CreateDebate


Kitk34's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Kitk34's arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

You are pretty stupid though you cannot deny this

Says the rock to himself.

1 point

Lol. It's you're. Your is the possessive pronoun.

"Ooh, look at me, I'm a grammar nazi now." Dude, whatever. Is that the best you got? Correcting me on a typo? Okay.

I don't have anything against you personally, but yes, I find it stupid that you write 15,000 word essays of outrageous, self-contradictory nonsense, without first grasping the basics of what you are trying to have a discussion about.

HA! As if I have actually done that. You claiming it does not make it so, right? Anything that I have posted as an argument, was not disproven. You just claim "Non-sense!" and follow it up with insults.

Most of what I wrote in response to you and your buddy Jody, is lengthy because both of yours were long to begin with. I was responding point by point, but that is okay. I am pretty much done with the both of you.

1 point

I pointed them out and you ignored them , that’s what you do you ignore every counter to your arguments

I refuted what you had said with valid points. The experiment, while having an ethical framework that is questioned, had good data that illustrated there are those who are willing to obey authority, while ignoring what their own conscience tells them.

No you showed nothing , the people were told constantly they had to do it and it was a great thing they were doing for science they could not see the subjects face either , Milgram was only interested in fame and fortune

That just made my point. They were told, constantly because they did not want to go on, but continued anyways, with the say so of the "authority" over the experiment. Milgram's motives have been called into question over the years, but this does not disprove the results.

You keep assuming because you say something it’s true , the reverse being the case as you refuse to investigate the matter

I have investigated it. Years ago and now. I suppose you'll tell me that the Stanford Experiment was false, as well.

You did “research “ to confirm your findings not to falsify them making your research utterly useless.

Oh, bullshit. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

So far, you haven't provided any links to your own sources.

I asked if the ones giving the shock would also pull out toe nails with a pliers and you said “yes and this experiment proves it “ this clearly demonstrates you’re totally biased and not interested in anything that doesn’t support your narritive

I said that I would hope they would not do it, but that it would likely be the same amount as the original scenario. I did not say that this experiment proves it. "Likely" being the key word.

Yet I keep doing it and you’re not listening

You've, actually, made my points for me. It still illustrates the points I have already spoken of. Yet, you aren't listening because your mind is made up that the whole thing is useless.

Ha, ha , when I was 17 I went on a one day course for an Army training day which was used to determine whether one wished to join the military , it went pretty well until four hours in a commanding officer threw his boots at me and roared “ clean these boots boy “ .....I said “ clean your own fucking boots you toad faced fuck “ ........I found myself outside the main gates and told to fuck off and never show my face again ......so there’s your answer

Ah, well, good for you. But you did not answer my second question, "How many do you think would?"

Do a bit of research you clown before you post up another pile of bullshit because you have do none such is your school girl crush mentality towards Milgram

Bullshit coming from you some more. I swear, you're a rock, but one that talks back.

“There’s a lot of dirty laundry in those archives,” said Arthur Miller, a professor emeritus of psychology at Miami University and another co-editor of the Journal of Social Issues. “Critics of Milgram seem to want to—and do—find material in these archives that makes Milgram look bad or unethical or, in some cases, a liar.”

One of the most vocal of those critics is Australian author and psychologist Gina Perry, who documented her experience tracking down Milgram’s research participants in her 2013 book Behind the Shock Machine: The Untold Story of the Notorious Milgram Psychology Experiments. Her project began as an effort to write about the experiments from the perspective of the participants—but when she went back through the archives to confirm some of their stories, she said, she found some glaring issues with Milgram’s data. Among her accusations: that the supervisors went off script in their prods to the teachers, that some of the volunteers were aware that the setup was a hoax, and that others weren’t debriefed on the whole thing until months later. “My main issue is that methodologically, there have been so many problems with Milgram’s research that we have to start re-examining the textbook descriptions of the research,” she said.

There have been similar experiments done that coincide with Milgram's and they get similar results. His critics might have him on some ethical things, but it does not disprove the FACT that there are those who will obey "authority", even against their own Conscience, Judgement, Moral code or compass, Intuition, what-have-you. That internal voice that says "Stop doing this!"

