Comment: Continuing World choices

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: World choices? (see in situ)

Continuing World choices

The discussion included this:

"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.'"

Here is another example of that hidden force by which those who are infected with a belief in a lie can hardly be considered as someone acting willfully in the perpetration of a crime. This may be more, and even much more, dangerous than a person who knows better as to the full nature of the crime in progress, in this case the term "prejudice" or "collective punishment" can convey the process in a competitive manner.

The do good soul, being infected, sets out to save the children from harm and the net effect is harming them to save them; whereby the cure is worse, and often much worse, than the false, fabricated, fictional, ailment.

"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."'

I do not expect that you have time to go through the Grand Jury Orientation page, nor read my notes written in response to it, nor do I expect that you will read, or understand fully, my words up to this point, but there is a real world example of what your words convey (if I understand your words as you intend them to be understood) contained within that Grand Jury Orientation and my notes commenting on those packets of information on that page.

I can offer:

Grand Jury Orientation:

My notes to date (I am struggling through the information currently):

Example of my notes:

"I do solemnly swear that I will obey the constitution for the United States of America, and all the directives and prohibitions, and that I will faithfully serve justice and discharge the duties of the office of Grand Juror honorably, according to the best of my ability; so help me God”

The group demanding said Oath as a requirement for participation in defense of Liberty, holding the employees accountable for their crimes while the employees are hired to apply due process to everyone without exception, claim that honor, justice, and mercy are also required.

Here is my problem with an obvious contradiction. I cannot be honorable if I claim to be obeying an ongoing fraud that started in 1787; which is that so called constitution.

I can either be honorable or I can do the opposite.

I can either be honorable and expose the ongoing fraud that is that so called constitution or I can falsely claim an oath that I won't obey since the constitution is a fraud in progress, or I can be honorable and join the criminals who are perpetrating that crime in progress.

Honor among thieves?

Now, as may be claimed, by those who fail to recognize a crime in progress while it is in progress, there can be an exercise done immediately concerning this concept of assembling Jurors to judge a case.

I am claiming that the constitution is a crime in progress and my injury has been every dime stolen from me and then that legal power to purchase was then used to finance further theft, further fraud, and crimes too numerous to list in one sentence but the crimes include child sex slavery, torture, mass murder, and mega murder.

The charge is not specious, and the evidence I alone can provide is more than enough to remove any doubt from any moral, reasonable, human mind, in my opinion, and absent evidence to the contrary, the case is closed as far as I am concerned at this point.

Exhibit A is a docuemnt assembled by those few who were attending the secret proceedings that later became known as The Constitution Convention.

The remedy for that problem was already in place as the Oath was reworded and the one I had at hand was being discarded but currently left on the Web Page while I downloaded the old one.

Back to your words:

" believe if enough people accept it, it should be so,..."

My comment here is to offer my opinion as being such that I can speak for myself without your "help".

"Personally? I'd submit: NO."

As far as I can tell I am in agreement, not disagreement, on that point.

"... as your reply suggests..."

Again, to me, we are on the same page and somewhere, somehow, through the medium of exchange, your opinion appears to be that we are not on the same page, on that point.

What is the point at this point?

I can read on to find out.

"...automatically means that they're somehow collect-IVISTS..."

In cases where I have automatically arrive at a false perception my preference is in knowing that fact. In cases where someone thinks I think something and the words I read are clearly opposite of what I actually think, there are many possible ways to resolve the measurable contradictions. I can leave that there, again the word count is already excessive.

"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?"

In cases where I may have been attempted "rebut," it helps me of my words are quoted where I do this thing, and then I can answer to that charge of having done that thing. Without the required information I am left with guesses as to what exactly you mean by your use of the word "rebut".

"I'm all like Huh??"

I'm like: I have no idea what you are claiming I did, since as far as I know I did no such thing. Where I agree I agree. Where I do not I do not, and if there is confusion as to what I agree to, or what I do not agree to, there are ways of finding out, in fact. The cause of your "I'm all like Huh??" appears to be a confusion on your part as to what I wrote, why I wrote what I wrote, and to which inspiration was my inspiration to write what I wrote.

Back to Josiah Warren for me:

"509. One of the greatest sources of confusion in controversies or disputes is, that the disputants do not confine themselves to the one individual thing in which the dispute originated, till that is settled and disposed of, but they draw in new points just as disputable, one after another, till the whole becomes conglomerated confusion. The remedy can be found only in discussing one individual thing or point at a time."

If the one thing in view is now my error according to you, the error that inspires this: "I'm all like Huh??," then I am going to have to have "that" spelled out more clearly to me, and I am all for it, because I do not appreciate my own errors, so I want help in finding them, and therefore I can avoid repeating my errors.

