Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 5 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Attach:
(Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, rtf, mp3, webp, odt
Restrictions: 4 per post, maximum total size 1100KB, maximum individual size 1100KB
Note that any files attached will not be displayed until approved by a moderator.
Verification:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: November 01, 2021, 01:44:30 PM »

MB has earned some more respect from me. When/if I get ambitious I'll change the color highlighting of his previous comments to other than red.
Quote
Dale Eastman Short reply: I think we made it to the right place to ‘call it’ in regards to the original claim.
Thank you, it was probably the best exchange of ideas I’ve experienced over facebook in a very long time.
Longer reply: I think I’m ready to allow the subject to change. As I’m sure you’ve noticed, I’ve been ignoring your moral claims in all manner except to point out the logical flaw of interchanging them with facts and letting them guide your factual beliefs. I’d prefer to keep away from discussing morality, for the time being. I suggest our next topic be the concept of authority; mostly because it appears to play a huge role in your arguments surrounding government. That, and I think there are significant differences between how we each view the concept, that will lead to an interesting dialogue.

However, you have allowed me to dominate the flow of the first discussion, and I’d like to offer you the opportunity to steer the conversation in a different direction if another topic is more pressing on your mind. Does the concept of authority suit, or is there a more pressing topic on which you’d like to focus?

Dialog continues here.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: October 30, 2021, 06:35:59 PM »

Quote
Dale Eastman, (Post 1) As I’m sure you’re expecting, I’m not going to have time to respond to everything you wrote line-by-line. Luckily, I don’t think I need to in order to address everything you wrote. I’m sure you read my whole piece through at least once before responding, but it appears to me that when you got to breaking down my previous response line-by-line, you ended up treating each line as an individual point, instead of a part of a congruent paragraph/explanation. In doing so, you misinterpreted a few things or made points that were already countered in the next line of my writing. I suggest going back and reading with the assumption that everything I say is meant to work with the rest of the statement.
Now, I think I can address multiple points with only a few responses, so here’s my go at it.
Quote
Post #2. You write, “Now that you have put that into words, that is the very same question I have for you. (Can you separate what you think should be, from what is?)
No, you can’t ask that same question to me in any meaningful way because I have not once expressed how I think things should be. It wouldn’t make any sense to ask me about an action that I haven’t been doing. However, when you write, “Likewise, your thoughts about "what is" are just as subject to examination as my thoughts are about "what is".” This is a valid statement and I agree. It also demonstrates that you’re struggling with the concept of separating “what is” with what “should be”. And please, don’t take that as an insult; I’m not coming at you. I’m just trying to show the fact that sentence came immediately after a sentence about what should be, that you’re struggling with separating the concepts. Either that, or your dodging the whole idea of your mixing “should” with “is” and that was just your way of not having to think about it. I don’t know, but I try to assume the most noble option, and I think that’s the former. I agree we’re discussing our differences, but let’s be clear about what happened. You made a factual statement (“The government is a criminal syndicate…”) and asked if I could prove it wrong. I factually proved it wrong, and you agreed to that (which is commendable). The rest of our discussion is off the original topic; and I _am_
Quote
Post 3 of 3) Moving on. You write, “Your focus on "law", such as it appears to me, makes me wonder about whether you understand the issue(s) with legal definitions, that is to say, statutory definitions in the written words of law.” I must point out that this is a completely different topic. Again, the legal definition is factually the legal definition, no matter your opinion of its issues. I also take issue with many legal definitions, but my issue with them, doesn’t change the facts. The reason I stick with law, in this discussion, is because the claim was a legal claim… I feel I need to repeat that for clarity, I stuck to law because I was arguing against a claim regarding law.
Everything else you said, related to word usage “In general”, is fine. What that opening phrase really means then, is, “The government is a really immoral, organized group of people, that takes money from citizens under the threat of force.” And I said I’m fine with that 5 weeks ago. But then you try to bring in tax codes and arguments about authority and that’s trying to make a _legal_ case. You’re confusing your moral beliefs with reality. I hate to keep beating that drum, but you keep doing it.
And this is ridiculously long and I just got to #2. Maybe we should do a recorded video call or something. I bet we could get everything settled in less than an hour that way… regardless, going to have to get at other points at a later time
Quote
I’m not going to have time to respond to everything you wrote line-by-line.

I don't expect you to. And I am appreciative of the fact that you address and respond to the things you have. My only concern, if that's even the correct word to use, is either of us missing a notification. Real life has demands and there's only so many hours in a day. I wish there were some additional different react emoticons. I opine that's an easy way to acknowledge having been notified.

Not knowing the algorithm, I don't like using the negative emoticons when I don't want to use a positive emoticon... Oh well...

breaking down my previous response line-by-line, you ended up treating each line as an individual point, instead of a part of a congruent paragraph/explanation.

Sometimes I take sentences apart word by word. I do understand your criticism though. For example, to show my understanding, I'm going to take a single word apart. "Radio". Make that two. "Radio receiver." From memory: Think a single box block diagram. Inside that box are the stages (more boxes) that make up the radio.

RF amplifier; tunable RF amplifier; LO (local oscillator); IF amplifier; Band pass filter; IF to AF converter (rectifier for AM); Variable AF amplifier (volume control); speaker. If any one of those sections doesn't work, the radio doesn't work. I was top of my class in learning and doing troubleshooting the radios and other electronic equipment the military was using way back then.

Anyway, your concern that I didn't get the meta or uber point you were presenting is acknowledged.

No, you can’t ask that same question to me in any meaningful way because I have not once expressed how I think things should be.

Agreed. In my review of the discussion, you did not express how you think things should be. Mea culpa on my misinterpretation of what you did NOT say. What you did not say is that "what is", is wrong, and "what is", needs to be changed. You basically expressed why "what is" can not be changed.

please, don’t take that as an insult;

You have not insulted me... Not agreeing with me, and telling me so is not an insult. That dipshit that felt compelled to post "TL;DR"... Now that... that... that person... He insulted me. <shrug> He's like that static between stations on the AM radio band. I've some pretty thick internet skin.

You made a factual statement (“The government is a criminal syndicate…”) and asked if I could prove it wrong. I factually proved it wrong, and you agreed to that (which is commendable). The rest of our discussion is off the original topic

Yeah... Um... That's not how I remembered the discussion, so I re-read the archive in its entirety. I actually did admit to your logic with proviso. That proviso is why I had not ceded the point to you.

The reason I had not admitted to you proving me wrong is the lack of agreement as to what constitutes a "crime".

Your point, your sticking point, is that "No law: no crime."

This is not conceding your point. This is an admission that you are making me think. I placed this on my status wall:
⚠ Honing the definitions to evermore resolution, or in other words; KISSing the concepts so that only the blind can not see the truths presented... I find I'm on a world just filled with blind people.

I'm getting push back on the KISSed concept:
Government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.

synapticsparks<DOT>info/dialog/index.php?topic=1043.msg15604#msg15604
is my latest upload with MB who is decrying my 12 word definition.

