Comment: World choices?

(See in situ)

World choices?

"lot of apt and irrelevant non sequiturs"

My intention is to convey that which I agree to and that which I reject in response to your words. I do not choose to invent and employ a non-sequitur. If one exists in my writing then that one would serve as an example of a non-sequitur. If you do not offer an example of a non-sequitur, then your word choice could be nothing more than an attempt on your part to insult me.

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

I do not see much use in the word coercive because the word bottles up to much within the boundaries of crime, so what is the point in using that word choice?

I prefer to communicate the full measure of a problem I see in human action as a power struggle between Liberty and Legal Crime.

I choose those words for reasons that I can explain in detail.

I do not agree that the essential concepts are either/or voluntary or coercive. I can ask, if by way of my ignorance concerning what you mean to convey with the word coercive I can then know in your answer, if included in the word coercive is the power of lies working upon the victims by those using lies to gain at the expense of their targeted victims.

I won't waste my time hunting down an official definition while the user of the word is apparently able to answer the question directly.

Do you include the power of lies told by criminals upon their targeted victims as a part of the definition of coercion?

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

The point I was making did not have to do with my failure to agree to a specific definition of a specific word that you have in mind when you use a word you choose. Asking honest questions and gaining honest answers can easily make know the specific meaning intended in any case of doubt. On the other hand: I was in no position to agree to you defining the meaning of the words I choose to use in the context of the messages I intend to convey accurately, especially when your usurpation of my power to define the meaning of the words I use is a nebulous authority that you call "actual".

That makes no sense to me. When I use a definition of a word and the person I intend to communicate to understands that meaning, then that is, in that case, the actual meaning of the word, even if you claim otherwise.

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

I get that message, as far as I can tell, intact. That sentence conveys to me clear and unambiguous meaning, as far as I can tell.

The meaning is such that a false association, or prejudice, can happen when someone "automatically" assumes that a person is, or is not, what they are, or are not, based upon incomplete, or false, information.

Here may be a person who does this or that, and an observer categorizes what that person does based upon false, and even misleading, information, and then the observer attributes false associations upon the person being observed.

Collectivist could be a brand name of some registered trade mark, patents pending, whereby the label can only be officially used by those having that license, according to those who enforce such things, and yet someone collecting payments with a collection plate in church could falsely be accused of using the trade mark name of Collectivist (tm), whereby the innocent victim is punished for stealing the brand name.

The innocent victim can claim as much as he wishes that he never used the word Collectivist himself, that someone else fingered him with that word, to no avail, if the automatic response to charges of stealing the brand name is to torture the accused (found guilty by false association or prejudice) and then burn the Collectivist alive, at least the one without the license.

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

I had fun with the punk rock band example, thanks, why would you assume, automatically, that it did not take, if that is what you are now doing, figuratively burning me at the stake?

Your words are more and more appearing to me as thinly veiled insults.

"I stated with another member, to illustrate the point that you're expending words on points not made nor promoted by me"

The point earlier conveyed to you as Diminishing Returns is reached with those words above, as your words appear to convey a prejudice you are aiming at me, a false association that you are automatically placing upon me.

If by chance it is merely a case of my failure to understand the words and if by chance it is my own automatic false association at work, I can press past that measure of that point at which there is from here on a lack of return on investment declining into nothingness, on the chance that I am wrong.

So I can read on, with figurative trepidation: sicks and stones...

"your following point moot"

That which is moot in your eyes is not automatically moot in my eyes. If you see no mootness connecting those competitive words, for whatever reason, that is, in my opinion, less important compared to the fact that now those words by Sam Adams are gaining currency; the more people repeating them in print or in reading or speaking, the better as far as I can see - currently.

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.

For those reading this other than this individual who obviously resorts to insults as a means of communicating I can convey some information as to where I am coming from and where I am going with the concept of defending Liberty.

During the Waco televised sacrifice by burning alive people including pregnant mothers I had had enough of people telling me how wrong I am, concerning my present (at that time) inspiration to defend Liberty.

I tried to join the armed march on Washington started (but did not go far) by Linda Thomson. I made the phone call to join up, despite trepidations expressed by my wife, having 2 children left without my help.
I have my own original VHS copies from Linda Thomson

Then I took the steps required to get my name on the National Ballot in 1996 as a congressional Candidate.

Since then I have been relentlessly, persistently, looking for effective methods to counter the crimes perpetrated "in my name" with my earnings stolen from me.

I was part of the effort to serve every congressmen in every district in these United States (so called) legal notices of redress. Those legal notices were delivered in almost every district and they were ignored.

