Author Topic: GE  (Read 121 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,695
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
GE
« on: November 28, 2020, 09:21:44 AM »
Quote
Like it or not, the Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms is the only fucking thing keeping you alive. The people who want to enslave you are not going to be so impressed by your "intellectual prowess", that they won't murder all of you in large numbers.
Quote
Please explain how four pieces of parchment give anybody a right to possess tools of defense...
Something people had a right to possess before the tyranny of government was invented?
Quote
Those "four pieces of parchment" are the opportunity to resolve the issue of self defense peacefuly through due process of law instead of overt violence.
Generally speaking... A "right" is a legal and/or lawful claim. Legal = procedural. Lawful = constraints within truth. The Constitution is the law of the land in THIS country. The "right to self defense" is a legal Constitutional Right. The "right to self defense" is also a lawful Human Right.
The issue is the venue and jurisdiction and the identity of the arbitrator [dispute resolution entity] in any dispute regarding the right to self defense. The plaintiff is most likely the oppressor (who wants to remove the right of self defense) and the defendant is the oppressed. In this country, we can still use the "4 pieces of parchment that no one signed" in peaceful legal arbitration. Under natural Law, if you want that right of self defense; you will need to use violence.
Quote
Okay... You have my attention.

I perceive you as being "somewhat" Liberty minded. I use the descriptor "somewhat" because I think we may have to come to agreement on what certain terms mean. That we don't have initial agreement is what I read in your words. Sorry in advance, I am an asshole stickler on certain terms.

What I see you stating is something akin to saying, you have no problem using an attacker's tools against them. I have no issue with that concept per se. My issue is your understanding of those tools.

You are flapping your fingers about this thing called "lawful". What, specifically, is this "law" that is a required part of "lawful"? Where did it come from? Where did it get its alleged "authority"?

➽ The issue is the venue and jurisdiction and the identity of the arbitrator [dispute resolution entity] in any dispute regarding the right to self defense.

Who is the arbitrator? Where did they get their alleged authority? Who gets to choose the arbitrator?

What, specifically, do you mean by "the right to self defense"? What, specifically, do you see as a conflict regarding a right to self defense?

I'll end this here for now. Your articulation of your meaning and intent is a bit jumbled. So for the moment, I must set aside that which I have not addressed.
Quote
Ideally, I would like to see the human race end up with a system of anarchy and peaceful self rule similar to Stefan Molyneux's practical anarchy series of books. (using dispute resolution organizations, etc.). Hypothetically, if that system is being used as a goal; current systems can be quantized (by lack of centralized control and more toward decentralized system based upon individual freedoms and rights) as being either closer or farther from that goal. That being said, the constitution is closer to that goal regarding individual rights, but further from that goal regarding the centralization of power. In the larger view, the constitution is better than the ten planks of the communist manifesto. As much as i would like to jump to the end goal of peaceful self rule, we can't get there from here directly. we need to take steps toward that goal.
The united states may be closer than goal than anywhere else on this planet. The constitution is closer to that goal than the communist manifesto, so we should not be trashing the constitution so quickly while there are still communists and socialists in large numbers and in key places of education and policy in this country. thanks for engaging in cordial conversation.
i sincerely appreciate that. https://www.freedomain.com/2019/07/18/practical-anarchy/?
Quote
I will be reading your link.
Quote
Awesome, i hope you like those books. they are free and available as audio files too. There are a few books in the series. i can't remember what the best order they are in to read. I think that this book (https://www.freedomain.com/2019/07/18/everyday-anarchy/?) is first in the series.
Quote
There have been negative comments about your author, Stefan Molyneux. That was all I really remembered upon reading his name. On the bottom of page 20 and the top of page 21, is clearly stated the reasons why Mr. Molyneux has been called a sell out.

Quoting Molyneux:
⚠ One swallow does not a summer make; nor do bad politicians invalidate the value of government as a whole.

