Old Dialog Boards and Old Threads > Old Threads
A Facebook Discussion part 2
Dale Eastman:
--- Quote ---How can they not know? They sprayed defoliant nicknamed Agent Orange in Viet Nam and the vets all got cancer. The internet has all this information. My friends all seem to know what they do to military personnel yet they are all blind patriots?
--- End quote ---
Keep in mind that I was active duty 1976-1980. I had forgotten about Agent Orange until you reminded me. With that memory jog, I'm trying to remember when I first learned of it. The only clear thing that comes up is two older soldiers discussing that the one had been exposed.
As far as How can they not know...
Speaking to “They”: You're in the military. You're job is to go kill people when ordered to do so and not get killed yourself. Common sense tell you that when you try to kill someone, you shouldn't be surprised when they return the favor. And even if your MOS (military occupation specialty) is not 11B, or as we called it, 11Bush... Even if your MOS is not Infantryman, your job is to support these people in their task to kill people. When hostilities break out, it's 24/7. If you're in the military, it is NOT a 9-5 job.
--- Quote ---"Non-violently is the only way to win." And you wonder why I call you an ANCAP -- that is exactly what they say -- there is no non violent way to eliminate the ruling elite.
--- End quote ---
This is where we do not agree. This is where my point that all authority is bogus becomes a factor. How big a factor determines the probability of eliminating the ruling elite without violence.
Can the ruling elite rule without thugs to go hurt people who don't obey the ruling elite's opinions?
Would 6,000,000 Jews and others be dead if not for Hitler's thugs enforcing his opinions?
--- Quote ---I honestly can't picture the government becoming obsolete […] and just vanish into thin air.
--- End quote ---
Human history tends to back your belief. And I'm quite sure that many share your belief. And unfortunately humans lacking in critical thinking skills never question the consensus reality they are trapped in.
Side note: Perhaps that's why critical thinking is not taught in government indoctrination centers. And perhaps why Lysander Spooner's NO TREASON and Frederic Bastiat's THE LAW are not on the required reading list.
I read your statement as an invite to attempt to assist you in imagining such a picture.
Would there be a need for the use of force to eliminate the ruling elite if all the elite's thugs woke up and refused to obey the elites (bogus authority) commands to go hurt other people who refuse to obey the elite's opinions?
Understanding that delusional belief in authority is the key to the elite's power structure also presents a target that can be attacked with words.
Attacking with violence allows the elite rulers to claim, See, you need us to protect you. To maintain power, the elite will need to plant agent provocateurs and stage false flag operations else that claim fails to get traction.
I don't know what happened on 911. Using physics, math, and common sense I know what did NOT happen on 911. The elite, and their sycophants in the press LIED.
--- Quote ---[…] (since the sheep hate personal responsibility and the state is a nanny) […]
--- End quote ---
While I see the appearance of hating personal responsibility and agree that many are brain dead sheeple, I can only conditionally agree with you. I question / wonder if 12 years of indoctrination and the ongoing indoctrination by the fourth estate are components of the causality resulting in sheeple.
Search → Prussian school model
--- Quote from: Educator John Taylor Gatto --- in The Underground History of American Education describes Prussian thinking at the time:
The Prussian mind, which carried the day, held a clear idea of what centralized schooling should deliver: 1) Obedient soldiers to the army; 2) Obedient workers for mines, factories, and farms; 3) Well-subordinated civil servants, trained in their function; 4) Well-subordinated clerks for industry; 5) Citizens who thought alike on most issues; 6) National uniformity in thought, word, and deed.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: Thomas Alexander ---In The Prussian Elementary Schools, Thomas Alexander, Professor of Elementary Education at the George Peabody College for Teachers wrote the following in 1919:
We believe however that a careful study of the Prussian school system will convince any unbiased reader that the Prussian citizen cannot be free to do and act for himself; that the Prussian is to a large measure enslaved through the medium of his school that his learning instead of making him his own master forges the chain by which he is held in servitude; that the whole scheme of Prussian elementary education is shaped with the express purpose of making ninety five out of every hundred citizens subservient to the ruling house and to the state.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---Yes as is made clear by this awesome song Hero of War.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAG1i3JfUvA
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---They took off his clothes
They pissed in his hands
I told them to stop
But then I joined in
We beat him with guns
And batons not just once
But again and again
--- End quote ---
These lyrics made me think immediately of the Stanford Prison Experiment, Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo Bay.