I have written to the kidnapped Adam Kokesh, he has responded, and I add this because I think that it is important to credit those who risk so much for Liberty even when their actions may not be the wisest or most effective actions imaginable. Who is to say what works and what does not work in defense of Liberty: the kidnappers who burn pregnant women alive?

Currently there is a group being formed Nation wide called the National Liberty Alliance.

I plan on attending my second meetup next Monday.

Where I am coming from the person who is now resorting to insults upon me, as a means of communicating, is identified as such by me.

Here is the evidence:

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.

That is an opinion concerning 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

If I have the evidence understood, then it is the opinion of this forum member that someone, somewhere, is guilty of this:

"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"

The accusation is clearly aimed at me.

"your whole 'stay here..."

If I could find a place on this Earth where people like this forum member are no longer attacking innocent people for fun and profit, or whatever reason imaginable, and if I could afford to go there, and if my loved ones would go there with me, and they could afford to go there too, then I might consider moving.

Defense of Liberty makes more sense to me, compared to moving.

That is the message offered by Sam Adams, in my competitive opinion.

So now there are two competitive opinions offered in this "discussion" between myself and the forum member who resorts to insult.

The meaning of the words from Sam Adams is:

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.


Defensive of Liberty is not for everyone, so go voluntarily on your way the other way, as you please, and what happens to you on your way is the bed you make so you will lie in it.

I can't speak for Sam Adams, the words written by Sam Adams were chosen by Sam Adams, and well chosen words in my opinion.

The words chosen by the forum member resorting to insult as a means of communicating are well chosen too; perhaps.

The concept of a Jury is such that criminals will perpetrate worse crimes as time goes by if criminals are paid very well for each crime, paid by their targeted victims, and a Jury is formed so as to place a defensive power in between the criminal and the victim, so as to avoid the abandonment of victims who are currently being victimized, sometimes even burned alive, by those criminals, and furthermore, and in stark contrast to unlimited government (legal crime), a Jury must avoid becoming criminals as innocent people may be accused of perpetrating crimes.

Presumption of innocence is a method by which a Jurist can avoid false claims of guilt.

A willful claim of guilt upon someone who is innocent, for example, can be an example of a verbal crime.

The Sinful Messiah false propaganda campaign perpetrated by those at the Media Companies producing those false condemnations of people in a church in Waco Texas in 1992.

The concept of a Common Law Grand Jury is such that regular (unlicensed) people can elect among themselves members of a watchdog group that works to accurately identify criminals and victims and then these Juries have the Common Law Power, recognized by The Supreme Court of the (false) United States, in their own legal, documented, opinions.

So, in short, a Common Law Grand Jury is a means of redress by which regular people can license themselves as legal Grand Juries according to National Law Enforcement.

That may be difficult to understand, and it is not often resorted to, but a possible example of a "citizen" Grand Jury having actually worked is a case involving the Judge in the resent Zimmerman Case whereby a Grand Jury of this type was formed and used to hold the Judge to account for crimes perpetrated by the Judge against Zimmerman.

Some people are working diligently to hide evidence that may exist whereby the evidence proves how regular people can legally defend Liberty and do so without any resort to lies, threats, or violence.

So why do people work effectively at hiding such information? What is their pay off, what is the point, the inspiration?

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?

Note the twisting of words in this case, and as far as I am concerned all reasonable doubt as to the intent to insult is gone, whereby the aggressive attacker is "almost compelled to oblige," and then continues. So why twist words? If you are almost compelled to reply then that means that you are not compelled to reply. If the reference has to do with some nebulous fault (elegant-ish) and the "obligation" is to "almost" resort to tit for tat, eye for an eye, and then be "elegant-ish" in return for my supposed "elegant-ish" choice of words, then I can be misunderstanding the "obligation" as being not an "obligation" to reply, but instead an "obligation" to stoop to my level of being "elegant-ish," and in that case the intent to resort to insult is made even more obvious.


1. Not inspired to reply but replies anyway.
2. Not inspired to stoop to my level of pretentious elegance according to the person doing the insulting of me, for some unstated reason.

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.

That which is funny to one person may be very serious business to another. As to where anyone may or may not be staying the quote offered by Sam Adams is offered to those whose shoes they fit, and if there is anyone trying on the shoe, finding the shoe unfit, then the words offered by Sam Adams does not apply to that person.

There was no intent upon my part to force fit the shoe onto anyone specific, if that is what is being claimed at this point, that is false.

Skipping past the points of agreement (wasting no time, in my opinion, with that which can be (is) judged as "preaching to the choir") and finding cause to reconsider my judgement of the malice factor concerning the resort to insult, there is a point of obvious miscommunication here:

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?

Now I can say that having moved past destructive word choices there is here a move back into competitive (free market) offerings of contentious ideas/perceptions/judgements of that which is before us in real time and space.

