Author Topic: A Facebook Discussion part 2  (Read 3000 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,018
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
A Facebook Discussion part 2
« on: October 17, 2017, 04:31:40 PM »
Quote from: Ms.X
I do not like Voluntaryism and ANCAP ideology but D is trying to change that and doing a great job so far.

Okay, okay...
I'll take the bait of being tagged.

Full disclosure on my part means I must point out that I have only managed to get you to admit that “Might” does not make “Right.” As in “Might” does not make “Not Wrong.”

You said to DT:
Quote
I talk about the way the world is now. You talk about the way you wish the world could be. Big difference.

Yes! (Unfortunately.)

Although I would change that “You talk about the way you wish the world could be” to “You talk about the way the world should be

I have rejected my indoctrination... Mostly because applying critical thought exposes the errors of the indoctrination. A piece of that indoctrination was meant to get the little people to believe that Might make Right when those called government use it.

I'm not sure that I've made much of a difference in how you view “authority”. For me, this is the key starting point... And I am reiterating this so others can get on the same page...

I separate authority into two categories. (With thanks to you for forcing / helping me hone my thoughts on this.) Authority by consent is in the one category and authority by extortion is in the other.

Do what I tell you to do or I will hurt you, is not authority. It is extortion by threat, duress, and coercion to make you to obey me. Since Might makes Right is provably wrong, so is authority by Might; authority by extortion.

This truly is the way the world is now. You are correct with that observation. Authority by extortion is the way the world is now. Wrong is how the world is now.

This is attributed to  Martin Niemöller (1892–1984):
Quote
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

DT is speaking out. As are many others, myself included.

Quote from: Ms.X
DT Then why are you not initiating force against those who steal your $ via taxation?

I object to your wording. Defending one's self is not, nor will it ever be, “initiating” force.

Ponder this: If a cop behind you flips the switch to his red and/or blue disco lights turning them on, or in other words, lights you up, that cop has just initiated aggression and violence against you. This is authority by extortion.

Quote from: DT
If I defend myself they'll put me in a cage or kill me.

If a cop lights you up, your life is in danger, even if you've done nothing wrong.

I double dog dare any of you statists to follow this page for a week:
https://www.facebook.com/countercurrentnews/
Or:
https://www.facebook.com/policethepoliceACP/

Since DT's topic was taxation, look up Andrew Joseph Stack.
And along the same lines as AJS, look up Marvin Heemeyer.

Quote from: Ms.X
DT So you can't retaliate because they are more powerful than you -- that is exactly what I was trying to say -- when they took your tax money out of your check, that was an initiation of force against you and you can't retaliate on your own because they have an army and you don't

This is a correct observation, BUT DT does have a social media account to discuss the issues.

I have a Facebook account, a Facebook page, a user account on http://marcstevens.net/board/index.php and a hosted website.

Quote
You take politics too seriously

And I take extortion by criminals calling themselves government very seriously.

Quote
The evidence that tax cuts SNIP!

Taxation by what authority? Comply or die? That's called armed robbery.

It has taken me the better part of 3 hours to draft this post. I don't care for sound bite arguments.

And I will tell every body that the tax law does NOT say what you all have been indoctrinated to believe. Here's what my research has discovered: http://www.synapticsparks.info/tax/index.html

It's much simpler to just ask “What evidence do you have to prove that law applies to me?”
http://www.synapticsparks.info/government/Law.html




Natural Law Matters

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,018
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
Re: A Facebook Discussion part 2
« Reply #1 on: October 17, 2017, 04:58:33 PM »
Quote from: Ms.X
all the other anarchists who say taxation is theft have given up on me (not counting Mr. T who intends to argue about this forever until I worship Ayn Rand)

Socratic method...

What do you call it when a junkie waves a gun in a cashier's face and says “Gimme your money”?

Quote from: Ms.X
Most people think they have legitimate authority so they can get away with it

And that my dear, is exactly the point of challenging the superstitious belief in authority.

And I am answering to both references, the people (those calling themselves government) who think they have valid authority and the people (those not called government) who think that those called government have valid authority.

Quote from: Ms.X
-- also they do NOT put a gun in your face -- they send you a letter telling them you owe money and if they don't get it they audit you and if you have money they take it away and put you in jail.

What do you think happens when a person resists that arrest; resists that attempt to be forced into a cage?

Perhaps this will assist in your understanding of why I disagree with you about a gun in the face.
http://www.synapticsparks.info/government/Police.html#continuum

And by the way, I have personal first hand knowledge that the IRS fraudulently cons banks into coughing up money without a court order violating the constitution's rules.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2017, 05:32:21 PM by Admin »
Natural Law Matters

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,018
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
Re: A Facebook Discussion part 2
« Reply #2 on: October 17, 2017, 07:19:16 PM »
Quote from: Ms.X
Very impressive that website on police. You have clearly thought this out well. Yes if you resist arrest you likely are killed. That is why disobeying authority, even if not legitimate, is not wise.

That is exactly correct.

This is why Marc Stevens http://marcstevens.net/ writes things like this:

Quote
So when you’re preparing to defend against an attack in court, know they have no evidence, that the applicability of their rules (jurisdiction) is their Achilles’ Heel. So much so that prosecutors will impeach their own witness.

But always remember: cops are armed and extremely dangerous, do not speak to them unless they are on the witness stand. They do not like being challenged, we’re considered “a threat to officer safety” for asking questions. Don’t make the mistake I made and ask them questions on the street or their department. It’s not worth the risk. We can easily discredit them from a safe distance.

Quote from: Ms.X
My experience with many policemen has been very different. Nobody ever showed any violence and a few were very helpful, especially the one who talked my mother with Alzheimers into staying home or he'd have to take her to the psych ward.

Yeah, sometimes you get some that act human. Nevertheless and hat tip to Dr. Robert Higgs...




« Last Edit: October 18, 2017, 01:56:49 PM by Admin »
Natural Law Matters

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,018
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
Re: A Facebook Discussion part 2
« Reply #3 on: October 18, 2017, 09:43:10 AM »
Quote from: Ms.X
not all cops enforce all the laws....

Especially if you are in their club. I was pulled over for speeding, driving my wife to work. Wife and cop knew each other... Because their jobs had them interacting. No ticket.

Quote from: Ms.X
trust me....
  :) Hey, Hey! What's with the hostility? What did I do to offend you?
I know “trust me” is Yiddish for “fuck you.” :)

Quote from: Ms.X
my parents had dementia and they gave me more help than trouble - they felt sorry for me -- they were very human

The cops did NOT help my step-dad with my mother's dementia. The cops said it was a psych issue, the health people said it was a cop issue. This was in your corner of the continent - Port Charlotte, Fl.

I don't really want to air the family's dirty laundry in public... But, They're both dead now... She hit him in the carotid artery the day after he was released from the hospital for surgery to clear his carotid artery. He was a ww2 vet who minimized everything. She was up here visiting while he was hanging out in the bathroom as the eye of Charlie went right over Port Charlotte; The shingles were all stripped off the roof, but the damage was “not that bad.” The rest of the family had no idea what kind of hell she was putting him through. It wasn't until they moved back up here that the medical field pulled the trigger on “diminished capacity.”
/end digression

Quote from: Ms.X
-- and not once was I ever asked to get out of my car if stopped for speeding

It's much easier to identify an African American than an older female Jewish American. Can you validate that the cop(s) that stopped you are or are not members of the KKK? You are in “that” part of the country you know.

Stopped for speeding under what authority? And on this, you can ignore my proven point of: There is no authority.
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. (sic)

In the D of I are these words:
Quote
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:
Quote
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? How much did those stops for speeding end up sucking out of your wallet? How much money has been stolen by the cops for those called government to spend as they see fit?

Merriam-Webster defines a racketeer as one who obtains money by an illegal enterprise usually involving intimidation.

Stumbled across this blurb researching for this post:
Quote
Protection racketeering is when a criminal organization coerces someone to pay money for protection. Often the organization's members provide the protection from harm coming from not paying the protection fee. Extortion is unlawfully obtaining money by coercion.

Pay your speeding fine or we won't protect you from us.
Pay your taxes or we won't protect you from us.

Quote from: Ms.X
I am following your Counter Current News.

I actually watch very few of their videos. I get very pissed off. The wrongdoing by cops is a daily occurrence. That they are doing these wrongs to innocent people and have BOGUS authority... 'Scuse me while I regain my composure.

Quote from: Ms.X
When I said that Dan takes politics too seriously, I meant that out of all the people I argue with, he is the only one who gets furious when someone disagrees.

DT, may I suggest that you review this Larken Rose video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6jXbNt6LKs

Quote from: Ms.X
Since I understand rage, and it often leads to me losing control (panic attacks) I think this is a problem.

Yeah, I can understand that. Especially with what you told me in (I assume) confidence. May I suggest you incorporate one of my methods. Unless you have personal physical interaction with someone, keep in your mind, he is just words on a computer screen, not much different than playing a computer game.

Quote from: Ms.X
You can't convince every human being that capitalism is wonderful and that taxation is extortion.

I am not presently qualified to address your points about capitalism. We have not agreed on what capitalism and its related terms mean.

That taxation is theft by extortion is provable.

And yes, proving does not convince. There are even psych studies that show the stronger the evidence that refutes a belief, the harder the believer grasps the belief.

One method is to remove the statist framing to allow for a different view.

I'm going to request you re-read our interchange where I asked you what's the difference between a junkie or an IRS agent sticking a gun in your face. The result is the same, If you do not comply you will be hurt.

You correctly observed that for most, the difference is the (Larken would say superstitious, I say delusional) belief in authority. Remove that belief and the agent and the junkie are exactly the same.

Quote from: Ms.X
That makes all governments illegitimate authorities....

Yes it does.

Though I prefer “bogus” instead of “illegitimate.”

Quote from: Ms.X
but if the other countries have armies, does not our country have to have the mightiest army since might may not make right but only the strongest survive?

That is an excellent observation/ question. My answer is MAYBE. Your question itself raises other questions.

Without criminals calling themselves Central North America's government using their monopoly on force to keep guns out of the hands of the peons using laws (politician's opinions)to restrict the peon's access, what's to keep the peons from having the tools necessary to protect themselves?

According to various net sources, there is over 300,000,000 guns in Central North America. Wikipedia claims 1.12 per resident. Without gun grabbers the numbers could easily become greater. Especially when the gun grabbers start to understand that self defense and self protection both start with self.

Side note:
It is my understanding that privately owned cannon were used in the war against Britain.

One of those questions your question raises, is: What other countries, that have armies, could possibly invade Middle North America? What would be their goal? How would they attack in keeping with that goal?

The Roman army invaded the world. Why? A larger tax base. More victims to rob.

There is a quote with a false attribution to Japanese Fleet Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto. The false attribution does not change the truth of the quote: You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. Or at least there would be if the mentally ill gun grabbers don't get their way.

According to the US Census Bureau my county's 2005 population was 160,544. According to my County Sheriff’s website there are 49 uniformed supervisors and deputies that respond to 911 calls. That means the Citizen to sheriff ratio is 3,276:1. Divide by 3 shifts for 24 hour coverage and the ratio is 9,829:1. I know for a fact from good sources the the west side of the county only has 2 deputies on patrol. There's a reason for the book titled DIAL 911 AND DIE.

In order for another country to invade, that country's criminals called government must coerce and lie to their populace to get backing to invade... You know... Like Shrub's Weapons of Mass Destruction.

You want to see evidence of WMD's? So did I. Until I found it.

{The U.S. military uses tank armor and some bullets made with depleted uranium (DU) to penetrate enemy armored vehicles, and began using DU on a large scale during the Gulf War.

The process of manufacturing enriched uranium from natural uranium used in nuclear reactors or weapons leaves "depleted" uranium. DU has 40 percent less radioactivity, but the same chemical toxicity as natural uranium.}
Please take note of the 'government' source: https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/depleted_uranium/index.asp

Just search for → depleted uranium ammunition

As a meme states: War is when your government tells you who the enemy is. Revolution is when you figure it out for yourself.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2017, 02:51:44 PM by Admin »
Natural Law Matters

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,018
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
Re: A Facebook Discussion part 2
« Reply #4 on: October 18, 2017, 01:50:25 PM »
Quote from: Ms.X
It is time for revolution but if the government has so many weapons, depleted uraniam, nukes, chemical warfare -- such a war can have only many losers and no winners.

Non-violently is the only way to win. I am fighting that war right now by trying to get you to understand my position.

As Larken Rose has observed, nobody goes back to being a statist once they have quit being a statist. It's a one way street.

There is a concept and a book called The Tipping Point.

When enough people realize that belief in authority is a delusion, things will change. I'm putting a link to a partial story at the bottom. I found it entertaining and it presents a political ideology to think about... F – IW.

Quote from: Ms.X
Why do soldiers voluntarily sign up given what the government does to its marines?
I'm going to parse your question like this:
Why do people voluntarily sign up given what 'government' does to its military personnel?

They do not know about Nuremberg Principal #4 which states:
Quote
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

So when the Cheeto-in-chief... Er, the Commander-in-chief says, Go to that foreign place and kill those people who are different, the cannon fodder who have a delusional belief in authority believe it is their duty to go kill people who are different. With predator drones, they don't even have to go to that foreign place to kill people who are different. Ain't technology grand?

It's what a true patriot would do.  Yep. Mindless patriots will obey their Commander-in-chief's every edict. Whether his name is Trump or Hitler.

Soon to be military personnel do not know that From 1963 to 1969 as part of Project Shipboard Hazard and Defense (SHAD), the U.S. Army performed tests which involved spraying several U.S. ships with various biological and chemical warfare agents, while thousands of U.S. military personnel were aboard the ships. The personnel were not notified of the tests, and were not given any protective clothing. Chemicals tested on the U.S. military personnel included the nerve gases VX and Sarin, toxic chemicals such as zinc cadmium sulfide and sulfur dioxide, and a variety of biological agents. Source: Wikipedia.

Quote from: Ms.X
Do they really not know?

Correct.

Who does the military want and why?
Young, dumb, and full of cum males. If they are young, it is easier to bullshit them about authority. also called the chain of command.

Who joins the military and for what reasons?
Young dumb and full of cum males. For training or for jobs. You've seen the ads.

Or do they have no other employment opportunities at all?

I joined and spent 4 years as a welfare whore wearing the team's color of green. I did question joining that team because I knew I was promising to put my ass in harm's way. I also considered that in 1975, after years of watching the Viet Nam body counts with my evening meals and Nixon's 1973 “Peace with Honor” I'd be safe for awhile.

It should be noted that the last time a military action was taken under declaration of war was WWII. The Korean War was not a declared war. The Viet Nam War was not a declared war. No military action since WWII was recognized as a congressionally sanctioned war.

F – IW:
http://www.abelard.org/e-f-russell.php
Natural Law Matters

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,018
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
Re: A Facebook Discussion part 2
« Reply #5 on: October 19, 2017, 11:31:27 AM »
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?

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.

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.

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) […]

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.

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.

Quote
Yes as is made clear by this awesome song Hero of War.
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAG1i3JfUvA

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

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

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.

Of that I am sure.

However, their only power is their goons who believe they have authority.
Natural Law Matters

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,018
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
Re: A Facebook Discussion part 2
« Reply #6 on: October 19, 2017, 04:35:11 PM »
Quote from: DT
Try government-instituted central banking. One of the Communist tenets. Definitely not a part of free market capitalism.

Quote from: Ms.X
and how would you change the system set up by the powerful central bankers without violence?

Bitcoin and / or any other crypto currency.

Quote from: Ms.X
Very few people behave morally. That is why voluntaryism is absurd.

Quote from: DT
Very few people behave immorally

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?
« Last Edit: October 21, 2017, 09:47:35 AM by Admin »
Natural Law Matters

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,018
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
Re: A Facebook Discussion part 2
« Reply #7 on: October 19, 2017, 06:07:14 PM »
Quote from: Ms.X
Americans get locked up because of for profit prisons.

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.

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.
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.
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

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.

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?
Natural Law Matters

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,018
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
Re: A Facebook Discussion part 2
« Reply #8 on: October 20, 2017, 08:36:13 AM »
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.

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.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2017, 09:45:48 AM by Admin »
Natural Law Matters

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,018
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
Re: A Facebook Discussion part 2
« Reply #9 on: October 20, 2017, 04:04:41 PM »
Quote from: Ms.X
Not exactly. It is your dream not mine. I dream of control not freedom.

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.

I've re-ordered your sentences to best present logical responses.

Quote from: Ms.X
I dream of an end to oligarchy.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?
Natural Law Matters

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,018
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
Re: A Facebook Discussion part 2
« Reply #10 on: October 21, 2017, 10:29:03 AM »
"So you want to replace the oligarchy of 535 with the oligarchy of yourself?"

Quote from: Ms.X
Yes and I'm not being sarcastic. I want power which only comes with wealth but I don't want the things wealth can buy just the power. I know I will never have such power but you asked if I want it so I'm being honest.

Since you recognize that you will never have that power, my attempt to get you to see that your designs for world domination are evil amounts to mental masturbation on my part. With your statement you convey to me that you don't care that what you want is to increase evil in the world.

Quote from: Ms.X
Being greedy for power is different than being greedy for luxuries, don't you think?

Not at all.

The term luxury has not been defined. And what counts as a luxury is relative. A flush toilet in a 12th century castle in the 12th century would be a luxury, don't you think.

Setting aside the corrupt monetary policy of the elite, If I want a luxury, I trade my labor (my property) for the coin of the realm and when I have enough coins of the realm, I exchange them for that luxury.

As to you being greedy for power and wanting to be the oligarch, here's some definitions found under the head of MEGALOMANIA.
A psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence.
An obsession with grandiose or extravagant things or actions.
A form of mental alienation in which the patient has grandiose delusions.
A psychological state characterized by delusions of grandeur.
The belief that you are much more important and powerful than you really are.
And an interesting search result: Narcissistic personality disorder.

Seems to me that you are arguing from a position of stinking thinking.

Quote from: Ms.X
If I were in charge there would be less inequality because I'd be the one who decides.

Grandiose much?

Your authority would be just as bogus as those you replace.
And I absolutely must question, when you are told to go pound sand in response to your edicts, what are you going to do? Use your power inequality to hurt those who are disobeying your commands?  You can not retain your bogus authority without adding evil to the world.

Quote from: Ms.X
There will never be egalitarian -- I just want less unequal in wealth not in power

I will just brush against this in passing. Wealth has not been defined. Wealth includes my bicycle, my chess board, and my computer. Wealth also includes what passes for money, a separate discussion.

There is wealth acquired by exchange of labor, services, and goods; and There is wealth acquired by deception, theft, and strong-arm robbery. So how much of the wealth inequality is created by crime? And by crime, I also mean laws that create unlevel playing fields. In a word: Monsanto.

Quote from: Ms.X
Morons smoke crack and keep the pregnancy and then dump it somewhere.

How many of those crack babies have you fostered?
You don't need criminals calling themselves government to take care of those babies.

Quote from: Ms.X
Morons get pregnant at 15 to go on welfare and avoid education.

OBJECTION!
Welfare is money the criminals called government extort from the people who earn it.
Welfare is what allows its recipients to avoid education.
I have an acquaintance who was on welfare. She got a job and needed just a little help. Health insurance for her children. The system was all or nothing. So much for motivation to get off gubmint's teat.

Quote from: Ms.X
Morons shoot people and spend their lives in jail.

No! Criminals shoot people and spend their lives in jail.
But not if they have a shiny badge and a blue costume.
You are still following Counter Current News and Police the Police aren't you?

Quote from: Ms.X
Morons eat poison. Morons shoot up heroin.

Okay. You've just described situations of evolution in action.
What are you going to do as the oligarch, attach the death penalty to attempted suicide?
I've read a description of drug use as “self-medication.” You get your PTSD meds by prescription; others self-prescribe.

Quote from: Ms.X
No I can't control what they do but I can change the laws so that serial breeders do not get extra money every time they pop out a child.

Sigh.
LMPTFY. Let me parse that for you:
I can change the politician's opinions so that serial breeders do not get extra loot, booty, plunder every time they pop out a child.

No criminals called gubmint: no loot, booty, plunder to be given to others, extra or otherwise.

Quote from: Ms.X
I can change legislation with power and thus attempt to steer the morons to a better path.

LMPTFY:
I can change politician's opinion's with power and thus issue comply or die edicts to those I think are morons.

Quote from: Ms.X
Will I success with everyone? No?

The reality is you will succeed with NO one... Unless you intend to emulate those who thought like you.

Your words
Quote from: Ms.X
of course I will kill those who don't want to do things my way -- it is about CONTROL

That's exactly how these people thought: Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, Marshall Joseph, Tito, General Augusto Pinochet, Idi Amin, Ho Chi Minh, Saddam Hussein, Ayatollah Khomeini, Pol Pot.

So it appears that great minds do think alike.
/Snarcasm

Repeating with a one word change:
3. You want to make things better by making morons to live healthier lives by exercising, eating a well balanced diet, not smoking, not drinking alcohol, not using drugs, not eating too much candy. What would you do about their refusal to obey? Silly question... Asked and answered: “of course I will kill those who don't want to do things my way” Killing people makes their lives healthier?

Quote from: Ms.X
Social workers want to make the world better. So do I. That requires power and control, not freedom.

So you claim. Understand that to gain and use that power and control you must add to the evil in the world.

Quote from: Ms.X
Freedom does not excite me much as I already feel free enough despite the existence of the IRS and government.

The irony of a scoff law calling for more law is not lost on me.


Quote from: KV
I fear a good person with power and my best interests at heart more than I do bad people with bad intentions.

Quote from: Ms.X
why?

Quote from: Lysander Spooner
The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.
Natural Law Matters

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,018
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
Re: A Facebook Discussion part 2
« Reply #11 on: October 21, 2017, 04:15:28 PM »
Ms.X posted this to my timeline
Quote
CT has a comment that I liked so much I am going to share it:

Corporatism is a form of State Capitalism. Most common in Fascism. Cappies claiming that western 'mixed economies' are remotely Corporatist are deluded. 'Durrrrr duh regulations mang,' that's not Corporatism... that's simply a regulated market. The majority of regulations are against actual monopolies/duopolies/oligopolies that came to exist naturally... because that's what 'muh free market Capitalism' leads to when left to run its natural course.

Cappies don't seem to grasp that the vast majority of wealth has been in the hands of a tiny fraction of the population for millennia - and even as that 'expands' it's barely by a fraction of that fraction. So of course wealth ends up becoming relatively centralised resulting in massive market dominance that would be even more horrid than it is if it weren't regulated.

If you want an economy where everybody actually has a chance to engage in a FREED market then you'll be a Mutualist/Left-wing Market Anarchist... because despite all your blind faith, 'muh invisible hand' isn't going to overpower the influence of billions/trillions of dollars in wealth/resources/capital.

Quote from: Ms.X
What do you say D?

I say Voltaire was correct when he stated: If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.
I say there are several terms that must be defined for productive dialog to happen.
I say the label Cappie is devoid of meaning.
I say the label Cappie is meant to pigeon hole a somewhat affiliated class of people without regard for their differences.

CT is in error when he claims regulations are not corporatism, that's simply a regulated market.

Quote from: Wikipedia
Regulatory capture is a form of government failure that occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating.[1] When regulatory capture occurs, the interests of firms or political groups are prioritized over the interests of the public, leading to a net loss to society as a whole. Government agencies suffering regulatory capture are called "captured agencies".

Quote from: CATO Institute
The facts point in an entirely different direction:
• Enron was a tireless advocate of strict global energy regulations supported by environmentalists. Enron also used its influence in Washington to keep laissez-faire bureaucrats off the federal commissions that regulate the energy industry.
• Philip Morris has aggressively supported heightened federal regulation of tobacco and tobacco advertising. Meanwhile, the state governments that sued Big Tobacco are now working to protect those same large cigarette companies from competition and lawsuits.
• A recent tax increase in Virginia passed because of the tireless support of the state's business leaders, and big business has a long history of supporting tax hikes.
• General Motors provided critical support for new stricter clean air rules that boosted the company's bottom line.
[...]
The History of Big Business Is the History of Big Government
As the federal government has progressively become larger over the decades, every significant introduction of government regulation, taxation, and spending has been to the benefit of some big business.

Quote
The majority of regulations are against actual monopolies/duopolies/oligopolies that came to exist naturally

Zatso?  How many cable providers can you choose from in your locality?

Quote from: 'Tampa Bay Online'
Cable companies may hold local monopolies, but local governments and public utility commissions dictate this lack of competition through sweetheart deals designed to line the pockets of the city at the consumer’s expense.
[…]
When government decides who can and can’t compete in a market, it’s free to set whatever fees it wishes for right-of-way use and institute whatever regulatory barriers it wants. This has naturally created a system of kickbacks, through which cable companies agree to pay absurd user fees in exchange for special treatment, with the government agency using its regulatory powers to prevent competitors from entering the market. Thus, consumers are generally left with the choice of one cable provider, which is free to charge whatever rates it chooses without fear of losing its market share to a low-cost competitor.

The invisible hand is that which guides people to Walmart instead of higher priced stores selling the exact same goods. The invisible hand is that which rewards the manufacturers who provide products more efficiently at a lower price. The invisible hand is why VHS became the video recording standard even though BetaMax was a higher quality format. Price and recording time being two factors.

Missing definitions:
What is capitalism?
What is a free market?
What is wealth?
What is money?
What is commodity money?
What is receipt money?
What is fiat money?
What is fractional money?
What is fractional reserve banking?
Natural Law Matters