHOOSE NOT to leave America, because I want to be/see the change while I and my loved ones are here.

It's commendable that you see yourself distantly included in the broad philosophic sphere of the Sons of Liberty archetype, but considering what I actually stated, makes your following point moot:

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

It's actually kinda sweet, your whole 'stay here or else, the following bad shiit may happen to you, and you're coward, and I'm gonna tell your mommy! meh!'-guilt trip.


But seeing as how you took the time to reply with elegant-ish deployment of classical literary devices and lyrical structure, I feel almost compelled to oblige.

So, let us go forth, shall we?

1. As I've stated before, I frankly agree with a lot of what you have to say; I think you're actually taking this a little more personally than I am, judging by your highly elegant, yet still very much verbally forceful response.

So if you will, just keep the following in mind: I questioned your response in context of previous on going discussion about the proper word definition of voluntary-"collective" vs. coercive "collectivism/collectivist" and how it's used in 'accepted' political context (however bastardized it maybe) vs. its original definition/application.

NOT about fundamentals of voluntary vs. coercive (funny how you don't have a problem clearly defining and distinguishing between those two simple concepts), nor whether I'll be staying here in America, or not.

2. Considering a few of the past comments made by you that I've had a chance to read, I would honestly say that you and I are pretty much philosophically in alignment, on core individual sovereignty principles.

3. I wholly agree with you, about variable subjective range of somewhat arbitrary nature of almost every single terms that humans use.

4. I agree with you about what Federalists actually WERE, versus what the term actually means: derived from Latin "foedus," as in contract, a compact, or covenant.

So in point of fact, in some ways, the "Anti-Federalists" of the day were actual "federalists" who understood and abided by the concept of federalism.

5. I agree with you about Washington et al & Shay's Rebellion.

6. I also understand the point you are making by invoking the bastardization of the term "federalist" vs, what it actually was, vs. how those who ran with that banner perverted it, and how historically the bastardized version and actors come to actually represent the term, by and large.

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

Yes, it is a prime example. Yet, bad actors falsely claiming a political banner still does not change the fundamental definition of a term, now does it?

Assuming you and I don't bicker over arcane cultural etymological origins of how a term come to be, definitions of words we use to communicate should be clear.

I say that to illustrate and agree with you that humans are subjective inherently, so frankly it's a lie to ever claim "objectively speaking...", especially when uttered by us humans.

So, more accurately, it should be: "as objective as humanly possible," or the more 'esoteric:' "as objectively subjective as possible."

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.

And, yes I too agree: considering the long unwritten nature of human communication to pictograms/hieroglyph to written words, common cultural usage and contextually broad origins of various words, does in fact make 100% accuracy in word definitions to be problematic.

Besides, like every other field, those who write the book, literally, often get to dictate what 'facts' are.

Who's to say that the 'committee' that ended up deciding the finalized each entry in a printed/bound dictionaries of yore were truly the language autho-ri-teh, let alone the modern Oxford English Dictionary's annual committee?

That said, setting the more philosophical point of contentions aside, for any conversation over a word definition to move forth, participants would have to agree on each individual's understanding of these terms, and that they must first be made clear, to each other. No?

In some ways, you invoking Federalists of yore, to be more or less historically defined by the actions of the notable militant actors runs into the same 'select individuals who claim to represent ____, mar the image of the group as a whole, as far as outside observers not members of that said group are concerned'-meme.

So, obviously, those who currently claim to be Federalists in the year 2013, ie members of the Federalist Society while maybe actually closer to those who claimed to be 'Federalists' of the Founders' era, in point of fact, definitionally-speaking, they are NOT "federalists," of the original Latin root word "foedus"-origin.

Just as how someone assumes that just because his mom's store's been robbed by a black teen, he then goes on to assume utterly ignorantly that 'all black teens are thieves' and word of mouth anecdotes spread and that becomes an accepted racist 'cultural' stereotype-'norm.'

Now, your example of invoking Federalists runs into the same problem: the erroneous stereotype come to de facto define the term, itself (observing history), regardless of the fact that the definition itself didn't change, but enough number of people's misunderstandings of the term did.

To wit, as you've stated:

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.

Then, again, I agree with you, because what words mean, have ALWAYS been culturally determined, frankly how and what critical mass of people accept and use the term is, in fact more important, in practical terms, even if they all use it wrong, like the modern day "federalism," liberalism, and apropos of current discussion: "collective" vs. "collectivism."

But, if sticking to your above assertion, guess even if the "lower quality" one seems to be the prevailing one, you believe if enough people accept it, it should be so, because even wrong definitions accepted by enough idiots mean market forces just won, so those who know the actual definitions of the terms should deal?