Because of MB's focus on crime requires a law against the act, maybe I should KISS my concept again:
Government is a group of people that extorts people for money and control. ⚠

So our discussion and your half of it have not been without effect.

You put focus on legality V. morality. You correctly, per your thinking, state that law is amoral. My view of law as a tool does not contradict the claim.

As I pointed out, a gun or a club are also amoral tools.

All become immoral when they are used for immoral purposes. Thus laws, when used immorally, become immoral laws. Amoral then no longer applies.

Your words from a very early comment:
It’s not possible to be criminal if the government makes it legal.

"No law: no crime." That's the four word version of your challenge to my use of the word criminal when describing government.

I tried, and perhaps failed, to point out that government will not make its own immoral actions criminal. Since government makes the laws, the rules, that define criminal acts, government will not make its immoral actions illegal and hence criminal. (By government, I intend the reified meaning. The use of an anthropomorphized concept as a singular entity even though it is not a singular entity... Like the Mafia or Walmart. The anthropomorphized concept is no more than an euphemism when government is described as it actually is.)

Since this discussion has touched upon law, I present these two legal concepts: Malum prohibitum and malum in se.

⚠ Malum prohibitum is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute, as opposed to conduct that is evil in and of itself, or malum in se. ⚠

⚠ Malum in se is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited.

For example, most human beings believe that murder, rape, and robbery are wrong, regardless of whether a law governs such conduct or where the conduct occurs, and is thus recognizably malum in se. In contrast, malum prohibitum crimes are criminal not because they are inherently bad, but because the act is prohibited by the law of the state. ⚠

Locke on natural law:
⚠ The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions ⚠

So what shall I call a person or an entity that violates Natural Law? Per your point, "No law; no crime" means I can not call a murderer, a rapist, or a robber a criminal unless government make a law defining those actions as crimes. Make no mistake about this: Government is a murderer and a robber.
Quote
Again, from an earlier post of yours:
Law A body of rules of conduct of binding legal force and effect, prescribed, recognized, and enforced by controlling authority.

Law: a body of rules.
Law: rules.
Rules made by a controlling authority.
A controlling authority: Rulers.
Rules made by rulers.
Rules made by rulers under what authority? Rules made by rulers by what permission?

In the United States, the Declaration of Independence clearly spells out whence this alleged authority comes from: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

I do not consent. Therefore, government's powers are not just. Per the U.S. government's own organic document, the D of I, government's alleged authority over me is void ab initio. Government's alleged authority over me is BOGUS.

I have no duty to obey government. And per Natural Law, I am within my rights to resist government, just as I am within my rights to resist any other criminal...

Per our discussion, let me reword that: Per Natural Law, I am within my rights to resist government, just as I am within my rights to resist any other wrong doer that has a goal of harming me.

You made the distinction between the legal use and the slang use of the word "criminal".

When a wrong doer with ill intent makes laws ignoring the wrong doer's own actions with intent of harm, You wish to argue with me that such a miscreant is not a criminal.

You are correct in your charge that I am making a morality argument against government and its laws.

What that opening phrase really means then, is, “The government is a really immoral, organized group of people, that takes money from citizens under the threat of force.” And I said I’m fine with that 5 weeks ago.

I concede the legality V. morality issue with thanks for causing me to more closely examine my position.

The government is a really immoral, organized group of people, that takes money from citizens under the threat of force.” And yeah, that’s true.

My perception (correct or not) of what you've been writing, implied to me that you were not / are not too concerned about the tyranny that is government in general, and the tyranny that is the U.S. federal government more specifically.

My purpose is creating apostasy in the minds of the believers in the false deity called government. This is what must happen if liberty and freedom from slavery is to exist.

This should be an easy short reply for you.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: October 29, 2021, 12:41:54 PM »

Quote
Just a bump and notification post in case you missed the notification on this new thread. Any react emoticon tells me you saw this post and thread.
Quote
Yes, My apologies, I did read through it but haven’t had much time for anything lengthy for a while. I’ll try to get to it tonight
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: October 24, 2021, 04:05:38 PM »

Quote
1 of 3.

Can you separate what you think should be, from what is?

Now that you have put that into words, that is the very same question I have for you.

What you think "should be" is just as open for examination as what I think "should be". Likewise, your thoughts about "what is" are just as subject to examination as my thoughts are about "what is". You and I are discussing our differences. Both side's thoughts are subject to examination regarding what those thoughts are and why those thoughts are.

And I must express my elation at you actually investing your time in such a discussion... Even while I occasionally find I have a mild aggravation with your words, (such as I imagine you have with mine). Thank you. (I hope I haven't gushed that too often.)

Back to task.

*I* am observing Voltaire's Admonition. I wish to communicate, without errors of equivocation, so I have defined my meaning(s). I am writing EXACTLY what I mean and intend. Your focus on "law", such as it appears to me, makes me wonder about whether you understand the issue(s) with legal definitions, that is to say, statutory definitions in the written words of law.

<tangent>
Possible future discussion is my presently unsupported, naked claim that: If a person works entirely within any of the 50 States united in a non governmental job, such a person is NOT required by the written words of the Title 26 USC / IRC statutes to fill out and give a W-4 to the company or individual they work for. Ditto a W-9 form. Compensation for labor or services is not taxable in those areas. (You don't 1099 your electric company or your phone company, do you?)
</tangent>

I was saying that _if_ you use the word "criminal" in a slang manner

I am saying That if (the generic) you deliberately do(es) actions that harm other people, (the generic) you is a criminal doing criminal acts. If (the generic) you threatens people with harm if they don't give you money you demand; money you are NOT legitimately owed; money that is alleged to be owed because of bogus or fraudulent claims, then you are a criminal.

THAT, is how *I* am using the word criminal.

I'll amplify and emphasize the intent of my meaning with another set of words:

Victimizers victimizing their victims are criminals doing criminal acts.

I find it hard to believe that, assuming arguendo, if you were a victim because a victimizer did actually and deliberately cause you harm; that you would say that victimizer didn't victimize you because that victimizer didn't break any law while victimizing you.

That is how I perceive your position on the issue of this discussion. A perception that you did agree with when you wrote Correct. By definition, that is objectively true.

Since the issue of the definition of "authority" is part and parcel of this discussion, With and aware of the irony, I ask, By what authority do you think you can tell me which definition I may or may not use?

I have chosen this Wikipedia definition. And ONLY the portion quoted.

⚠ Extortion is the practice of obtaining benefit through coercion. ~Wikipedia~⚠

A threat of violence, or the use of violence, to cause the victim to forsake their own free will, is extortion.

The assuming arguendo scenario above aligns precisely with this definition.

I wrote: Running with your logic, government can never be criminal unless it writes laws making its own actions criminal.

In my best imitation of the Captain's voice from the movie Cool Hand Luke, "What we got heah is a failyer to commun-cate."

Close, but not exactly.

"What we got heah", is you unequivocally denying that government can never be criminal unless it writes laws making its own actions criminal.

The law may already exist.

Non sequitur. Especially with what you followed this with.

A member of government doesn't need to write a law in order to make it a law.