Out goes the word choice "actual" and in goes the word choice "fundamental" and in my competitive view the principle is the same thing, the words are merely switched, and there is no end to the number of new words that can be used to convey the same message.

1. Actual
2. Licensed
3. Authoritative
4. Fundamental
5. Enforced
6. Dictatorial
7. Involuntary
8. Monopolistic
9. Real
10. Official

My viewpoint is earned though careful study of sources that include the works done by Josiah Warren.

An apt response here, in my opinion, is a quote:

"496. Constitutions, statutes, rules, axioms, and all verbal formulas are subject to various and conflicting interpretations, all growing out of the inherent and indestructible Individuality of different minds. A compact between parties who do not understand it alike is null and void, because they have not consented to the same thing, even if they have signed it! What is to be done with this fact? We can do nothing with it but accept it as an irrefutable truth, and provide means of dispensing with whatever conflicts with it."

Meaning: Failure to seek and find and confirm and agree without error, the intended meanings of words, nullifies any claims of having done so.

What is the point?

To miss-communicate or to communicate accurately? If the intent to communicate accurately is the true motive, then any evidence of failure offered in return by the target of the communication nullifies any claim of having reached that goal by the dictator making such claims.


Person A says: "Do you understand the official meaning of the word?"

Person B responds: "I reject the quality of the word being "official."

Person A responds: "Take out official and put in place the word actual and then answer the question concerning your understanding of the actual meaning of the word in question."

Person B responds: "The point I am trying to make has to do with the quality of the word in question. It, the word itself, has no power to be the one and only, the official, or the real, or the actual, or the sanctioned, or the licensed, or the patented, or the whatever other word you want to use to turn those symbols into something it is not, something the word can never be, if I do not accept that new quality of that word that you offer as a quality attached to that word."

Person A: "Now you are talking in circles."

Person B: "If you remove the attachment of a quality that does not exist, then I can comment on my understanding of the word in question. In other words, if focus is focused on the intended meaning of the word, and focus is not longer focused on a supposed POWER attached to the word, then I can focus attention on the meaning of the word, instead of focusing attention on some nebulous POWER that supposed resides inside the word in question."

Person A: "You are stupid."

Person B: "That may be the case, but there is no quality of "actuality" in that word, so why claim such a thing? If the definition of a word is offered, and agreed upon by me, then that word serves us two for the purpose of communicating accurately, if on the other hand you are claiming that THE definition of THE WORD is in some way POWERFUL in and of itself, as if the word can conjure up some secret magic consequence at the mere utterance of the word, where music is heard, horns are blown, and people are set to the knees a the mention of the word, due to this quality of "authority" contained within the word, then my focus is no longer focused on the offer you offer concerning any misunderstanding that my yet exist as to the intended meaning of the word in question.

Why so many words in response to words? The creation of authority over words is false, and falsehoods require 2 more falsehoods covering each original one.

If instead of focusing on the nebulous authority contained in the first falsehood, there is merely a shared focus of attention on arriving at a mutual understanding of the definition of the word in question, there is, in that change of focus from authority toward agreement, is it possible, in that way, to reduce the word count?

The word was Collectivist? I can accept whatever definition you offer for that word. I cannot accept, because it does not exist, your authority claiming that your definition is in some way overpowering my ability to refuse to accept your offer of the meaning of that word.

Practical Example A:


Joe: "No, I am not a corporate fiction for you, and your army of Legal Criminals, to exploit that PERSON by some nebulous magic of false authority. No thanks, whatever your name is, since you certainly are not qualified as a judge of right and wrong, if that is what you are also claiming through this charade."

Moving on:

"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?"

I lost my place in the discussion - if that is what we are doing?

For my part, in a discussion, my intention is to offer my perspective in the hope of having another perspective offered in return, so as then to view life in general, or the specific thing in view in particular, from more angles than my single angle of view, and in that way the thing in view is built upon a competitive comparison of multiple dimensions, all of which, honestly, intend to view the thing in view more accurately.

Dispensing with inaccurate viewpoints and utilizing more accurate viewpoints, to me, is the purpose, the point, of honest, mutually beneficial, voluntary, discussion, free from intentional falsehoods and insults.

"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."

The quality attached to the word by another word such as "actual" or "fundamental" was my objection offered, and my objection offered was merely that, and nothing more than that attachment of that nebulous "quality" of "fundamental-ness." I did not object to the definition of the word (collectivist) in the context used. I objected to the fictional authority of the word - which does not exist.

"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."

I do not see things that way. Perhaps I could, but competitively speaking the fact that two people manage to communicate accurately can be proven as fact in many ways, which removes any claims of subjectivity concerning the words having been used, agreed upon, and the prove is realized in time. Here is where I can offer the example of Math as a form of communication that tends to be less confusing to those who agree to use it in a mutually agreeable manner.