--- Quote ---He spends 3 hours drafting answers to convince statists that the government's authority is not legitimate and he is right -- it is not. I just don't believe that you can get rid of it by just convincing everyone of that
--- End quote ---
Perhaps.
Does that mean I shouldn't attempt to convince as many as I can about bogus authority? Can the superstitious belief in authority be eliminated if nobody is convinced (by way of Socratic Method questions) to think and view the world differently?
--- Quote --- -- the ruling elite won't give up their power without a fight.
--- End quote ---
Of that I am sure.
However, their only power is their goons who believe they have authority.
Dale Eastman:
--- Quote from: DT ---Try government-instituted central banking. One of the Communist tenets. Definitely not a part of free market capitalism.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: Ms.X ---and how would you change the system set up by the powerful central bankers without violence?
--- End quote ---
Bitcoin and / or any other crypto currency.
--- Quote from: Ms.X ---Very few people behave morally. That is why voluntaryism is absurd.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: DT ---Very few people behave immorally
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: Ms.X ---Well we can't prove either so I guess it is just a matter of opinion. I don't trust anyone so I'm not into voluntaryism.
--- End quote ---
How do you define moral / immoral?
I define immoral as you doing to someone else that which you do not want done to yourself.
Secular and simple.
Ms.X, your lack of trust is YOUR personal problem. And you're not as untrusting as you think. I don't think I am violating that trust when I post this tidbit that you sent to me by private message: Please do not share this -- it is a very rough draft of part of the conclusion of my book. To abide by your request, I am not even going to read that post. No point to it, I can't refute anything I might disagree with publicly.
By opposing voluntaryism as you do publicly, you become a verbal sparring partner helping others refine and hone their words. The irony is that I view you as helping the cause you reject because you challenge bad arguments.
If you are not into voluntaryism, which evidence says is the truth, It really doesn't matter much. Until you take up arms and start killing voluntarists (an INITIATION of force), you are just another opinion of many on a social media platform.
--- Quote from: Ms.X ---My life experiences with a dysfunctional family have made me angry and uninterested in doing what they thought was moral and respectable.
--- End quote ---
I am going to assume “they” refers to your dysfunctional family. I'm simply going to refer you back to my definition of moral above.
You challenged DT: show me the facts
You then followed that with: show me what people are in prison for
That is a very weak point / position.
--- Quote from: Wikipedia ---In October 2013, the incarceration rate of the United States of America was the highest in the world, at 716 per 100,000 of the national population. While the United States represents about 4.4 percent of the world's population, it houses around 22 percent of the world's prisoners.
--- End quote ---
Why are all those people incarcerated? They violated a politician's (ruling elite's) opinion.
All this incarcerating was / is done with bogus authority.
Malum prohibitum (plural) 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. Smoking marijuana is a mala prohibita (singular) crime. Murder is a mala in se (singular) crime.
--- Quote from: ACLU ---According to the ACLU’s original analysis, marijuana arrests now account for over half of all drug arrests in the United States. Of the 8.2 million marijuana arrests between 2001 and 2010, 88% were for simply having marijuana. Nationwide, the arrest data revealed one consistent trend: significant racial bias. Despite roughly equal usage rates, Blacks are 3.73 times more likely than whites to be arrested for marijuana.
--- End quote ---
Repeating what I posted:
Using 'government's own rules I will still make the case that the cop pulled you over without authority.
The CONstitution (organic law) is to be read in the light of the Declaration of Independence (also organic law). But the bogus powers that be do not want the peons to connect the D of I to the CON.