⚠ Lord Camden says: "If it is law, it will be found in our books; if it is not to be found there, it is not law.
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 627 (1886) ⚠

IMO, this is an attempted red herring. Government makes law. Who else is going to make government law but the government?

But _some member_ of government must have written the law, and it must still be an active law or the action is not legally criminal... yes, that is true.

So a little review and reminder of this sub topic is in order: The above is your reply to my claim that "Government can never be criminal unless it writes laws making its own actions criminal."

Also, it is not my logic, [...]

The stated claim is your logic in that you are using the stated logic to support your claim that any action not made criminal by law is not criminal.

➽ [...] it is an objective fact. In order for something to be illegal, it must break a law written or maintained by a controlling authority.

You have just equated "criminal" with "illegal". This is of no matter at this time... I'm just observing and noting.

I will reword my claim to match your choice of words just used:
A controlling authority can never be criminal unless it writes laws making its own actions criminal.

End Part 1
Quote
2 of 3.

I made comment using this modifier on this word: "(alleged) authority." In regard to this you wrote:

This is where your logic seems to be butting up against your ideals.

What we got heah", is a failure to agree on what "authority" actually is. Hence the modifier "alleged" signifies that I do NOT agree with your assumption (your self assumed correctness) of what you mean when you use the word authority.

There can not be a fruitful discussion if the terms being used are not agreed upon. Discussion and understanding of logic and ideals can NOT happen without definitions, meanings, and intent being understood and agreed upon.

And specific point in fact: The meaning of authority has NOT been agreed upon.

We need to separate the two. [Logic and Ideals.]

Logic either supports, or doesn't support, ideals.

Your entire argument is trying to posit a true fact out of an ideal.

I think there's been a derailment in this discussion. My entire "argument" is based upon, first, my observations of what government is supposed to (allegedly) do in the real world; compared to what government actually does.

What government actually does, what any government actually does, is extort money from its people with threats of harm and actual harm for failure to comply. I personally know people who have been made homeless by government thugs, because the property owner got behind on property taxes (property extortion).

That was SIX PEOPLE made homeless by a "government" that was supposed to protect individual rights.

Since you and I are within the borders of the 50 States united, I refer you back to my unsupported, naked claim about the Federal government, A.K.A. and D.B.A. the Internal Revenue Service. I have personally looked up tax laws, that is, statutes and regulations, regarding what is taxed.

I'm just guessing here, I'm assuming that in your lexicon, fraud is not a crime. Unless there is a law prohibiting fraud. If you and I go down the rabbit hole of tax law, I can prove government commits trillion dollar fraud by deliberately lying by omission.

Right out of the Internal Revenue Service, Internal Revenue Manual (IRS, IRM):
⚠ Fraud: Deception by misrepresentation of material facts, or silence when good faith requires expression, which results in material damage to one who relies on it and has the right to rely on it. Simply stated, it is obtaining something of value from someone else through deceit.
https://www.irs.gov/irm/part25/irm_25-001-001#idm140486825568304

I'm going to re-write your last part but I'm going to insert the word SHOULD, in bold, where it is your ideal, and not a fact.

It's not just my ideal. It's the ideal of those who wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence.

All humans SHOULD BE created with an equal lack of ownership over any other humans.

What other humans were you created with ownership over?
What other humans were created with ownership over you?

Because you're arguing against non-ownership of humans by other humans upon their creation, the onus is on you to prove humans are created with ownership over other humans.

Therefore: All humans SHOULD BE created with an equal lack of authority over any other humans.

No ownership, no authority.

I will note that you have already confused power with authority, and continue to do so.

You are claiming some humans are created with a right to rule other humans.

Which means, no humans SHOULD BE born with rights and authorities that override my self ownership and rights therefrom.

So you are claiming: humans [ARE] born with rights and authorities that override my self ownership and rights therefrom.

And as a point of logic, no human SHOULD BE ABLE TO delegate rights and authorities that human does not have.

You are claiming that humans can give away what they don't own or possess.

Elected politicians (professional liars) are not born with ownership of me.

Did you forget to challenge this? Going with the context flow of your comments, you would be claiming Elected politicians (professional liars) ARE born with ownership of me.

No voters SHOULD BE ABLE TO give my ownership and rights thereof to any professional liar.

Again, You are claiming that humans can give away what they don't own or possess.


⚠ Taking my cue from, and paraphrasing, the United States Declaration of Independence, One of the "Organic Documents" of the United States government...

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary to defend against encroachments of the rights to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of humankind requires that we should declare the causes which impel us to be ready and willing to use escalating force and violence to defend against, and stop, such encroachments and violations of our Natural Rights.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all humans are created with an equal lack of ownership over any other humans; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and unalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;

YOU DON'T OWN ME is the initial natural state of being; YDOM is a self-evident truth; You don't own me, my life, my liberty, or my property; YDOM means you don't have any authority over me to make rules I must obey; YDOM means you can not delegate authority over me to any other person, human or corporate; YDOM applies to every human in "government"; YDOM applies to "government" ⚠

For anyone claim they own me is to directly threaten me with enslavement. When anyone does that, their life is forfeit, if that is what needs to happen to keep them from enslaving me. Per my natural law natural right, I am within my rights to use whatever force is required to keep myself alive and to keep my justly acquired property.

To claim others own me is to claim you agree with enslavement. Depending upon if you encourage the slaver to attempt to enslave me, your life could be just as forfeit as the slaver's.

You are for liberty or you are for slavery. If you are for slavery, you are my enemy.
End Part 2.
Quote
3 of 3.

The truth is, authority has the power whether you like it or not.

I remind you that you and I do NOT agree to what the word "authority" means.

Per your usage with your sentence, you are equating "authority" as the hand wielding the gun and as the rulers making the rules. In short, you are equating "authority" as government; as a ruler.

I'm choosing to equate the gun with the "power".

So I ask:

How does this hand wielding the gun get the right to make rules and to threaten people with the gun?

How does this hand wielding the gun get the authority make rules and to threaten people with the gun?

How does this government wielding the gun get the authority make rules and to threaten people with the gun?

How does this ruler wielding the gun get the authority make rules and to threaten people with the gun?

The truth is, authority has the power whether you like it or not. That's a fact, not an ideal.

Wrong. That's your opinion.

A parent has authority over their child, whether or not the kid thinks it _should_ be that way.

Wrong. A parent has responsibility for the child. It behooves the parents to teach their offspring how to survive. And teaching children to do no harm to others is part of teaching them to survive, because harming others is a good way to get yourself dead. A parent is liable for their harms to others as well as their children's harms to others.
 
The government of a people have authority over all those people, whether or not they think it _should_ be that way.

Let me translate what you said for anyone else reading this discussion:

The government (rulers) of a people have [an alleged right to initiate harm and violence against] all those people, whether or not they think it _should_ be that way.

You have a moral stance against how the government works.

You are correct.

I have a moral stance against a government that extorts money from its own people.
I have a moral stance against a government that threatens and kills its own people.
I have a moral stance against a government that enslaves its own people.

THAT is how government works. Every government. Every time. Always.