I see that the response to which I am now responding is much longer, and as things started to appear to be getting past a close point of no return, as things were appearing to be more interesting, less insulting, my time runs out, and I can return to edit, or to continue, or that may not be possible. I intend to return to this exchange.

Returning (not editing above):

So...math is an example of an attempt at communicating from one individual to another individual so as to remove as much imprecise data as possible. So, objectively speaking, the team member doing the measuring of the piece of material needed to build the thing produced speaks the following offer:

Team member A: "The part must be 1 inch in length, plus or minus 20 thousands of an inch."

Team member B: "I can make that part within half a thousands, easily, so which would you prefer, a little too big or a little too small?"

Team Member A: "Anywhere in between 20 thousands of an inch larger or smaller than 1 inch is as good as the other, so in that sense, in that range, the part will be a perfect fit. If you go over that acceptable range of "subjectivity," then a hammer will be needed to make the part fit "subjectively," so the object is to avoid exceeding those objective boundaries spelled out in fact."

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

I do not agree here, or I do not accept this viewpoint at being competitive compared to a viewpoint whereby no one gets to dictate what are facts or what are not facts.

If the team member who measures wrong in the first place dictates to the team member who produces the part according to the agreed upon standard of measure, then it is very easy to find out where the error is, in fact, without the wrong one resorting to the powers of a dictator in enforcing wrong things upon innocent people.

Rather than the quality of ONE dictatorial "official" fact, there can be, as the mathematical measure intends to show, an agreed upon standard of measure, agreed upon at the beginning of negotiations.

Revisiting the example offered before any measuring is done.

Team Member A: I will be using the standard measure standardized with this devise called a Jo block. Here:

Team Member B: I agree, so as to remove "subjectivity" in measures of facts those physical records of a standard measure works for me too, and in that way we can be objectively on the same page.

"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?"

By some mysterious force, or by mere persistent effort on my part, or by chance, I have stumbled upon information that you may want to consider along these lines concerning the intended purpose behind the invention, production, and "gaining currency" of The English Language (so called):


"English is a late 15th Century CE artificially formed phonological language created by Dutch and Venetian language and printing experts at the Palace of Westminster with the authority of King Henry VII Tudor of England (1457-1509) for commercial and political purposes in introducing a unified language for the Island of Britain and reduce the long term influence of Gaelic, Norse and Anglaise (falsely listed as Old French)."

Not coincidentally, it seems to me, the invention, creation, and enforcement of crime made legal of a specific form, that could be called Admiralty Law, began, or had roots in this English Language stuff.

If that is a fact, not my words "being" fact, but if it is a fact, an establish-able fact, that English was intended to be a misinformation tool, or a device employed so as to cause deception, so as then to perpetrated "legal" fraud, then that can be established, with or without my words adding to, or subtracting from, the goal stated with my word choices.

Goal: establishing facts.

Which goal?

What is the point?

"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?"

That was my point, even as my point may have been misunderstood due to many reasons not limited to the real possibility that our common language was produced as a means by which the targeted victims would be using a very dull tool (The Kings English) compared to a very sharp tool such as math.

"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."

That is a routine practice no differing in principle compared to a thief perpetrating a theft by pointing his finger and yelling "thief" and as all potential defenders against theft are looking elsewhere for the fictional "thief" the actual thief steals with impunity. False Flag is the modern version of the routine.

Imagine the difficulty when the word thief (Robin Hood?) becomes a word that means both good guy and bad guy at once?

"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."

As attempted to offer above, I am currently dealing with an organized group of people who would be happy to be associated with the likes of Hamilton, Washington, and John Adams, all Federalists (so called) while, at the same time, these contemporary Federalists fail to realize that Hamilton is the founder of "our" Central Banking Fraud, Washington is the founder of "our" modern Standing (criminal) Armies, and John Adams (Alien and Sedition Acts) is the founder of "our" modern Whistle Blowers tortured by Extraordinary Rendition for the crime of being Terrorists since they perpetrated the crime of exposing the established (or establish able) facts of crimes perpetrated by the people in the Federal Government (so called).

It is not a Federal Government (as compared to the much more Free Market example offered in The Articles of Confederation example), rather, it is a Consolidated Monopoly Criminal Cabal, if English can convey accurate meaning.

So how difficult is it for me to help move Common Law Grand Jury proceedings, honestly, honorably, while I find evidence that established the fact that my peers have been duped, are still duped, by those past false Federalists?

Long post, so my plan at this point is to cut this one short unedited, and continue this as a response to my own response (working within the limitations of the medium of exchange).