Is that the point?

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."



If possible, my error, if it exists, can be a easily communicated to me, so that even I can see my own error.

If the words you quote of mine are in contradiction with the words you repeated of yours, then I don't see it. The sets of words appear to be unrelated to me.

If the point is to zero in and focus upon that error of mine, if I did make an error, then that can happen from this point onward. In that case, at this point, I am honestly confused as to where my error can be seen by me.

"But again, you arguing and rebutting things I didn't..."

Confusion again?

I took words of yours that to me are stand alone words, with or without the context, and my reply was inspired by those stand alone words, no more, and no less.

These words:

"Initially, it was understood to be a voluntary compact between the States"

It was possibly understood by some people as such, but my comment was not intending to be an argument, my comment was intending to convey the fact that many people knew, in fact, that it was not, in fact, a voluntary compact between the State, and examples abound:

time ran out again


"I've never refuted them, even though you replied LIKE I did..."

From my view there was no intent on my part to refute, my intention was to stick to the point, and that was why I chose the words "it misses the point," which is not necessarily you personally missing the point, rather the idea is to identify a divergence from a point, you go one way, I go another.

Confusion here may then be accurately identified as a misunderstanding concerning my motives, where you think I "relied LIKE I (refuted them) did..." when from my view my intent was to keep focus onto the previous point.

So, what is the point? If that can be established, then divergences off of the point can be identified just like the case where one cooperator asks for a 1 inch part and the other person does not cooperate since a 2 inch part is returned.

If there is no point in cooperating, then what is the point?

"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."

To me that is wander back into insult mode, and if that is the point then the point of diminishing returns is well past that point.

"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 is, to me, the point of this discussion, and to that end I have offered above a study as to the original purpose of the creation of the English language which may or may not be as accurate as can possible be studied, documented, and conveyed while using English.

"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."

That is a return to the point of me not agreeing to your estimate of me concerning a nebulous quality of "authority" or "actual-ness' attached to a word. I think, myself, that a dictionary is a good place to begin standardizing useful words, however as is often the case those dictionaries, in English, offer no standard at all, as the words are often defined with many conflicting definitions for each word. Comparing English to Math, again, that "quality" of that non-standers of English definitions would be illustrated mathematically as cooperator A asking for a 1 inch part and cooperating B looking at the stander for a 1 inch part and finding a list of possible parts that range from a 1 thousandth of an inch to 10 miles.

"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?"

That appears to be another case of my actual thoughts being misunderstood and having someone other than me telling me what my thoughts actually are, when in fact I know my actual thoughts and your words report meaning that does not speak for me.

To me there is nothing coercive in a word by itself as if the word itself has magical powers, if that is what you are attributing to me as if I think such nonsense.

In context a word can be very destructive. An example can be a sign on a road where a blind hill leads to a bridge that is currently missing, having fallen down, and a driver of a fast car would go over the hill and not see the broken bridge in time, and the car could not be stopped in time, and any people in the car, or bus, would then plummet to a certain horrible death.

On that road someone places a sign that says "Free money ahead, limited supply, hurry before it is all gone."

A high speed intersection where there are 4 way green lights.

Green is not coercive. Willfully turning all 4 lights from the normal workable configuration to a condition where all 4 lights are green, for fun and profit, perhaps a garage is drumming up business, or the morgue?

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.

Here again your take on my words appears to be the opposite of the intention I had in mind when I wrote and offered those words. If you look at the link that reports on the origins of English, accurate or not, the idea may surface that the cause of much confusion happens to be found, in part, with the "quality" of ambiguity built into the Language.

Or not.

Mileage may vary.

"Suppose you're beyond reproach and damn all the modern or arcane dictionaries."

Before I even begin to read what follows that sentence I think I can pre-judge the rest of this paragraph as being something that I think goes off of the point and onto some nebulous argument that is between you and whatever you think I think, while so far your estimate of what I think, to me, is well off the mark.

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

In no way did I ever claim that I could speak to anyone without employing a common language of some utility rather than no utility at all. English can be compared to math. One is very good for deceiving someone, the other is very good for conveying accurate messages.

Which do you prefer? If English will be good enough (for government work?) then so be it, but there are problems and I'm not the only one noticing the problems, so I may be in the minority, but there are those who I can speak to who share this understanding and therefore it is easier, with them, to remain focused on one point before wandering off to other points.

"you simply do not accept a word definition"

The problem here is that I was in no way intending to do as you think my intentions where, so what can be the source of the failure to communicate? Too many English words? Too few English words? If you already know what I think, then you can write what I intend to say to you and I can sign on the bottom?