I have a moral stance against a people who refuse to see the evil that government does, and is.

Does this make sense? Can you separate what you think should be, from what is?

Do I need to walk you through my website where I chronicle what government is, and does?

End Part 3.


Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: October 24, 2021, 03:40:19 PM »

Quote
Yeah, I’m seeing that with me, too. Maybe we move to your forum but also post here
Quote
I have been able to work around the glitch in some shorter threads.

I'll start a new thread here in ID.
This sentence reserved to editorially add a jump link.

And link back to this post.

Tiny bit more info on the glitch.
https://www.facebook.com/dale.eastman.75/posts/4380858382043929
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: October 23, 2021, 08:51:41 PM »

Quote from: 10:13 23 Oct 21
Dale Eastman I’d prefer to keep it here. Primarily because I mostly use my phone for posting, so it’s easier for me. But also, I’d like it in this public forum just in case this subject comes up again. I’m not saying you are the type of person that would continue to make that claim again after we’ve both agreed it is false… but we don’t really know each other so I can’t be certain. so I prefer the public reference location.
Quote
Fecalbook is glitching for me. In this group and in another. It's not presenting all the comments in a comment thread. Thus I can't review this thread to make sure my archive is accurate. I can't see most of my, and your, comments in this thread.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: October 22, 2021, 09:35:47 AM »

This post shows in my Fecalbook /allactivity log, but does not show when I click the link to the original comment thread. I call it Fecalbook because its User Interface is shit. Half hour later and the comment doesn't show.

Quote
I've commandeered my wife's computer. I was half way through composing my reply to your last comment when family and fate interrupted our discussion.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: October 11, 2021, 07:41:34 AM »

Quote
Dale Eastman You write, "Your claim is that something is not criminal if there is no law against it."

Correct. By definition, that is objectively true.

You write, "Unless I am missing something:
Very clearly you are claiming extortionists are not criminals;
"

Yes, you missed something. I was saying that _if_ you use the word "criminal" in a slang manner, then _legal_ extortion cannot be concluded. I was saying the opposite of what you interpreted. The word extortion has a very clear legal meaning, as well. However, it can be used in a non-legal way. That is why my stance was not an argument against your use of the word extortion, but the use of the word criminal.

"Running with your logic, government can never be criminal unless it writes laws making its own actions criminal. "

Close, but not exactly. The law may already exist. A member of government doesn't need to write a law in order to make it a law. But _some member_ of government must have written the law, and it must still be an active law or the action is not legally criminal... yes, that is true. Also, it is not my logic, it is an objective fact. In order for something to be illegal, it must break a law written or maintained by a controlling authority.

You write, "And for this situation, I am calling this (alleged) authority..."

This is where your logic seems to be butting up against your ideals. We need to separate the two. Everything said in that paragraph is your ideal. It's how you thing things _should_ be.

Please truly consider my next sentence because it is probably the most important thing I've said in our entire interaction...

Just because we think something should be... does not make it true; not for us, and certainly not for anyone else.

You have a belief. You have a moral stance against how the government works. Your entire argument is trying to posit a true fact out of an ideal. That's the logic you need to separate.

I'm going to re-write your last part but I'm going to insert the word SHOULD, in bold, where it is your ideal, and not a fact.
"All humans SHOULD BE created with an equal lack of ownership over any other humans.
Therefore: All humans SHOULD BE created with an equal lack of authority over any other humans.
Which means, no humans SHOULD BE born with rights and authorities that override my self ownership and rights therefrom.
And as a point of logic, no human SHOULD BE ABLE TO delegate rights and authorities that human does not have.
Elected politicians (professional liars) are not born with ownership of me.
No voters SHOULD BE ABLE TO give my ownership and rights thereof to any professional liar.
"

The truth is, authority has the power whether you like it or not. That's a fact, not an ideal. A parent has authority over their child, whether or not the kid thinks it _should_ be that way. The government of a people have authority over all those people, whether or not they think it _should_ be that way.

Does this make sense? Can you separate what you think should be, from what is?
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: October 02, 2021, 10:39:42 AM »

Quote from: 09:40 2 Oct 21
Dale Eastman, just wanted to let you know I’m trying to find the time to reply.

Fair warning when I do. You’ve gone quite off subject again and are back to trying to prove your point. When I find the time for a good reply, I’ll be sticking to the points you made about the original claim.

I won’t forget your other points, I do have responses for all of them, when we’re finished with this one.
Quote
Sticking to the original point you need to disprove.

You write, "Um... Yeah... Given that you insist upon using the "legal sense" of 'criminal,' the government is, provably, violating the Natural Law as spelled out in the organic document rejecting the legal authority of King James. Thus, government is provably, in the legal sense, a criminal."
--You are speaking about the Declaration of Independence (DOI). As I'm sure you're aware, the DOI is not a legal document binding the government or any U.S. citizen. Therefore your argument that the government is a legal criminal, is confuted. The government cannot be a legal criminal against a document that does not bind them legally.

You write, "I just realized that government is both legally and morally criminal. "

--1) You have not proven it legally criminal
--2) I'm willing to accept your claim that it is morally criminal, as that is an opinion statement. That usage of the word criminal, would not allow for the legal use of the word "extortion", and, again, we go back to your claim being slang, which is fine. Although you keep making the mistake, as you did with the DOI above, of conflating morality with legality.

You write, "Because it's not a legal crime, you give the appearance that such immoral crime is perfectly okay with you."

--Even though I had read this twice before, I apparently missed, until just now, that you're admitting here that the Government are not legal criminals for taking money from us under force. (correct me if I'm mistaken). This is good, because I think this solidifies our agreement that the claim "The government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control", is not true, if it is taken to mean "legal" criminal. And if you're a sincere person, and I truly believe you are, then you'll stop making any future arguments, with other people, in the direction of trying to convince them of the legal angle.

And I think that resolves our debate.

Would you like to start a new OP for us to discuss? I'm particularly interested in your assertions surrounding morality. Specifically in the last couple sections of #3 above.
Quote
Sticking to the original point you need to disprove.
You have not proven it [government] legally criminal

Your claim is that something is not criminal if there is no law against it.

But you even go so far as to claim:

That usage of the word criminal, would not allow for the legal use of the word "extortion"

Unless I am missing something:
Very clearly you are claiming extortionists are not criminals;
Very clearly you are claiming extortion is not a crime;
Therefore you are claiming a government that extorts people is not committing a crime;
Attempting to support your (implied) claim that government can "NEVER" be criminal.

Running with your logic, government can never be criminal unless it writes laws making its own actions criminal. What law making entity would ever deign to make its own actions illegal?

"Government" is used in its reified sense. The reified sense is the common error sense of discussing government as a single entity. Perhaps I'll drill down on this later. For now, I'm going to drill down on "law", what it is and how it's made.

You presented:
Law: A body of rules of conduct of binding legal force and effect, prescribed, recognized, and enforced by controlling authority. In U.S. law, the word law refers to any rule that if broken subjects a party to criminal punishment or civil liability. Laws in the United States are made by federal, state, and local legislatures, judges, the president, state governors, and administrative agencies.

Laws are made by people. Lots of people. 635 on the federal level. I'm ignoring the obvious (to me) errors of claiming executive branch offices and officers make rules I am required to obey. So I'm just going to focus on the legislators and the legislative branch as a single, reified entity that makes rules. This is, if we can agree to it, the "controlling authority" is making the rules and punishments for breaking the rules.

And for this situation, I am calling this (alleged) authority the (alleged) right to make rules others must follow. To also include the (alleged) right to order the use of escalating violence and force, even to the point of killing the rule breakers.

Now, where does this reified entity get a(n alleged) right to make rules I or anyone else must obey under penalty of death? Answer: It doesn't; it can't.

All humans are created with an equal lack of ownership over any other humans.
Therefore: All humans are created with an equal lack of authority over any other humans.
Which means, no humans are born with rights and authorities that override my self ownership and rights therefrom.
And as a point of logic, no human can delegate rights and authorities that human does not have.
Elected politicians (professional liars) are not born with ownership of me.
No voters can give my ownership and rights thereof to any professional liar.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: September 29, 2021, 12:26:15 PM »

Quote
1 of 3

Well written. Well argued. Attentive to details. A refreshing discussion, to be sure...

I don't know if I'm going to address each detailed point you made. I will address the ones that work towards my narrative, agenda, and goals.

Dale Eastman You write, “How did that ‘controlling authority’ get the right to issue rules the ruled are required to follow?” This answer depends on the controlling authority (CA going forward).

This is a communication failure. I have failed to help you understand my point, thus you have failed to understand my question. The answer can NOT depend upon the controlling authority going forward. Because the question is about How did the CA come into existence beforehand?

To be a controlling authority, the alleged CA must actually have authority over me. How, specifically, did any alleged CA get authority over me?

Hopefully to help you understand my subject, I simply point to, and quote, these words: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

And then I DEMAND proof of my consent. This proof MUST contain the following items:
❶ The full disclosure, written rules I agreed to, presented to myself (and others) as a proper non fraudulent, fully discosed set of the terms and rules of this agreement (contract to be governed).
❷ My notarized, witnessed signature agreeing to be bound by the rules of this contract wherein I agreed to be ruled.
❸ In lieu of #1 & #2: The location of the government's records containing this agreement, and access to inspect the same.
❹ Proof that my ALLEGED consent can not be withdrawn when the other party to the contract (government) vitiates the contract by fraud.
❺ Proof that deliberate lack of full transparency is not fraud.
❻ Proof that my ALLEGED consent can not be withdrawn when the other party to the contract (government) vitiates the contract by violating my Natural Law Rights.
❼ Proof that consent that can not be withdrawn is actually and factually consent.

You have brushed against this concept of "rights" already in your post. I will address this specifically.

There are many ways in which a CA gets their power, and enforces their rules.

I most vehemently disagree.

You are confusing "power" with "authority." You are not the first person I've ever had this discussion with. To make my point, I am going to make a claim that I'm sure you will disagree with. And I'm sure you are going to disagree because of the same conflict of ideas driving this discussion in the first place.

Two nearly identical situations:
Two motorists have a man with a gun pointed at them. Both hear the words: "GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE CAR!"
The only difference, in the one case, the guy with the gun is wearing a blue suit and a shiny medal on his chest.

Both cases are EXACTLY the same. Both are exercising "power" over the motorist.
In the case of the guy with the shiny broach, the indoctrinated, brainwashed masses "believe" this guy has "authority". In other words,  the indoctrinated, brainwashed masses "believe" the uniform wearing guy has a "right" to do this. Keep that in mind for when I address you points about "rights".

But I really think the import perspective to recognize, related to this question, is that it doesn’t matter how they got the power, whether by vote, or military coup, or birth, or any other means. It doesn’t matter how they got it. What matters, as it pertains to our conversation about crime, is that they do have the power.

You have succinctly stated what you and I do NOT agree about. How they got this ALLEGED authority DOES matter. Power is NOT authority, as pointed out with the carjackers comparison.

What, specifically, is this "power" if not the ability and willingness to threaten and use violence to extort compliance from the victim?

"Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur." You use that phrase incorrectly. That phrase means (as I’m sure you know but I’ll explain for your readers) “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence”. But you used it against my claim, “ownership is not necessary for a controlling authority's ability to make rules that have to be followed”

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. I used it correctly. I'm using it again. IMO, you are in error. This time I make a specific denial with reason for this denial.

"Controlling Authority" translates to "Controlling Rulers", which translates to "Controlling Extortionist(s)." Because absent actual consent to follow the rules dictated by the rulers, the only way to get compliance is to threaten and use violence against those refusing to comply. I've summed up, and KISSed this concept to this phrase:

If it's "consent of the governed", why do those doing the governing need men with guns to insure that they are obeyed?

I think this is where we need to address a mindset that you seem to have surrounding “rights”.

I agree.

It seems to be the same mindset that I used to have; I hope I can convince you that it’s not tenable.

Rational discussion. We have differences... Yet you are being a wonderfully cognizant discussion partner. This is so damn rare for me.

It starts, with a very vague definition of “rights” in the first place. It’s a mental game we play with ourselves to mean one thing when it suits, and mean something else when that suits, but then we combine the two in our philosophy. It leads to a very messy belief. For example, when you say “rights” do you mean Moral Rights? e.g. My kid has as much right as yours to use the slide. Do you mean legal rights? e.g. I have the right to a jury of my peers. Or do you mean inalienable rights? NOTE: I can’t give an example because no such rights actually exist, no matter what our founding fathers believed. I can take away your right to live by killing you. I can take away your right to liberty by enslaving or imprisoning you. I can take away your right to the pursuit of happiness by torturing you. But that’s a whole different conversation.

For the most part, I agree with you. It is for this reason, I hesitate to use the word "rights". (You'll just have to take my word on that.) So the fact that you are aware of what many are not when discussing "rights", means, IMO, this is a point ripe for discussion.

What you call the "CA", I call the ALLEGED "CA". More to my point, What you call the "CA", I specifically call the "rulers". This discussion touches upon the alleged CA's or the alleged  ruler's rights to rule; to command; to demand.

End #1

Quote
2 of 3.

My point being, if I’m correct, your primary argument here has been about moral rights, but you’re framing it in a way as to argue legal rights. Think about it before arguing back. Really consider if I have the right of it, please.

I don't have to think about it much at all. Your assessment of my issue of morality is correct. That you think I'm framing it as a question of legal rights, That I do need to think on, and maybe discuss further. Right now I can neither affirm nor deny that charge.

As I pointed out in one of my earlier posts, "The topic (or my view of it) does go all over the place."

When you mention "legal rights", I parse that as "rights recognized by law." Can you confirm this parse as viable?

This opens the door to a drill down on what, specifically, is "law"?

Because you need to be able to recognize that those are two, totally different ideas. They cannot be interchanged.

They may not be interchangeable. I neither admit nor deny. That does not change the fact that they are interconnected. More on that thought as this conversation continues.

A legal right has specific parameters.

No argument what so ever.

And we can narrow down where the rights come from.

Um... Yeah... Where moral rights come from? Where legal rights come from? I poke you on this because of the issue of the differences, yet you seem to have forgotten to specify... Unless you meant both?

Who gave them the right?

To rule. Who gave them the right to rule? This is THE key point to my position.

However, with moral rights, there are no parameters. It changes by each person’s own beliefs.

So you are claiming subjective, not objective. I understand the viewpoint. I do not fully disagree with the viewpoint. My thoughts about morality itself, and thoughts about Locke's Natural Law/ Natural Rights, leads to the conclusion that moral rights can be objectively arrived at.

Who gave any of those people the “right” to decide what rights they have?

Who gave people (specifically you) the "right" to decide what rights other people DON'T have?

For the purpose of our conversation, the word “rights” needs to be defined as Legal Rights, because it’s the only form of rights that has clear parameters.

I understand that discussion of moral rights is not something you don't want to do. That is just the kind of attitude I would expect from a legalistic Nazi soldier pushing Jews and other undesirables onto the train for a ride to Auschwitz and Birkenau. Because the immorality of such actions doesn't fall into clear parameters. And this definitely makes me question your morality.

You seem to be under the delusion here, that having no violence or threat of violence is some sort of required parameter. This may be an example of the distinction I hope you’ll consider between moral rights and legal rights.

Pushing Jews and other undesirables onto the trains required threats of, and use of violence to get compliance. Done by order of law; done by the alleged "CA's" orders. By your focus on only "legal rights" to the complete exclusion of "moral rights", I am guided to the conclusion that you don't give a shit about the provable lack of morality of government... Because, "However, with moral rights, there are no parameters."

Have I painted enough of a picture for you to understand how immoral I view you? Ya still got my respect for this discussion, yet at this time I find myself highly triggered. By your world view, unless there is a law against an abuser harming the abuser's victim, it's not a violation of the victim's rights, because the politician's <hack-spite> have not decreed this victimization as a right being violated.

First, the authority comes from the CA, or the rules governing the CA. It’s that easy.

<sarcasm> Sure. If you put the cart before the horse </sarcasm>

How, specifically, did this alleged CA get it's authority?

Having been at one time, a U.S. Army soldier, subject to a "chain of command," I am well aware of the hierarchical form of the chain. In my lexicon,  a "chain of command" equates with a "chain of authority". Without authority, one can NOT have a "right" to command. I have a 30 point examination / essay regarding the alleged "chain of authority" in the can, ready for pasting.

Now you mentioned "the rules governing the CA." Those that made "the rules governing the CA" must themselves have authority to make those rules. Where did those that made "the rules governing the CA" get their authority?

But I think the right thing to do, is refute your claim with evidence of my own. In your #1, superior knowledge is not a form of authority, at all.

That is one of the two dictionary definitions of authority. I only mention it for full transparency, and as the definition I am NOT using.

In your #2, I am going to interpret that with the most generous interpretation and rephrase, “I have a right to hurt you” to mean “you will suffer negative consequences as determined by the CA”.

You have interpreted it as I meant it.

All authority is backed by threat of consequences.

I vehemently OBJECT!

All ruler's rules are backed by threat of consequences. Authority is the alleged "right" of the rulers to threaten consequences. Threatened "consequences" are threatened "harms" or "hurts".

And this comes right back to: Where do the rulers making the rules get a "right" to threaten harm if their dictates are not obeyed?

Just like where does the "right" to make rules to send Jews an other undesirables to Auschwitz and Birkenau and the "right" to serve consequences onto the soldiers that refuse to send people to Auschwitz and Birkenau come from?

End #2.

Quote
3 of 3.

But let’s not confuse that with the purpose of authority.

What is the purpose of the alleged authority of governments in the United States, per the Declaration of Independence?

"... with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men ..."

Clearly, the purpose of this alleged "CA" is to protect individual rights. I have forgotten the name of the SCOTUS case that this quote attends to: "The Ninth Amendment codifies that our rights are too numerous to list, and thus it requires the government to respect the natural unenumerated rights of all persons, in addition to those rights specifically enumerated."

Thus ANY violation of the enumerated and unenumerated rights of the individual is a crime. Even when done by the alleged "CA", even when done by "government".

⚠ The Truth of Government On Protecting Personal Property
Incredible as it sounds, civil asset forfeiture laws allow the government to seize property without charging anyone with a crime. Police can seize property first and hold it pending trial, which could be four to six years later. The government’s case for forfeiture can be based on allegations of illegal activity of someone other than the property owner. At trial the owner has to prove innocence – the government does not have to prove the property owner was guilty. Many forfeiture victims don’t have enough assets left after the seizure to hire counsel, yet the procedures are too complicated for property owners to successfully defend themselves.⚠

That, is a clear cut case of government, of the "CA", violating its raison d'être; violating its reason for existing. I have more to share if need be.

The function of authority can vary by the individual CA; in the hands of a political dictator, the function may be power and control. In the hands of a caring soccer coach, the function is .

You are conflating two authorities.

Knowledge authority for "maintaining a competition that can be enjoyed by all and gives the best opportunities to those with the most skill" wherein the competitors have chosen and agreed, and where the competitors can quit at any time without penalty or punishment.

And the alleged authority of tyrants and dictators (but I repeat myself) ruling over others by threat of punishment without express written, certified and publicly recorded consent, and with penalties and punishments for refusing to be ruled.

I do think we need to bring the conversation back to the original point, which still needs to be refuted or accepted as true, “The government is not a criminal syndicate in the legal sense.

Um... Yeah... Given that you insist upon using the "legal sense" of "criminal," the government is, provably, violating the Natural Law as spelled out in the organic document rejecting the legal authority of King James. Thus, government is provably, in the legal sense, a criminal.

If your intent in the OP is to use the word “criminal” in a slang, or ironic way, then sure… no one can argue that.

I give you thanks for nudging me to further examination of my claim. Specifically, in that while I was addressing your fine observations, I just realized that government is both legally and morally criminal. The violations of human's natural rights is why the colonies went to war against the King and his alleged CA.

The Articles of the Confederation, other than the fact that they existed prior to the CONstitution (sic), were never examined. The CONstitution is is cited by many as how the alleged CA got its alleged authority. Again, I have an examination of this alleged chain of authority in the can, ready for paste.

Because, basically, at that point, your meme is really saying, “The government is a really immoral, organized group of people, that takes money from citizens under the threat of force.” And yeah, that’s true.

I get the impression that you actually like to debate for its own sake. I would claim the same for myself, except when it's a topic I am really impassioned about, like this issue since it touches morality. This literally becomes a war of words and a war for the minds of the indoctrinated, inculcated, statists with their religion of worship of government; and their religious belief that the rulers have a right to treat them as if owned; as if slaves.

“The government is a really immoral, organized group of people, that takes money from citizens under the threat of force.” And yeah, that’s true. What’s also true, is that it’s not against the law. It’s not a legal crime and they are not legal criminals in that situation.

Because it's not a legal crime, you give the appearance that such immoral crime is perfectly okay with you. And extrapolating from there, I assume you believe you don't have any "right" to challenge and resist such harm being done by the immoral syndicate called government.

My morality comes from YDOM. You don't own me, I don't own you. Thus, Anybody initiating or attempting to initiate harm to another is doing an immoral act. Government is a syndicate that initiates harm, violence, and other extortions against humans that have harmed nobody. How do you get alleged authority over a person you don't own when they don't consent to you ruling them?

End #3.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: September 27, 2021, 05:44:59 PM »

Quote from: 1756 27Sept21
Dale Eastman You write, “How did that ‘controlling authority’ get the right to issue rules the ruled are required to follow?
This answer depends on the controlling authority (CA going forward). Is the CA the Board of directors for a social club? Then the club’s bylaws give the means by which they gain their authority, and usually, the club members vote in their board.

The same goes for democracies and republics. Certain rules are set up and people get to vote for their CA. The CA then makes rules that everyone has to follow or suffer the consequences.

Is the CA a socialist government? Then, historically the CA came to power through military action.

And I could go one, and on. There are many ways in which a CA gets their power, and enforces their rules.

But I really think the import perspective to recognize, related to this question, is that it doesn’t matter how they got the power, whether by vote, or military coup, or birth, or any other means. It doesn’t matter how they got it. What matters, as it pertains to our conversation about crime, is that they do have the power.

You said, “I appreciate that you believe what you wrote. Regardless, what you wrote is merely your opinion. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

You use that phrase incorrectly. That phrase means (as I’m sure you know but I’ll explain for your readers) “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence”. But you used it against my claim, “ownership is not necessary for a controlling authority's ability to make rules that have to be followedyour error is, I then went on to provide you multiple examples of evidence to prove my point.

Look man, choosing to just completely ignore my point because you can’t contradict it, and it’s devastating to your case, doesn’t look good for your ability to keep an open mind. But mind you, I did, indeed, provide evidence.

You wrote, “As the soccer coach, or as the employer, you can make all the rules you wish. The player or the employee still have free will and liberty to tell you to go pound sand. You have NO right to fine them, lock them up in a cage, or kill them for refusing to obey you.

I think this is where we need to address a mindset that you seem to have surrounding “rights”. It seems to be the same mindset that I used to have; I hope I can convince you that it’s not tenable.

It starts, with a very vague definition of “rights” in the first place. It’s a mental game we play with ourselves to mean one thing when it suits, and mean something else when that suits, but then we combine the two in our philosophy. It leads to a very messy belief. For example, when you say “rights” do you mean Moral Rights? e.g. My kid has as much right as yours to use the slide. Do you mean legal rights? e.g. I have the right to a jury of my peers. Or do you mean inalienable rights? NOTE: I can’t give an example because no such rights actually exist, no matter what our founding fathers believed. I can take away your right to live by killing you. I can take away your right to liberty by enslaving or imprisoning you. I can take away your right to the pursuit of happiness by torturing you. But that’s a whole different conversation.

My point being, if I’m correct, your primary argument here has been about moral rights, but you’re framing it in a way as to argue legal rights. Think about it before arguing back. Really consider if I have the right of it, please.

Because you need to be able to recognize that those are two, totally different ideas. They cannot be interchanged. A legal right has specific parameters. And we can narrow down where the rights come from. Who gave them the right? The voters. Who gave those other people the right? The bylaws of the controlling organization. Etc. etc. etc. However, with moral rights, there are no parameters. It changes by each person’s own beliefs. Maybe some people feel they have the right to punch a Nazi in the face because they don’t like Nazi’s. Maybe somebody else feels they have a right to punch a baby in the face because they don’t like babies. And maybe somebody else feels neither have any right to punch anybody in the face because “their rights end where my rights begin”. It’s a rabbit hole, and its complete chaos. Who gave any of those people the “right” to decide what rights they have?

For the purpose of our conversation, the word “rights” needs to be defined as Legal Rights, because it’s the only form of rights that has clear parameters.

You say, “No violence or threats of violence required.” You seem to be under the delusion here, that having no violence or threat of violence is some sort of required parameter. This may be an example of the distinction I hope you’ll consider between moral rights and legal rights.

You say, “Where do you allege this authority to make rules came from? I will point out that there are two types of authority: ❶ I have superior knowledge. Follow my suggestions or don't, the repercussions are solely yours; ❷ If you don't do what I tell you to do, I have a right to hurt you.

First, the authority comes from the CA, or the rules governing the CA. It’s that easy. As for your belief that there are only two types of authority, I disagree. Now, I could say something dismissive, like “Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur” (used in proper context here), and just ignore this point. But I think the right thing to do, is refute your claim with evidence of my own. In your #1, superior knowledge is not a form of authority, at all. There are plenty of fools in a position of authority. Repercussions of our choices are ours, regardless of authority. In your #2, I am going to interpret that with the most generous interpretation and rephrase, “I have a right to hurt you” to mean “you will suffer negative consequences as determined by the CA”. I will point out that #2 is the only form of authority that exists. All authority is backed by threat of consequences. But let’s not confuse that with the purpose of authority. The purpose of authority is to maintain the rules. Also, let’s not confuse it with the function of authority. The function of authority can vary by the individual CA; in the hands of a political dictator, the function may be power and control. In the hands of a caring soccer coach, the function is maintaining a competition that can be enjoyed by all and gives the best opportunities to those with the most skill.

I have discussed each point and I do truly hope you consider what I have to say. Regardless, I do think we need to bring the conversation back to the original point, which still needs to be refuted or accepted as true, “The government is not a criminal syndicate in the legal sense. If your intent in the OP is to use the word “criminal” in a slang, or ironic way, then sure… no one can argue that. Tell me now, if that’s your use, and the conversation is satisfied.

Because, basically, at that point, your meme is really saying, “The government is a really immoral, organized group of people, that takes money from citizens under the threat of force.” And yeah, that’s true.

What’s also true, is that it’s not against the law. It’s not a legal crime and they are not legal criminals in that situation.
Quote
Well written. Well argued. And it deserves a more focused attention than I can give right now. I'll probably re-read it again tomorrow morning.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: September 24, 2021, 04:03:19 PM »

Quote from: 1330 24Sep21
Dale Eastman I haven't forgotten about you... just really busy. probably won't be today neither
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: September 22, 2021, 01:50:23 PM »

Quote from: 1236 22Sept21
Dale Eastman correct... there are lots of words we can use for that person: Jerk, A-hole, abuser, hero, savior, brave-hearted.

but criminal, is not one of them.
Quote from: 1418 22Sept21
Dale Eastman Side Note, I was reading through your blog. It looks like you might have missed one of my comments from earlier today, beginning with "you write " ...'A body of rules' Who made these rules?"
The answer"
Quote from: 1434 22Sept21
Yep. I did miss that comment.

That's part of why I am archiving. I'm glad to see you are availing yourself of this benefit. I'll be fixing the discussion chronology. So I'll get the answer in there. And address the answer. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.
Quote from: 1645 23Sept21
Dale Eastman, you write " ...'A body of rules' Who made these rules?" The answer to your question is right in that very sentence. The answer is, "controlling authority". That's part of the definition.

How did that "controlling authority" get the right to issue rules the ruled are required to follow?

You also ask, "Do the person or persons making these rules own those they have made these rules for?" But ownership is not necessary for a controlling authority's ability to make rules that have to be followed.

I appreciate that you believe what you wrote. Regardless, what you wrote is merely your opinion. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

The issue is not the "controlling authority's ability to make rules that have to be followed." This issue is how did this "controlling authority" get the right "to make rules that have to be followed"?

For example: I'm a soccer coach. I don't own all the kids on my team, but if they're not following the rules, I'm not going to let them play. No ownership necessary.

You could make a better argument discussing an employer's right to make rules. It's the same logic. Regardless, this is NOT the first time I have addressed this claim attempting to justify authority. As the soccer coach, or as the employer, you can make all the rules you wish. The player or the employee still have free will and liberty to tell you to go pound sand. You have NO right to fine them, lock them up in a cage, or kill them for refusing to obey you.

Same reply regarding the rules for the riding student. Now if the riding student owns the horse, the instructor can then refuse to instruct. No violence or threats of violence required.

Ownership is not necessary in order to make rules that must be followed.

Where do you allege this authority to make rules came from? I will point out that there are two types of authority: ❶ I have superior knowledge. Follow my suggestions or don't, the repercussions are solely yours; ❷ If you don't do what I tell you to do, I have a right to hurt you.

I hope these examples have changed your mind about the relationship between ownership, laws, and controlling authority.

And that thought right back at you.

I asked: If some person harms you, and this harm is not against the law, this person is not a criminal?

Dale Eastman correct... [...] but criminal, is not one of them.
I feel like I’ll sound like an attorney here,

That sounds exactly like Bona Fide attorneys I have had discussion with.

From your definition of "law":

Law [...] Laws in the United States are made by federal, state, and local legislatures, judges, the president, state governors, and administrative agencies.

By what authority do these government actors make these rules?
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: September 22, 2021, 11:08:06 AM »

Quote from: 1111 22Sept21
Dale Eastman, you write " ...'A body of rules' Who made these rules?"

The answer to your question is right in that very sentence. The answer is, "controlling authority". That's part of the definition.

You also ask, "Do the person or persons making these rules own those they have made these rules for?"

Answer: When you say "own" do you mean, as property? If so, the answer is no. But ownership is not necessary for a controlling authority's ability to make rules that have to be followed. For example: I'm a soccer coach. I don't own all the kids on my team, but if they're not following the rules, I'm not going to let them play. No ownership necessary.

My wife teaches people how to ride horses. If a kid shows up wearing daisy dukes and flip flops, they're not riding. She doesn't own the kid, but she's still the controlling authority.

Ownership is not necessary in order to make rules that must be followed. I hope these examples have changed your mind about the relationship between ownership, laws, and controlling authority.

Quote from: 1128 22Sept21
To follow up on another point in your reply. you wrote, "Per your selection of the 'standard' meaning of crime, I knew you would be focusing on 'law'."

It's the use of the word "standard" that made me cock my head a little. Of course I would use the standard definition of the word, or maybe the better term is the legal definition, because legal definitions can sometimes be different than the general-population definition. and that's why I brought up slang and irony and asked if if that's what you meant.

I'm guessing that because you didn't respond with, "Yes, I'm using the slang usage of the word criminal", that you intend your use of criminal to mean, "legal criminal". And if so, then I have conclusively proven that the term criminal, in that sense, does not apply to the situation.

I have to be very clear about this. There is no argument over the legal definition of those terms. you can choose not to accept them... but that doesn't change the fact, that those are the legal definitions. Part of the inconvenience of living in a society, is that we individuals do not always get to set the terms in which we live in that society. We can redefine terms, for ourselves, all we want. But we don't get to redefine a term and then impress upon others a chain of logical arguments that only work under our personal terms.

If you are using a personal, slang, definition of the word criminal in your argument, then fine... basically, at that point, your meme is really saying, “The government is a really immoral, organized group of people, that takes money from citizens under the threat of force.” And yeah, that’s true.
What’s also true, is that it’s not against the law. It’s not a legal crime and they are not legal criminals in that situation.
Quote from: 1210 22Sept21
Let me see If I understand your words.

If some person harms you, and this harm is not against the law, this person is not a criminal?
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: September 21, 2021, 05:52:19 PM »

Quote from: 1548 19Sept21
Thanks Dale Eastman. I appreciate your beliefs about defining the terms. Too many people think that is “playing semantics”, but we seem to agree that defining the terms we are using will help us figure out where we actually disagree.

I think we have reached that, with the definition of a crime. What Hitler did was not a crime at that time. It was neither against German law, nor was it technically a war crime, because hostilities against civilians was not an official war crime until after the Geneva convention of 1949. It was horrible. It was monstrous. It was immoral. But the word crime, falls under specific parameters, which it didn’t fit at that time.

Now, there is a slang use of the word crime, which one might use to mean something like, “horrible or immoral act”, or even an ironic use of the word, like seeing a fat dude in a speedo and saying, “oh dude, that’s criminal”.

So if your intent in the OP is to use the word “criminal” in a slang, or ironic way, then sure… no one can argue that. Tell me now, if that’s your use, and the conversation is satisfied.

Because, basically, at that point, your meme is really saying, “The government is a really immoral, organized group of people, that takes money from citizens under the threat of force.” And yeah, that’s true.

What’s also true, is that it’s not against the law. It’s not a legal crime and they are not legal criminals in that situation.
Quote from:  2048 20Sept21
Life got hectic. Might be Tuesday before I can read your reply and answer appropriately.
Quote from:  1921 21Sept21
we seem to agree that defining the terms we are using will help us figure out where we actually disagree.

That right there... Has earned you a whole bunch of my respect and my appreciation. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

I think we have reached [where we actually disagree], with the definition of a crime.

Agreed.

I figured as much because of what my definition is, before we even started laying the foundation for discussion in regard the meanings of terms.

But the word crime, falls under specific parameters, which it didn’t fit at that time.

That is specifically why I chose those German actions in my addressing of your selected meaning of the term "crime".

Per your selection of the "standard" meaning of crime, I knew you would be focusing on "law". Which now brings us to your proffered definition:

Law
A body of rules of conduct of binding legal force and effect, prescribed, recognized, and enforced by controlling authority.
In U.S. law, the word law refers to any rule that if broken subjects a party to criminal punishment or civil liability. Laws in the United States are made by federal, state, and local legislatures, judges, the president, state governors, and administrative agencies.


This definition is another I specifically, and vehemently object to. Maybe not so vehemently as I would with other people, cuz, respect.

I find this definition lacking in that it ignores certain traits, properties, attributes, & characteristics that are intrinsic to "law". So please bear with me as I "drill down" in my examination of "law".

"A body of rules" Who made these rules? Do the person or persons making these rules own those they have made these rules for?