Personally? I'd submit: NO.

You have such command of diction, yet, you've clearly failed to understand the following point you were rebutting, when I wrote

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 was clearly referring to the conscious human decision process involved in how a group of individuals DECIDE to come together to form or join a group, NOT the process in which HOW word definitions come to be accepted, as your reply suggests you think you're answering.

It should've been pretty 'a - b - c' clear as I stated the above AFTER I ALREADY first laid out a simple example of IF you and your buddies were to start or join a punk-rock band, that would be the most unmistakable example of a VOLUNTARY collective, for those who obviously are still confusing and assuming that A member of A "collect-ive," automatically means that they're somehow collect-IVISTS.

For example, when you VOLUNTARILY JOIN, or you and your buddies get together to start a punk-rock band, you just became part of a VOLUNTARY collective.

But as you state, "but again argument is not the point to me."

So, if the "argument is not the point" to you, then why are you even bothering to rebut someone's statement, when you're gonna only answer your own point unrelated to it, anyway?

As exemplified in your proceeding sentence, that I actually addressed in the above portion distinguishing how and why word definitions come to be:

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.

So, as you may imagine, how puzzled I would be that you'd equate my continuing example of using 'you and your buds VOLUNTARILY starting/joining a punk-rock band' as the most simplest example of a voluntary collective, can be twisted into, AS IF I promoted the following assertions you're making/rebutting a point that I NEVER made, nor asserted:

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.


I'm all like Huh??

I never claimed that, even though, I agree with your explanation of what a coercive entity would do. But again, your voluntarily formed punk-rock band? NOT coercive. And your punk-rock band's fans & groupies?? NOT automatic statist apologists whose actions are "driven by fraud, threat, or violence from an involuntary source."



I understand you cut off the following for space & convenience, but the point I was trying to make is clearer, with it:

"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.


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 (Lysander Spooner's critique of the obvious aside, for the sake of conversation, speaking strictly within minarchist constructionist Constitutionalist confines). Now, the statists claim you can't leave, ie secede.

That doesn't say whether I know or believe whether men of the Founders generations were aware or unaware of "Consolidating the voluntary association into an involuntary one" (yeah, it's called irregular/unitary contracts).

Regardless, is any of that what I said or alluded to in that paragraph?


But, yes, I AM however in agreement with you that the Const. Convention was a con job.

But again, you arguing and rebutting things I didn't, but I'm glad it added to the points that you THINK you disagree with me on, and can state with misplaced confidence, things like: "That is false in fact."

LOL. But that's okay, because I actually agree with you on those points, even though I've never refuted them, even though you replied LIKE I did xD

"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.

Entertaining non sequiturs: proceeding to elaborate on non-disagreeable points to air them disagreeable, is always a bemusing literary past time, but sadly, need not apply here.

LOL =) I kid, 'cause I love.D

As for the following, it's just a repeat of my above statement on me actually agreeing with you on the subjective nature of humans and how words and languages come to be; just a rehash of what I already said.

That said, now, I've already stated what my understanding of these word definitions are with links to references, regardless of whether you want to wholly reject any and all modern dictionaries or not.

Then, shouldn't you actually state WHAT your understanding of the terms "collective" vs. "collectivism" is, or whether you still believe they refers to coercive entities?

"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?

But, reading that, it's clear that you still seem to think that a Collect-ive automatically means it's a coercive collect-IVIST combine.

It is not.

Suppose you're beyond reproach and damn all the modern or arcane dictionaries. Even though most reputable ones from Oxford to Webster's Dictionary, and to certain extent, the aggregated 'dictionary,' aka. Wiki, all essentially state the same thing: a "collective" just means a group of individuals who voluntarily come together to do something, or discuss something; the definition doesn't intimate automatically that they're "collectivists," who believe they derive special rights and privileges by the mere virtue of being a member of that group. And worse, they believe that due to the interdependent nature and the emphasis on the 'harmony of the group' to be more important than any individual's needs, and the fact that they believe that everyone must participate for their group to function, they would not think twice before coercing such participation.

So my question to you, dear Good Sir, is:

Thouest speaketh thine own logos? If so, why art thou bloweth thine lyre, at all?

Now, I like to speak in my own personal rendition of the English language as anyone who loves words/wordplay. That said, if you're gonna simply reject not-your-own word definitions for terms that's already long been in political spheres of discourse, why bother debating these topics, if your final conclusion is always going to be, something along the lines of: 'all word definitions are arbitrary (agreed, though some are less arbitrary than others) so I'm simply gonna stick to my own, regardless of dictionary definitions!' ??

And plus, come on Josf. Brother, really:

"Who, and what army, is offering actualness of" YOUR word, again?