Furthermore, isn’t it rather childish to suggest that we rid ourselves of an institution that is so open and responsive to our feedback? We live in a democracy, for heaven’s sake – why throw the baby out with the bathwater, when we can get involved and change the system? If we do not like a particular company’s business practices, we do not have to throw out “capitalism” as a whole – we can inform others about their odious practices, organize boycotts and so on. Surely the communicative power of the Internet has removed significant barriers to freedom of self expression and the exchange of information, to the point where we no longer need to sit back when an institution fails to serve us, but rather we can very quickly and effectively work to bring about change in our political system.⛔

So I was correct in my first estimation of your position. The above quote of Molyneux shows him to be a government worshiping statist.

So I went looking for the negative comment I read about Molyneux. It was posted 11-29-2017. Hearsay repeated:
⚠ Larken Rose, via facebook Wrote:
⚠ Stefan Molyneux Wrote:
The nation-state is something that I have grown much more comfortable with, and even admiring of.⛔

He said that today. I have long wondered why he seemed to have lost his marbles over time, arguing stuff he KNOWS to be bullshit, using deception and vague terminology and "reasoning" that he KNOWS to be dishonest and slimy. I heard people theorizing that he was paid off, or that his family was threatened, or whatever. None of that quite seemed to make sense to me.

Stefan is not a stupid guy. He is very informed and very intelligent. He's also now a full-fledged boot-licking state-worshiping lying sack of shit. And yes, I mean he is a LIAR, not just mistaken. Those who understand not only the philosophy of self-ownership and non-aggression, but also how propaganda works, should be able to see the intentional deceptions he now uses constantly.

And it does occur to me, if I had trillions of dollars, and was a propagandist for the ruling class, he has become EXACTLY what I would have created from the beginning, to try to rope in as many people as possible by sending out the principled voluntaryist message, only to then drift off course, bring in the same slimy propaganda mind control that parasites have always used, to either drag people away from advocating freedom, or at least to make much of the "movement" feel discouraged and frustrated by seeing "one of their own" (or one who spent years PRETENDING to be one of their own) do this.

Stefan, whether you sold out along the way, or had this agenda in mind from the beginning, fuck you. May your nation-state masters grind you up and feed you to their dogs the moment you cease to be useful to them.
Stefan, whether you sold out along the way, or had this agenda in mind from the beginning, fuck you. May your nation-state masters grind you up and feed you to their dogs the moment you cease to be useful to them.⛔

So... I'm going to scroll back up, review what I have posted, and repeat what you have ignored.
Quote
What, specifically, is this "law" that is a required part of "lawful"? Where did it come from? Where did it get its alleged "authority"?

Decode for an easier review of our discussion:
synapticsparksDOTinfo/dialog/index.php?topic=782.0
Quote
I was trying to differentiate between "lawful" and "legal".
Lawful [in this context] meaning truthful, self evident, scientifically provable and universally preferred behavior. Outside of the matrix in actual reality.
And "legal" meaning procedural. Inside the matrix. Idem sonance. Strawman. Where it's Ok to do something that would not be lawful, but it's OK here in the matrix as long as you follow a particular arbitrary legal procedure, religious ritual or otherwise lesser jurisdiction than Lawful.
for example.
It would normally be unlawful to rape a child or to place a child on a large stone at the base of a pyramid and then cut the heart out of a living child ... Unless ... you follow the "legal" guidelines of some arbitrary code, policy or religious ritual.
The inside/outside the matrix refers to the difference between the Law of the land vs the law of the sea that has been brought to the land here in the US. see link for a side-by-side comparison of the 2 systems. http://www.gemworld.com/USAvsUS.htm
thanks!
Quote
First, you did NOT answer my question: What, specifically, is this "law" that is a required part of "lawful"?

To save some time: From my website:
⚠ An elected alleged Representative will write, dicker, and then vote with other alleged Representatives regarding a new law and if 51% of the alleged Representatives voting agree that thou shalt have no lilacs growing on your property, then that is the law and thou shalt have no lilacs growing on your property.

In legal terms, such laws are known as a malum prohibitum laws.

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

There are many laws that are functionally the same as this hypothetical anti-Lilac law in the law books commanding that acts or omissions are illegal because of some politician's written opinions; Act or omissions that do not cause harm to any other human in that society.⛔

Do you agree / disagree? If disagree, why?

The first words of your linked page are:
American Governance
I've copied them here as a reminder to myself to address the concept of "governing".
« Last Edit: November 29, 2020, 02:17:59 PM by Admin »
Natural Law Matters