Comment: Same

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I often get misunderstood, (see in situ)



I often get misunderstood too, and I am also used to it by now.

"Anarchy as it is often described here it's the solution having "no ruler" no one to rule over another. I do not believe that this is viable on a larger scale."

If that is your working definition of "anarchy," then we agree with that definition is "not" "viable," but my viewpoint does not add "on a large scale," since "no ruler" is meaningless to me without further explanation.

So the working definition of Anarchy does not work for me, at all.

If that working definition of Anarchy works for someone, then someone can explain how it works, not me.

"It may very well work on a smaller scale but since people are so different there will always be those who choose to follow."

So the working definition of Anarchy that you offer does not work for you either, and that makes perfect sense to me, in that way precisely.

"In my view it's very common, most people choose to have other make decisions for them they only want to believe that they are the ones making the decision affecting their own life."

In my view it is as common to find someone who has chosen to follow as they then choose not to follow anymore, and then they choose to follow, and then not, in time and place - a common occurrence in my very limited experience.

"I really wish this wasn't the case the world would have been a better place if more people questioned the way of things more."

My wishes are such that people are led by falsehood less, that people do not choose to invent new lies, or parrot old ones as much as people do now.

"When I said state I meant a government in the traditional sense you are forced to pay taxes to pay for the basic services of the land you live in."

Well a solution to that "legal crime" problem you describe above has been offered by people, of people, and for people, again, and again, and again, in the history of people; but it is very good in my opinion for you to make your viewpoint very clear to me.

What you mean, and I can try very hard to remove any doubt at all, what you mean is that the State is a group of people who force another group of people to pay the people doing the forcing.

You mean:

1. A group of people force other people to pay.

2. A group of people forced by the first group above to pay the first group accurately identified above as a separate group.

So your words, and you can correct any errors I may have created as I misunderstand your words, if that has happened in this case, your words describe 2 groups of people.

1. Those who command obedience without question and the order they issue is an order to pay something to this group.

2. Those who obey without question or failing to obey without question the other group will make people in this group pay, one way or the other, these people in this group will be made to pay, like it or not.

If I misunderstood your words, or if I misunderstand you, then the English language may help convey from you to me where I misunderstood you, or where I misunderstood your words here:

"When I said state I meant a government in the traditional sense you are forced to pay taxes to pay for the basic services of the land you live in."

To me, beyond any reasonable doubt, you are describing a crime in progress.

"You elect an official to represent you and so on."

I will never elect a criminal to represent me. I have no problem voting for Ron Paul. I think Ron Paul understands how free market government works.

You wrote________________________________________
The difference from today's system is how you limit it, you should throw in a trigger to start a reboot, like putting in writing something along these lines "the day that these X rules are over written or amended this country is no longer has a limited government, it's now a fascist state and it is your duty as a citizen to stand up to your elected officials hold them accountable and demand all laws to be stripped down to the essentials, remove all amendments and start once again from following only the rules written on this constitution."

Which Constitution? If you are speaking about the crime in progress started in 1787 then it may be a good idea to realize that that constitution supposedly made slavery legal, piracy legal, extortion legal...

Like this:
"When I said state I meant a government in the traditional sense you are forced to pay taxes to pay for the basic services of the land you live in."

Call that whatever you want, a State, whatever, that is a description of extortion - unless I am not capable of understanding English words arranged in a sentence.

"I have come to realize that the world works in cycles for pretty much everything. You cannot stop these cycles you can only prolong them but if you do the cycle will get bigger and the bigger the cycles gets the bigger the events of that cycle will be. The world is constantly changing yet keep repeating it self. Different governing systems will please different kinds of people and people are different, very different."

I agree with that general viewpoint so long as I reserve the qualifications required concerning the specifics of each cycle as yet to be accurately identified and understood based upon the observable facts.

Cycle of defender power more powerful that criminal power:
England during the time of trial by jury working as trial by jury was designed to work which can be exemplified around the time of Magna Carte

Cycle of criminal power more powerful than defender power:
People leave England to find freedom in America; up to 1776

Cycle of defender power more powerful than criminal power:
Time period between 1776 and 1787

Cycle of criminal power retaking control over defenders:
1787 up to recent events

Cycle of defender power regaining Liberty:
Recent events that include universal information anarchy or information free market anarchy in fact

That is a specific cycle, not a general cycle, as the defenders gain Liberty, then the criminals regain control over people, then defenders retain Liberty, then criminals regain control over people, and now the cycle is moving decidedly toward Liberty, or free markets, or anarchy so called.

"No governing system is without flaws and you can never satisfy all people. Limited government will lead to bigger government just as I believe anarchy eventually will lead to tyranny."

I don't equate people with dogs and cats. I equate people as people; some are like rats.

Rats claim that extortion is legal and when all that is left are those rats, then those rats eat each other as the ship they sink takes on water.

The rats eat the people, some eat them literally, some merely eat everything of value that is produced by honest people working in free markets, or liberty, or anarchy so called.

The problem, of course, is the infestation of rats, and the solutions are free market solutions, so the rats prefer not to acknowledge the free market solutions, while regular old people prefer to see the solution, acknowledge the solution, and then utilize the solutions as the solutions are known by the regular old people, the regular old people who are not rats.

Rats = criminals.

"No governing system is without flaws..."

Some systems are designed to be criminal systems, and from a criminal mind (rat mind) the system is not at all flawed.

Like this:

"When I said state I meant a government in the traditional sense you are forced to pay taxes to pay for the basic services of the land you live in."

That is fraud combined with extortion, as designed, so as to afford the rats the power to take at will from anyone who produces anything worth taking.

Rats love it.

The actual people who make anything worth stealing are targeted victims in that system of crime.

"No governing system is without flaws..."

A fool and his money are soon parted?

Who ever said that any governing system is without flaws?

The idea in free market government systems is the idea that improvement is designed into the system.

Like this: (TL:DNR)

Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government,the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely.

My thinking, and I can be wrong, my system can be wrong, but my thinking is that Ron Paul understands the meaning of the English words offered in the above quote from the above work linked.

If there is a better free market government system than the one described above, then it will gain market share when regular old people are no longer believing in the lies like this one:

"When I said state I meant a government in the traditional sense you are forced to pay taxes to pay for the basic services of the land you live in."

When fraud and extortion forced upon victims is no longer the ONLY GAME IN TOWN, then regular old people invest in something better.

I am going to quote twice as an offer of a demonstrable, obvious, accurately measurable, contradiction.

"I don't mind if someone see the world from a single perspective, they may share it with others but I can't stand people that force it."

"When I said state I meant a government in the traditional sense you are forced to pay taxes to pay for the basic services of the land you live in."

Is my viewpoint of an accurately measurable contradiction flawed; and if so then how so?