In the D of I are these words:
{certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,}
{That among these} clearly implies that the three listed rights are not the only rights. The rights listed are clearly INDIVIDUAL rights. Therefore the purpose of 'government' is to protect INDIVIDUAL rights.
Using Marc Steven's words as a starting point:
It’s simple logic and common sense, juris doctorate not required:
(1) the government was established/instituted for one purpose i.e., to secure/protect rights;
(2) the courts [and the cops] being a part of the government have the same singular purpose i.e., to secure/protect rights;
(3) the courts’ jurisdiction has one purpose i.e., to secure/protect rights;
(4) Standing to invoke, or invoking a court’s jurisdiction requires the allegation a right has been, or is being violated.
For those without the knowledge you and I have, Marc writes:
{Standing is the same wherever you go, the important elements are (1) the violation of a right, a legal injury; and (2) damage.}
Who is/was injured by anybody traveling faster than the politician's posted opinion?
So I'm going to toss your own inquiry back at you.
Why are so many Americans locked up?
Dale Eastman:
--- Quote from: Ms.X ---Americans get locked up because of for profit prisons.
--- End quote ---
It was my intent to dispute based upon percentages of inmates held. It seems for-profit prison corporations have meddled with alien rules and truth-in-sentencing and three-strikes legislation that help fuel the ’90s prison boom.
--- Quote from: Mother Jones ---In the early 1980s, the Corrections Corporation of America pioneered the idea of running prisons for a profit. “You just sell it like you were selling cars, or real estate, or hamburgers,” one of its founders told Inc. magazine. Today, corporate-run prisons hold eight percent of America’s inmates.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: Mother Jones further down the page ---As it did during at least the previous five years, CCA’s annual report flags criminal justice reform—including drug decriminalization and the reduction of mandatory minimum sentences—as a “risk factor” for its business.* Chris Epps, Mississippi’s prison commissioner and the president of the American Correctional Association, is charged with taking kickbacks from a private prison contractor.
--- End quote ---
Page link
--- Quote from: ACLU ---According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, for-profit companies were responsible for approximately 7 percent of state prisoners and 18 percent of federal prisoners in 2015 (the most recent numbers currently available). U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement reported that in 2016, private prisons held nearly three-quarters of federal immigration detainees.
--- End quote ---
Page link
I will point out that corporations are creations of the state.
--- Quote from: Ms.X ---"DT:{Very few people behave immorally}" -- this is the main thing we disagree on
--- End quote ---
By “we” I don't know if you mean DT or myself. Not that it matters, because DT and I agree on the point. And obviously you don't hence your words: Very few people behave morally.
I posit and submit that a part of this disagreement is because of your perception. As the twig is bent, so grows the tree. Your statement: My life experiences with a dysfunctional family tell me a lot about you. BTDT, and I didn't even get a tee shirt. Very few get lucky enough to not have a fucked-up family to mark them for life.
--- Quote from: Ms.X ---The people in my world and my life experience has been the opposite. Cruelty and very little kindness was shown to me.
--- End quote ---
I'm sorry to hear that.
My life experience has been to be on the receiving end of this anxiety. I would state: I wasn't there, I didn't do this to you. Why am I being punished for this having been done to you? The panic sometimes has been so intense that my words didn't register.
With all that said, I must poke you to respond to my earlier question: How do you define moral / immoral?
Dale Eastman:
--- Quote from: Ms.X ---I do not know exactly how to define morality but I would say the first step is to value life over property. As Suze Roman used to say, People first, then money, then things. Most people put things first and people last.
--- End quote ---
I don't see any reason for “life over property” to not fit within the boundaries of my definition. I define immoral as Doing to someone else that which you do not want done to yourself. Secular and simple.
I question your definition to better understand what you mean by Very few people behave morally. That is why voluntaryism is absurd.
I read that as you saying; Very few people behave in a way I do not know how to define. That is why voluntaryism is absurd. Observe my point and then forget about it. I can build upon what you did provide.
You claim that voluntaryism is absurd. An issue to be addressed is What exactly is voluntaryism? Another issue is How does people putting [other] people last negatively affect life under voluntaryism or make such life untenable? Only by discussing these issues can I understand what your actual complaint against voluntaryism is.
To start fleshing out what voluntaryism is, I will point out (again) that you are already a voluntaryist. It is by your free will that you are associating with me here on FB. Nobody is holding a gun to your head (literally, figuratively or by implication) and forcing you to interact with me. So the voluntary part is where you have voluntarily chosen to interact with me. This is how you interact with most people in your everyday life. Where do you buy gasoline for your car? Where do you go to see a movie? Where do you go for groceries? Free will – your choice. All voluntary, as in – NOT forced.
In contradistinction to voluntary, would be the unvoluntary interactions with the roadside bandits using threat of force to get people to the side of the road to rob them. You may know of this as getting a speeding ticket and fine. Consider this Marc Stevens' question: If I did business in the same manner as government, and forced people to give me money, would you consider me a criminal?
That's why I view the term “government” as a euphemism for men and women criminally forcing us to pay them.
In the context of this post, I find that I must request clarification from you regarding what your point is regarding people putting [other] people last.
Dale Eastman:
--- Quote from: Ms.X ---Not exactly. It is your dream not mine. I dream of control not freedom.
--- End quote ---
Not sure what you're saying "Not exactly" about. By context I must assume you are referring to "Tipping Point". If so, I suggest a web search → tipping point.
--- Quote from: Wikipedia ---Tipping point (sociology)
In sociology, a tipping point is a point in time when a group—or a large number of group members—rapidly and dramatically changes its behavior by widely adopting a previously rare practice.
10% of a Population
Scientists at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have found that when just 10 percent of the population holds an unshakable belief, their belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society. The scientists, who are members of the Social Cognitive Networks Academic Research Center (SCNARC) at Rensselaer, used computational and analytical methods to discover the tipping point where a minority belief becomes the majority opinion. The finding has implications for the study and influence of societal interactions ranging from the spread of innovations to the movement of political ideals.
In popular culture
The term was popularized in application to daily life by Malcolm Gladwell's 2000 bestselling book The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference.
--- End quote ---
I've re-ordered your sentences to best present logical responses.
--- Quote from: Ms.X ---I dream of an end to oligarchy.
--- End quote ---
I dream of people rejecting their superstitious, delusional belief, that provably bogus authority is valid.
It is this delusional belief, that bogus authority is valid, that allows the oligarchy to exist.
--- Quote ---oligarchy
n. Government by a few, especially by a small faction of persons or families.
n. Those making up such a government.
n. A state governed by a few persons.
--- End quote ---
Members of congress; 535: Population controlled by their bogus authority; approximately 326,000,000.
--- Quote from: Ms.X ---I dream of controlling others for their own benefit not giving morons freedom.
--- End quote ---
So you want to replace the oligarchy of 535 with the oligarchy of yourself?
No inconsistency there. /sarcasm
What makes you imagine you can even begin to control me for my own benefit?
What makes you imagine you can even begin to control 326,000,000 individuals for their own benefit?
Are all 326,000,000 of us morons in your book. PROVE IT! You need to supply 326,000,000 individual proofs.
As a point of logic, one does not give freedom. You are NOT born with any authority over anybody else, so you don't have freedom to give. You can only take it away by extortion. You have no valid authority over morons to begin with.
--- Quote from: Ms.X ---I dream of a more egalitarian world with less greed and racism.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: Merriam-Webster ---Definition of egalitarianism
1 :a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic affairs
2 :a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people
--- End quote ---
I dream of controlling others V. I dream of a more egalitarian world
If you are controlling others then you are NOT equal with those others.
I dream of a [...] world with less greed V. I dream of controlling others
Greedy for power to control others, eh?
Contradict much?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version