Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

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

Message icon:

(Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, rtf, mp3, webp, odt, html
Restrictions: 4 per post, maximum total size 30000KB, maximum individual size 30000KB
Note that any files attached will not be displayed until approved by a moderator.
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: September 30, 2020, 10:54:18 AM »

Let me introduce you to a universal problem throughout all of human history, which predates the first written legal system:
Larken Rose
➽ a huge gang of thieving parasites doesn't "keep in check" the private crooks, nor vice versa.

To amplify what LR wrote: The private crooks are used as a justification, read: excuse, for the upper class' thievery. We be protecting you from the private crooks.
➽ Urban Dictionary: thug:
⚠ A thug is typically referred to a male or female who commits crimes for personal gain through stealing, selling drugs, but especially violent crimes such as robbery and assault. ⛔
Euphemism: n. A mild, indirect, or vague term for one that is considered harsh, blunt or offensive;
And I emphatically add: accurately descriptive.
Government - a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.
Now you see why I am making equivalences. I never said the government weren't thugs. But they are keeping other thugs in check.
➽ I never said the government weren't thugs. But they are keeping other thugs in check.

That's like saying you hire a pedophile to watch your children to protect them from other pedophiles.

And I'm observing your comments knowing that you are trying to make an anti anarchy case.
I'm not hiring the government to do anything. I'm not even supporting the government. I'm not anti anarchy, I'm just anti violent anarchy. An example of violent anarchy is anti free speech antifa. If we can have peaceful anarchy, I am all for it. I'm just observing that we can't right now. I am describing, not prescribing.
I can appreciate that explanation. Thank you for that. Others might not be so lenient in their examination of you because of your previous posts.

I was reviewing your comments replying to other posters with the purpose of replying to some of those comments when I see you have already replied. Good Morning.

Violent anarchy is not anarchy. If pressed I would have to admit that violence *COULD* be the result of anarchy in its purest sense: No Rulers, No Ruling Class.

Those who fear "anarchy" in its co-opted meaning of terrorists, window breakers, and chaos don't have a clue. And I'm not sure you do either, although I'm not convinced your thinking is totally co-opted to the fear-mongering thoughts. (IMO, this is deliberate by those in the ruling class so they can attempt to justify their ruler status.)

Sadly, this is what I see you doing. I see you supporting the current ruling class. To wit:

➽ Granny You prefer the Italian mobs, Hell's Angels, La Raza, etc? Ever had any experience with those?

Have you?

I've never heard of La Raza, lengua española: "The race". Nothing appears in the first page hits synopses that indicates gang activity.
Slow down and think, please.

As to an Italian gang and a Motorcycle gang; the "government" gang uses the same methods: "Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you." A.k.a. "Extortion."

➽ The US gov is a protection racket that shuts down other protection rackets. What, you can't even compare the pros and cons of two protection rackets?

You write of "protection rackets", which, IMO, you have incorrectly labelled. I automatically translate that label to its truth: "Extortion rackets". For this reason, I end up sometimes being very pedantic (A pedant is a person who is excessively concerned with formalism, accuracy, and precision). You might say that I am very anti-euphemisms. "Protection extortion racket" would not have caused me to challenge the label used.

The very fact that you write of the "pros" of a "Protection extortion racket" says to me that you might have a broken moral compass.

Having a ruling class or not having a ruling class makes no difference regarding what is an actual crime. An actual crime is where one person injures or harms another. Jay-walking, speeding, drinking unpasteurized milk, and ingesting drugs (in contradistinction to ingesting medicines) is not a crime regardless of the ruling class' edicts that it is.

Anarchy, being without rulers or a ruling class does not mean without rules. I don't need a ruling class to order me to not harm you or yours. My default interactive state with others is to treat them as I wish to be treated.

Consider this: The ruling classes have made laws against murder since time immemorial. There have also been murders in spite of the rules against murder since time immemorial. People who murder don't pay any attention to laws against murder. People who don't murder don't need to pay any attention to laws against murder. I have a standing rhetorical question: If the ruling class and its rules against murder disappeared tomorrow, would you go commit a murder?

Since "anarchy" has been co-opted and corrupted in its meaning, Liberty minded folk have started using the term "Voluntary Society". They identify with "Voluntaryists". I'm seeing that the term has not reached the common lexicon yet. I've more to say on this topic, but not right now.
There are similarities, but also differences. All you look at is the similarities and not at all the differences. You're just bad at predicting what would happen if you were targeted by an illegal gang compared to the government.
There are similarities, but also differences. All you look at is the similarities and not at all the differences between John Wayne Gacy and Jeffrey Lionel Dahmer...

Gacy was killed by lethal injection by the state of Illinois. Dahmer was beat to death by another inmate in Wisconsin.
Who gives a shit about the differences? I don't. The similarities are that they are ALL killers, Gacy, Dahmer, and Government.
6 days and no reply.

Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: September 29, 2020, 06:30:23 AM »

If anarchist influencers:
-spread rumors
-presume guilt
-psychiatrically diagnose
-denigrate based on age
How good will their "anarchy" be?
➽ If anarchist influencers:
-spread rumors
-presume guilt
-psychiatrically diagnose
-denigrate based on age
How good will their "anarchy" be?

Sorry... I don't understand the point you are trying to make. What do you mean when you use the word "anarchy"?
without "ruler". How good will a state of "rulerlessness" be when the tendency of the "free people" is to presume guilt, use psychiatric labels, etc? Witch hunts and the tyranny of the majority are MUCH older than written law.
Thank you for answering the question. So we do agree on that meaning.

➽ How good will a state of "rulerlessness" be when the tendency of the "free people" is to presume guilt, psychiatric diagnosis, etc?

Good question... For a convo starter.

What about the not free people, in a state of being ruled, who have the tendency to "-spread rumors -presume guilt -psychiatrically diagnose -denigrate based on age"?

Oh snap! That's what popularity contests (called elections) do and use to get the voting delusional believers to religiously choose their next owners.

Rulers rule, Leaders lead.
What's the difference?
Rulers will have you caged or killed if you refuse to obey their edicts. Leaders will not.

So... To tie this in to the OP:
What are the voters actually voting for?

Next post: I will question what you think anarchy is or will look like.