"'ll simply continue to choose to believe what you believe, and no one can tell you otherwise..."

And now, returning, to insult. So now I am, by your measure, incorrigible, dictatorial, closed minded, is there an end to the negative qualities you can attach to me personally?

"...obviously already a-priori believed in..."

Rather than you telling me what I believe in or what I do not believe in, you could ask, because my beliefs are very simple.

I believe that perception exists, and beyond that I am guessing.

"...with which you chose to rebut..."

Pigeon holing me into some nebulous argument, (what is the point?) for the sake of argument, or who knows what, is an often resorted to tactic by those who engage in such things, as may be the case here, and I care not to know (diminishing returns).

I think discussion is a way of comparing viewpoints, and it is a good return on my investment, when someone shares the same goal, or point.

When not, then not.

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

When words express agreement, there is in those words a reinforcing affect, a "second opinion," but more important there are those cases where someone can precisely point out to me where I have obvious, measurable, error in my viewpoint. I seek both. I do not seek someone telling me that their distorted view of my thoughts are my thoughts, which is too often the case.

Should I stay or should I go, has the point of diminishing returns on investment passed on by awhile ago? I don't know, I have not yet read the rest of your response.

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

Case in point! Thanks. I should have used quotes, and now, with you help, I man not repeat that mistake.

We will do no such thing.

"We" will do no such thing.

Thanks again. Sometimes the return on investment is hard to find.

Sometimes non-existent.

Sometimes negative.

I am 55 years old. Is that young by some measure?

'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.'

I have much more to offer, and my hope is always, despite opposition or "to the contrary", that there are many people all over the place, who can show me new, improved, viewpoints.

If you already knew about the origins of the English language, for example, or the works of Josiah Warren, then I probably offer nothing new to you, in that regard, to me, on the other hand, there was a time when I was unaware of either viewpoint, and so my tendency is to pass things on, to those willing to know better from worse.

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

Mileage may vary.

"Come on, Josf, really?"

The estimate of what I did, or did not do, before that question above, is Greek to me. I can't therefore answer that question having no basis from which your viewpoint is, in fact, or at all.

"non-sarcastically state it rhetorically, as if you're actually feigning not expecting an answer back"

How much work is it to unravel all that mystery?

What would be the point?

The point of discussion is exemplified in your offering me something tangible concerning my errors in communication, the pay off, also includes reinforcing measures of agreement.

That is a point. That is my point. That is the returns that may become obviously diminishing to a point of no return, and often, in the case of resorts to insult, there is a negative return.

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

I am working on finishing a book. I have work and home duties. Tonight I have a meeting with Frank O'Collins on my schedule, and I am suffering through the Grand Jury Orientation information. Among all those things are variable measures, in my estimate, of doing the right thing, in defense of Liberty, and so I take time to discuss with anyone willing to discuss.

The supply of people willing to discuss is well below the demand I have for it. I don't know if you can make sense of that, but it is an offer I put out there in case it is acceptable.

"take a long ass time to rebut in a long ass verbiage"

I've been seeking and finding discussion for decades. The insults range from "you use to few words" to "you use to many words" and so I respond with a standard response in such cases of insult.

Tell me what I should say, that is right according to you, and I can sign on the bottom.

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

I am very far from any resemblance to a modern day capitalist. I can show you where Carl Menger dives into pure fantasy, and where Murray Rothbard employes aggressive fraud.

More confusion between may actual thinking and your error prone estimates of the same? Do I fail to understand your version of what I think?

"we simply are gonna talk in circles."

More,and more,and more, comments upon what I will do, according to you, is never ending?

What is the point in returning to that flow of data?

"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."

The genuine productive use of experience can be confused with willfully falsifying another person's character based upon a nebulous connection with similar people?

"Which, I highly doubt that that is actually what you inferred."

I did not suggest that experience is of no use, if that is the idea at this point.

"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."

What you may or may not have done at some other time and place can be competitively compared to the following:

"we simply are gonna talk in circles."

If I fail to understand the meaning of that sentence, then that fact can be known.

we simply are gonna talk in circles.
I never pulled you into a "we" of any kind.

What does the evidence suggest to you?
If the evidence suggests to you that I do not understand that there is no contradiction, then perhaps I could be shown why there is no contradiction.

To me one sentence says one thing, and then the second sentence denies the first one.

"...a neurotic roller-coaster..."

Returning to insult mode, or have I again failed to understand English?

"It still doesn't change the word definitions, but no one's stoppin' ya: least of all me."

Insults aside, there is a measure of return on this investment in my opinion.


No time to edit.