Yes, that sounded equally rhetorically ridiculous to me, too.

As for:

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.

I've literally never read anyone who took that long and went to such non-elaborate elaborate length to say, that you simply do not accept a word definition (even though a language by nature is only commonly communicable if enough people have common understanding of specific terms, within a culture of its initial origin), and you'll simply continue to choose to believe what you believe, and no one can tell you otherwise, meh!


But again, I AGREE with you: I don't want to, nor have to convince you of anything, nor do I expect you to believe in something different than what you obviously already a-priori believed in, as exemplified with the length and conviction with which you chose to rebut.

Which again, brings me to inquire, then WhyTF are you even bothering to reply to me, let alone anyone?

In closing:

"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.

"We will do no such thing."???

LOL, talk about a collectivist.

No: YOU will do no such thing, young man! ;0)

I, on the other hand: may, or may not choose to do such thing xD

Okay, okay, so to be fair, "we" in those contexts are 'drive-by' heuristic rhetorical literary devices, that really don't mean "we," but more like 'we' in the hypothetical, but really: a single solitary actor.

Now, seeing as how it's obvious that you have a pretty good command of diction, I find it unfathomable that you'd actually not 'get' the obviousness of the following rhetorically anticipatory statement, considering the sentence-flow of my reply that you've already been replying pretty well, so far (however disagreeably, on your part):

"Well, we're gonna be at an impasse; we simply are gonna talk in circles,"

It should be pretty obvious that, basically it's simply saying that beyond a certain point, both parties who have already aired their statements to each other obviously now know that they will be at a point of firm disagreement. As such, it's an expression of outward thinking that basically says: 'hey, you and I both know you're gonna say one thing, and I'm gonna say another, and I think it's pretty obvious by now that this conversation, at least on this particular topic, isn't going to go anywhere, so I offer this as a cordial closing.'

LOL. Yet what do you do, with that?

You go on about how beyond a pt. of "diminishing returns" it's pointless.

.o/ and I had so much plans planned ahead for us...


Well, the fact that you replied in such length, makes me question your understanding of the concept of "diminishing returns," let alone the fact that you non-sarcastically state it rhetorically, as if you're actually feigning not expecting an answer back?

Come on, Josf, really?

But let's be factual, if you're pre-determining that it will already not likely to yield an acceptable level of return, it's not diminishing, it's long been expended.

Come on! Oh the drama. I can't stand it!

Ohhhh, but I truly truly love this: "then I will find competitive things to do with my time"

Sounds vaguely like an empty non-threat-threat-ish??

I actually don't know how to take that.

I know I'm not gonna be feeling guilty, but somehow I feel I should feel guilty that you actually had to tell me that you have better things to do than take a long ass time to rebut in a long ass verbiage, all to say that basically: "I ain't got time for this shiit." When you've obviously shown that you do have plenty-o-time.D

Though, I do like the 'I'm an uber capitalist'-garnish by invoking "competitive things to do."

No joke: I F'ng LOVE that!

Bravo. No seriously. I really like that!

I actually never come across anyone who talks like that before. So for that, I'd like to thank you for introducing me to Josf-speak.D

Now, as for this:

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.

LOL! What movie script are you talking to me about again?

I don't remember EVER attaching experiences with other people to you, though if you are being honest, every single encounter you have with another human goes into honing your people reading skills. Unless, you're honestly alluding that we should ignore past experiences and interactions with others in the past as an initial point of holistic reference for future encounters. Which, I highly doubt that that is actually what you inferred.

Also, I never pulled you into a "we" of any kind. Which again, makes me truly wonder, beyond the cut & paste job, whether you actually even read my reply, nor the one I was previously replying, to before YOU decided to reply.

I distinctly remember this whole conversation (if I can even call it that) began with a discussion on word definitions between voluntary "collect-ive" vs. coercive "collect-ivist/collectivism".

And somehow we're now talking about how you determine word definitions, how you accept or don't accept other people's definitions (even though speaking in A language kinda means that various words are understood by more than just Josf), to you accusing me of pulling you into a non-existent 'we' that I never invoked nor made you an unproud member of, nor an offer I never proffered.

Like whoa. That was quite a neurotic roller-coaster I never signed up for, but thanks. It's been fun.D

Oh, what was the point again? What would be the point?



Na, na na. I kid. I kid.

If you read it all up to this point, you'd realize that I've stated "I agree" with you, far more times than not.

So, be that as it may, Josf. No bigs. Stick to your own non-coercive 'dictionary,' my man. It's all good.)

It still doesn't change the word definitions, but no one's stoppin' ya: least of all me. Though I may still point it out, from time to time xD

Cheerio, with Philly Love.

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul