Author Topic: JC  (Read 130 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,691
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
JC
« on: October 07, 2020, 04:45:35 AM »
Quote from: Statism Is Slavery
Democracy is the bizarre concept that you are too stupid to run your own life, but smart enough to elect the men that will run it for you.
Quote
There has been, and will always be government. Communal living will always demand it.
Quote
Statism Is Slavery
what is the solution for those who choose not to self govern?
Quote
Locke's errantly labelled Natural Law. A.k.a. quid pro quo. I won't attempt to harm you or yours until and unless you try to harm me or mine.

Quote
Statism Is Slavery so you are advocating anarchy?
Quote from: Statism Is Slavery
Of course I'm advocating anarchy. That's how order emerges: through the mechanisms of market anarchy. Now let the market apply those same mechanisms to governance, and we can talk on the same page without silly voter delusions about their preferred centrally planned political system getting in the way
Quote
Statism Is Slavery
I understand your position. My problem...a population of 330 million , all with a different idea of what self governance means. And, a different idea of what they are allowed to do for themselves, and to others.
Quote
Statism Is Slavery
I guess my point...what does one do, when they are attacked, or harmed by someone else?
Quote
What does one do, when they are attacked, or harmed by the government?
IMG➽ If you think government is supposed to protect us from bad guys, Who is going to protect us from a government filled with bad guys?
Quote
that is certainly true, but it doesn't answer my question. People naturally cohort together, and develop some form of society. When that happens, someone always emerges as a leader, for good or bad. Hierarchies are formed, because people are not equal in talent, intellect, capability or even motivation.
Quote
I would gladly discuss our difference in conclusions based upon our thoughts. Would you be willing to do such a discussion?
My experience is that when I start asking questions about what others (in this case, you) believe, I get ghosted.
When I do this, I keep an archived copy of the discussion for review. I have not yet done this. Therefore, would you please repeat your question?
Quote
Okay, I found your question. I'll be answering it shortly.
Quote
I am certainly willing to discuss, with anyone. I guess I'm having difficulty understanding how anarchy can be a positive, when it seems to conflict with human nature?
Quote
I thank you for being willing to discuss. Thank you, thank you.

➽ I guess I'm having difficulty understanding how anarchy can be a positive, when it seems to conflict with human nature?

That, IMO, is a good starting point for me to understand what you think (and why). What part of... I emphasize "part of..." What part of human nature? With all my years of mingling with humans, I have seen human nature all over the spectrum from good to evil. Also including within myself. I am assuming your focus is on the evil part of the spectrum. Those on the good end wouldn't be attacking and harming others.

With that in mind, what "anarchy" IS, is fair game for analysis and examination. I have observed many have swallowed the co-opted definition of anarchy... The corrupted definition of anarchy. Anarchy simply means "No Rulers". I most vehemently stand on that definition. Others opposed do not. So this is where I question, What, specifically, do YOU mean by anarchy?

What follows I was going to post until I saw that you posted.

➽ I guess my point...what does one do, when they are attacked, or harmed by someone else?

I'm breaking that compound question into its two parts: What does one do when they are attacked?; What does one do when they are harmed?

And then, I have to place those two questions in the context of two different environments. The first is the environment that exists presently with criminal syndicates called governments ruling, dictating, and tyrannizing. The second is the environment wanted that doesn't have criminal syndicates called governments ruling, dictating, and tyrannizing.

So help me understand your thinking. What do you do now when (if) you are attacked? For the purposes of that question, I am going to assume that you have not pissed off a criminal who would be hell-bent on killing you and thus eliminate that scenario for discussion... For now.

So by attacked, I mean threatened with bodily harm if you don't meekly forfeit some property of value to the criminal. Such threats are harm. Relinquishing the property is harm. Harm would also include being an unthreatened victim of theft.

Since you are basically asking a question of wondering what's going to replace what presently exists, I find I must ask you, what would you presently do if attacked or harmed?
Quote
I'll answer the second part first. The first thing I do, is choose to live in communities or areas in the community with little crime. And, I try to stay out of areas that are deemed unsafe.

But, I have never been attacked, so I don't know what I would do, other than call the police after the fact.

As for the government, I'm assuming you are including police in the equation.

We have delegated our right to self defense and personal protection to them, in part.

Then we demand more and more laws, for them to enforce, and wonder how it's gotten out of control.

It's almost as if, we are asking them to control us.

That perhaps is the worst part of human nature. A willingness to submit for a pretend chance at security. I also have seen all sides of human nature. What's the quote? Good people don't need laws and bad people won't follow them?

So, what I am referring to is our need to socialize, be a part of a group or a tribe. And, not everyone in the group is equal. Which is why hierarchies develop. Even in a group of good people, a caste system (for want of a better word), develops naturally.

So, when you say anarchy is "No Rulers", I am having difficulty understanding how that would work, without individuals isolating from each other, which goes against human or even our animal nature. So, I guess my definition of anarchy is chaos.
Quote
If you don't mind a friendly tip for good visuals when posting "walls of text", (something I have been accurately accused of doing), per a tip I read online somewhere:

Use lots of white space to make reading easier. Which I attempt to do and curse FecesBook every time I tap the [ENTER] key for a line feed and it posts. That is why I do my lengthy posts in a text editor that is not a FecesBook comment box. In fact, this text is being composed in a forum text editor on my website. I then copy and paste.

➽ As for the government, I'm assuming you are including police in the equation.

Yes. And I address that first for message 'flow'.

➽ The first thing I do, is choose to live in communities or areas in the community with little crime. And, I try to stay out of areas that are deemed unsafe.

Granted that areas that YOU deem unsafe MIGHT be enlarged (and I'll argue/discuss that point), Why wouldn't you continue to take those same actions?

➽ But, I have never been attacked, so I don't know what I would do, other than call the police after the fact.

Both with and without a police force (& government); You, I, and a society, (presuming an attack will happen), would have two situations; before being attacked and after being attacked.

With those words, you have in essence admitted that having a police force doesn't protect you. More on this point below. Under the absence of rulers, this point would not change.

➽ We have delegated our right to self defense and personal protection to them, in part.

Apologies for being a Pedant (a person who is excessively concerned with formalism, accuracy, and precision[...]).

Who, specifically, is this "we"?
Can you provide verifiable proof of those others in the group called "we" delegating authority to you to speak for those "we".?
How, specifically, did those "we" delegate their right to self defense and protection to them (government & police)?
Can you provide verifiable proof of YOU delegating your rights to government & police?

It might surprise you to know that the police (and thus the government) do NOT have any legal duty to protect you. And the first time that I am aware of this being brought to light was an 1855 SCOTUS case. Info upon request.

➽ Then we demand more and more laws, for them to enforce, and wonder how it's gotten out of control.

Again, Who, specifically, is this "we"?

I know I have not given you authority to speak for me.

Can you provide verifiable proof of YOU demanding more and more laws?

➽ It's almost as if, we are asking them to control us.

Yep. You guessed it:
Who, specifically, is this "we"?

➽ That perhaps is the worst part of human nature. A willingness to submit for a pretend chance at security. I also have seen all sides of human nature. What's the quote? Good people don't need laws and bad people won't follow them?

Careful there. You are sounding like an Anarchist.

And what's that other quote? "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Statism Is Slavery is doing something. I am doing something, and others are also doing something... Attempting to educate; attempting to open eyes about the evil of government.

➽ So, what I am referring to is our need to socialize, be a part of a group or a tribe. And, not everyone in the group is equal. Which is why hierarchies develop. Even in a group of good people, a caste system (for want of a better word), develops naturally.

How does a hierarchy follow and develop from people in a group not being equal? What, specifically, do you mean by not equal?

➽ So, when you say anarchy is "No Rulers", I am having difficulty understanding how that would work, without individuals isolating from each other, which goes against human or even our animal nature.

How does "No Rulers" cause people to isolate from each other?


➽ So, I guess my definition of anarchy is chaos.

Wouldn't you call a government that refused to follow its own rules "chaos".



https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffnt&q=constitutional+chaos&ia=web

And one last question:
Who organizes your chaotic interactions with your friends and family?
Quote
Statism Is Slavery
I'm working on it. Some of the concepts you mentioned sound eerily like Marxisim, at first glance. So, you are correct. I need to do more research.
Quote
Dale Eastman thank you for your post. I enjoyed it. I have tried to use your tip. I went bottom/up again.

I am not of the mindset that all government or government function is evil. I simply think we have too much of it, at every level. And, I agree a government that refuses to follow its own rules, does create chaos. While I advocate for "No Rulers", as in "I am my own ruler", I believe our constitution was written with that intent. The problem....it has become so corrupted it is barely identifiable. Therein lies the chaos. However, I do support the concept of government at the lowest level, preferably local. But, local governments are as corrupt as the federal, because they've learned how to be. How does anarchy deal with that?

When I think of isolation I'm considering, that without some communal agreement on norms of acceptable behavior, people will self isolate, because everyone's understanding of the rules will be different. As for equality, I am merely talking about capability, intelligence, motivation, talent. Everyone is not equal in that regard. So, in any group of people hierarchies develop. There will always be those who will produce and those who will consume. How does anarchy deal with that?

I appreciate your willingness to educate and illuminate. But again, I don't view every aspect of government as evil.

Who specifically is "we"? I don't know. But, there have always been laws. And, while I understand police have no duty to protect, a point reiterated with the recent Parkland shooting, there is evidence that if police have a positive presence in the community, they can curtail some (not all) crime. How does anarchy deal with that?

As for demanding more laws, again I don't know who "we" are either. But, individuals and groups demand more laws all the time. How did we get DUI laws, speed limit laws, seat belt laws, helmet laws, cigarette tax laws, mask laws 😷, regulations with the force of law? Some mom or dad, or well intentioned bunch, petitioned the legislature to figure out a way to control their neighbors behavior, in the guise of safety. How does anarchy deal with that?

I appreciated your statement that two distinct situations exist. One before being attacked and one after the attack. I guess my position has always been one of personal responsibility, not placing myself in an at risk environment. So, I would continue to attempt to live in low crime areas. However, I do think it might be harder to find them. I don't understand why some people choose to remain in high crime neighborhoods. In this age of technology, immobility of any population seems odd to me. Particularly, since I have been fiscally disadvantaged in the past, and perfectly mobile. How does anarchy deal with that?
Quote
➽ I went bottom/up again.

I have no problem re-ordering points I'm addressing. Which means I have no problem with others doing the same. The only potential issue I have found that interferes with dialog is dots not connected. That is why I often break out and quote the point I am addressing. With FecesBook at this point in time, I find this arrow [➽] to be a good visual marker. I have created a local file with symbols I tend to use a lot. Happy to share, or you can just snag them from my posts.

➽ I am not of the mindset that all government or government function is evil.

That is a perfectly understandable mindset. I'll not be wagging my tongue (more correctly, my fingers) further on that point for now.

➽ While I advocate for "No Rulers", as in "I am my own ruler"[...]

Which means to me that you are half way to being of an anarchist (in the pure meaning) already.

➽ While I advocate for "No Rulers", as in "I am my own ruler", I believe our constitution was written with that intent.

I used to label myself as a "strict constitutionalist". Then I finally read Lysander Spooner's 1876 writing: NO TREASON The Constitution of No Authority. And I was already on my way to rejecting my statist indoctrination simply by reading and pondering the United State's organic documents.

The CONstitution was written with the intent of making life easier for the central ruling organization to extort funds from the people.
Shay's rebellion & Whiskey rebellion.

➽ I do support the concept of government at the lowest level, preferably local.

So you do support the concept of rulers at the lowest level, preferably local.
Your comment opens the door to a look at this "concept" as you understand it and attempt to present.

➽ But, local governments are as corrupt as the federal, because they've learned how to be.

For future inquiry, What, Specifically, is a government? What, specifically, are its observed properties?

➽ How does anarchy deal with that?

Sorry. That question implies that you think "anarchy" is a system. It's not. You've asked that question five times. The question, at face value, is a "somewhat" valid one. I'll return to comment on that below.

➽ When I think of isolation I'm considering, that without some communal agreement on norms of acceptable behavior, people will self isolate, because everyone's understanding of the rules will be different.

Could you be a little more specific? What behaviors are you considering as unacceptable? What do you mean by "communal agreement"? To quote Larken Rose: ⚠ There are two basic ways in which people can interact: by mutual agreement, or by one person using threats or violence to force his will upon another. The first can be labeled “consent”– both sides willingly and voluntarily agreeing to what is to be done. The second can be labeled “governing” – one person controlling another. Since these two – consent and governing – are opposites, the concept of “consent of the governed” is a contradiction. ⛔

➽ I am merely talking about capability, intelligence, motivation, talent. Everyone is not equal in that regard.

No argument from me on that point.

Somehow I became a decent writer, yet I hated my HS English classes. If I was told back then that I would be doing the amount of writing I am doing now... I'm sure I woulda said something about an overflowing toilet. As in full of... But I digress.

➽ There will always be those who will produce and those who will consume.

To some degree or another. I agree.

What I don't agree with is your trying to connect that dot to this dot:

➽ So, in any group of people hierarchies develop.

Absent a working and agreed to meaning, Hierarchy means to me, (with four years military enlistment), a chain of command, now with my later in life cogitations, A chain of authority.

➽ Who specifically is "we"? I don't know.

The purpose of that question is to eliminate the reification in one's thinking. Reification; Reify: to consider or represent (something abstract) as a material or concrete thing : to give definite content and form to (a concept or idea).

There is no "we". There is you and I. Or you and I and some 340 million other individuals. "We" (the collective) are not "We" (the singular entity).

➽ But, there have always been laws.

Objection. There have always been politician's opinions enFORCEd by extortion. Do what you are told or be hurt.
Law (politician's opinions) By What Authority?

➽ there is evidence that if police have a positive presence in the community, they can curtail some (not all) crime.

Okay. I'll not challenge that claim as a fact. I instead challenge how, if true, would the police presence curtail "some" crime? I also question what crime, specifically, is being curtailed?

➽ How did we get DUI laws, speed limit laws, seat belt laws, helmet laws, cigarette tax laws, mask laws 😷, regulations with the force of law?

Good. You are asking the correct questions. I might have to address them in a second post.

Now I ask, By What Authority are those commands and demands made?

➽ I guess my position has always been one of personal responsibility, not placing myself in an at risk environment. So, I would continue to attempt to live in low crime areas. However, I do think it might be harder to find them.

Good. Personal responsibility. Exactly.
Harder to find low crime areas... Maybe, maybe not. I lean towards easier to find if a truly anarchist, voluntaryist, YDOMist society came about.
From my readings and observations, the highest crimes have been in the areas with the strictest gun laws.

➽ In this age of technology, immobility of any population seems odd to me. Particularly, since I have been fiscally disadvantaged in the past, and perfectly mobile.

At first glance I was going to mention cost. As the old real estate saw goes: Location, location, location. You preempted me on that. Sort of. From 1969 to present, I have lived and worked in 6 different states. As a former truck driver I've been to 48 States (and 6 Canadian provinces). I presently live 6 miles from where I lived in 1969. What's familiar is one possibility. Where friends and family live is another. If money were no object, I wouldn't be living here.

Now back to your five times asked question: How does anarchy deal with that?

Interpreting:
How does not having a ruling class deal with that?

How does not having a ruling class deal with corrupt governments?
A.k.a. How does not having a ruling class deal with not having a corrupt ruling class?

How does not having a ruling class deal with those who will produce and those who will consume?
How did a ruling class deal with those who will produce and those who will consume?
Didn't the rulers extort goods and value from the producers and give it to the non-producers?

How does not having a ruling class curtail some (not all) crime?

Kennesaw Georgia requires (not enforced) its people to get guns and training.
2004 murder per 100K
3.8 - Kennesaw Source
6.9 - Georgia Source
6.7 - California Source

Same sources,
Robbery per 100K
34.3 - Kennesaw
153.1 - Georgia
176.1 - California

➽ Some mom or dad, or well intentioned bunch, petitioned the legislature to figure out a way to control their neighbors behavior, in the guise of safety. How does not having a ruling class deal with that?

Which "that"?

How does not having a ruling class deal with fiscally disadvantaged?
How does not having a ruling class deal with people choosing to remain in high crime neighborhoods?

« Last Edit: October 08, 2020, 12:22:07 PM by Admin »
Natural Law Matters