A Remake of The Milgram Experiment
1 point

Hitler didn't disarm the Jewish population. The Jewish population was already unarmed because the Weimar Republic had outright banned guns throughout Germany. Hitler changed the law to permit private citizens to own guns, but he excluded Jews and opposition groups.

Actually, according to the link provided, The Weimar Republic still allowed, with weapons permits, "authorized persons" to have firearms. The Legal foundation to disarm the Jews, was laid down by the Republic and used by the Nazis as an excuse to confiscate weapons from the Jewish people and others, such as Gypsies.

However, Hitler and his Nazis enacted stricter "laws" in 1938. So, my point still stands that he disarmed them, using his enforcers to do so. Yet, with that slight correction as to where he started.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmament oftheGermanJews

(albeit to explain the similarities between Germany and modern America)

Yeah, I learned through my own research while in college and after, that their were various "eugenics laws" enacted in this country, in several states. They restricted people from reproduction, through these laws. They also, established profiles of certain ethnic groups as having criminal tendencies, through criminology theory.

They thought that someone's skull size might be an indication of being a criminal. Also, they thought that people with a "criminal" family member or ancestor could be a potential criminal.

The term "eugenics" was first used by Francis Galton, if I am not mistaken. And it took the land by storm. There are those who claim that the Nazis adopted their own twisted ideology from American States with those "laws" spoken of above. I wouldn't doubt it.

There were those in this country who actually, supported Hitler, until he invaded Poland. Then, during and after WWII, the "government" here brought some of those Nazis over here, under Project Paperclip. They were scientists and Truman wanted them vetted. If any had more than a nominal involvement or were supportive of The Nazis, they were excluded. However, I wonder how effective they were in keeping Nazis out of the country, as they were bringing these scientists over here.

https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/operation-paperclip/

1 point

None of those atrocities would have happened if Hitler did not have those who obeyed and carried out those orders. Without many of the people going along with his "laws", including the Jewish and political dissidents getting on those cattle cars, he would not have had power.

The point is that, this applies the world over. We know, from history, that he was not the only ruler who had enforcers carry out his orders. Stalin is another one, with those who were willing to enforce his decrees to starve millions of their own people, amongst other crimes. And Mao is another example.

It is always the enforcers, who carry out such evil acts that are more morally culpable. And the US is no different.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RubyRidge

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wacosiege

Both of the above links are about incidents where the people were found to be in "violation" of "gun laws". But the 2nd Amendment protects the "Right to keep and bear Arms", and the last part says it ". . .shall not be infringed". This is of course being ignored and violated on many fronts under the guise of "laws and regulations".

The 2nd Amendment is as follows:

"A Well Regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The People are the Militia.

At Waco, if they wanted Koresh, they could have waited for him to leave the compound. They did not do so because of erroneous information that he rarely leaves it.

Hitler enacted "gun control laws" and disarmed the Jewish population. Then, they were sent, along with political dissidents and others who were deemed unfit, to their deaths, in concentration camps. But it could not have been done without people to support and carry through with such orders.

1 point

In response to your own claim that, "The problem isn't guns. It's people."

Meaning those who are intent upon harming others will find a way to do so. Many get a badge and gun, then, use it to push people around up to and including murdering them. And they have government at their back.

What is your goddamned obsession with government? You don't want to disarm mass shooters and rapists, just government? Very rational.

Their "authority" does not exist in Reality. I have no delusions about controlling other people. I can only do what I can do on an individual basis, to stop a mass shooter or a rapist. That does not include disarming everyone else, who is not actively seeking to do harm to others, and would do the same as I would in situations involving someone attempting to harm others.

Apparently you can't remember what your own claim was about.

So, you're okay with disarming everyone else, but leave those "in power" armed? Yeah, that always works out great. Check history, many tyrants did just that before they murdered millions of their own people.

So why did you say they don't? You said the problem isn't guns.

Only in the sense that they are used to commit acts of violence. I have not disputed that. And everyone has the potential to do that, given that they have free-will do make the choice to act in that way. So, the answer would be that everyone, including those in "government" should disarm? There are so many guns, that I don't think it would be possible. And those "in power" will certainly not, give theirs up. They are the worst actors of violence.

Of course they are, because that is what guns were invented for!! For taking life. Are we finally getting somewhere?

You can hardly be free if you have tyrants, willing to use guns, to take it from you. And to them, "might makes right". The whole purpose behind having an armed populace, is to protect against that very scenario. When you are facing them, and it comes down to kill or be killed, it is best to have such a thing as a gun to protect Life, yours.

For God's sake no it isn't accurate. Gun violence is gun violence. Gun control is gun control.

For Fuck's sake, it is accurate because in order to enforce the "gun control" gun violence must be used to seize those weapons, from those not willing to give them up.

You are repeating the exact same assertion I debunked. There was a handgun ban in the UK following the Dunblane Massace and no armed soldiers turned up at my door. It is your responsibility to follow the law because the government does not have the resources, manpower or inclination to check every single home to see if every single law is being followed. That's absolutely fucking RIDICULOUS!!! Do armed soldiers turn up at the weekend to check you aren't trafficking children from your basement? Or committing computer fraud through your laptop?

You haven't "debunked" shit, let alone disprove it. So, people willingly disarmed after that incident. An unjust law is no law at all. Which as far as I am concerned is all of man's laws. They obeyed "authority" and will suffer for it when they are kept from leaving their homes because that authority tells them not too, as if they are in a prison.

Also, I have mentioned incidents here in America, in the nineties. Ruby Ridge and Waco. People, including women and children, burned alive at Waco. They were both, done in the name of enforcing "gun control". So, tell me, how is that not gun violence?

I also, posted a link to a documentary that covered the gun confiscation, done by the National Guard, under orders of the New Orleans city government, during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. It has actual footage of the SOLDIERS going door to door, enforcing that order.

The things you are saying are nothing short of insanity.

That's funny. You claim that what I am saying is "nothing short of insanity", yet I have shown historical evidence of what I am talking about. Yet, you are willingly IGNORANT of what I have said. It is as if I am speaking to a rock. But you have nothing, you come back with emotional kneejerk reactions and insults for what I say. At least, the rock would be silent.

1 point

The Old French entry says that mentum is Late Latin. The English entry says mentum is Latin. Neither of them mention classical Latin, which is the period before Late Latin. Regardless, government has never meant mind control.

The point of going to the root meaning of words is to understand what they originally, meant. When you have a word like "government" it is two words put together, so, you check the meaning of each word. The suffix -mente is shown to be used prior to mentum. One is shown as Latin, as you said, and Late Latin.

I made the time distinction based on the use of the word "late". And putting the latin forms of govern together with mente, mens, or mentis. It does show it to be "to control mind". Now, "mentum" means instrument/means. I asked what would be the means behind the governing aspect? What activates that?

It would have to be something within, first, then, it expresses itself externally. Each of those people you said, who interacts to correct bad behavior would have to have that internal aspect, am I right? And in order for it to work, they have to agree to cooperate in such a manner. Or it does not work. If you want to call that government, fine, but those same people have no say over anyone else, who is not part of their group.

What it boils down to is "government" is someone having to be subservient to someone else's rule, and no one is right to force that upon others, outside of themselves and their property. That is slavery. No one owns anyone else, nor is right to try. But we have been over this, already.

Given that mentum forms the ment suffix for many english words, how is that particular linguistic adoption an obfuscation?

I am going from the first use of mente as the suffix, from Latin. And a question came to mind concerning where the Late Latin mentum came from. I looked up mentum in my Latin Dictionary and it shows it means "the chin". So it seems like there is something not right, there. Maybe, using it as a suffix changes the meaning?

But it shows that the word means the chin, and that would be a noun. Just as the mind would be considered a noun with the action coming before it, like "to control, direct, guide, etc." These are verbs. So, it seems like there might be obfuscation and misinformation being applied. And our online sources might be the culprits. Or places to consider.

When you first, addressed this, I checked and sited the Latin dictionary I used. It was Cassell's Latin/English Dictionary.

2 points

No, not fake. I don't like being rude to people but it is a fact that you are a stupid person. That is my dilemma.

I haven't seen much of anything productive from you, other than, "You are so stupid, blah, blah, blah." When you could explain your own position on this issue. I explained mine in depth. You said, "I feel strongly about this issue. . ." Okay, why? Please, explain. If you don't I will just figure you are attempting to think with your emotions. Good luck with that, if it is what you are doing.

2 points

Are you actually joking right now? You've just tried to argue that guns shouldn't be banned because "law-abiding citizens" will suffer.

Yeah, because a bloody armed conflict may ensue. You haven't paid any attention to what I have said, have you? Any one who truly values life, does not want to see that. But Freedom is worth laying down your life for, so that you and others may have a free life, rather than be subservient to others, like enslaved.

2 points

Oh, OK. So you admit that you want a gun so you can break the law?

Having a gun might be breaking the "law" soon, in this country. But I don't recognize "man's laws" as being legitimate. I recognize Natural Law and adhere to the Principles therein. But you don't know what that is, do you?

What I pointed out in my post, about helping to free the slaves, would have been breaking the "laws" of of that time. But it was the right thing to do. It was the same with those who hid Jewish people in their attics. "Man's laws" are typically, in contradiction to doing what is right.

1 point

You are very literally one of the most stupid people I have ever spoken to.

This is what you sound like, "Uh, uh, your just so stupid, uh."

1 point

Oh for God's sake shut up. Guns are tools for killing and/or seriously injuring people. Killing and/or seriously injuring people isn't defensive. You are just literally stupid buddy. I'm sorry but it's true.

Killing and/or seriously injuring people is not what I said. Defending against such actions is what I am talking about. But you knew that didn't you. Your dishonesty escapes you.

Self-defence is a legal defence which you use in court when you've taken an action which is offensive.

That is absurd. The legality is based on the self-defense principle. The very definition of self-defense is, in this context, an action someone takes to stop an attack upon them. Using equal force to do so, like using a gun.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/self-defense?s=t

Stupidity abounds, but is not coming from me.

1 point

Theres absolutely no point in conversing with you the Milgram experiment was deeply flawed from start to finish , you’re so entrenched in your position you did fuck all research on the matter as your mind is totally made up as it supports and bolsters your further unfounded babbling about government

Yeah, you tried to show the flaws, but failed to do so. I showed that, regardless of whether they were doing it for "Science" or because an "authority" told them to, they were still willing to cause harm upon someone else, then, feel okay about it because they were told it was. They did this against their own principles that, likely, would have stopped them from continuing. Like the ones who did actually, stop.

I did research on this long ago. I am familiar enough with the experiment to draw the conclusions that I have.

Just admit it, you have nothing to be able to refute what I have said.

Tell me, if you were, say, in the military, and someone tells you to execute a prisoner of war, would you do it? And how many do you think would?

1 point

How is it you are unable to understand that you are precisely one of these people?

If you weren't prepared to blindly obey authority and/or believe whatever you are told by authority then nobody could have ever convinced you that guns are "defensive tools". That claim is at clear odds with the factual reality that guns are designed to kill, and yet millions of people in your country all seem to have made the exact same error. What a big coincidence.

I refer to firearms as a defensive tool because that is how I see and use them; in a defensive capacity. A bow and arrow could be seen as the same way. Or any other weapon. They could also, be referred to as "assault weapons" and be used in that capacity, as well. They are in fact, a tool of force, that can be used defensively, or for evil. And it does not matter if the person is wearing a badge, has the label of "government" behind their name, or not.

1 point

Listen friend. Your wilful inability to understand the things other people explain to you is not a counter-argument.

You are deliberately ignoring what I wrote after those questions. You should go back and re-read what I said, then, try to refute. But, of course you won't. You will probably, come back with some insult, but have nothing productive to add to the conversation.

2 points

Yes you would, moron. You'd have stood red-faced in front of an audience and expressed your outrage that the government is depriving you, a law-abiding citizen, of your main source of income.

So, I guess that apology you made for the "idiot comment" was fake?

No, I would have been one of those "law-breakers" who were helping slaves get to Freedom. Doing what's right and following the "law" does not always align. That is the point of what I posted, but I guess you missed that since you didn't really read it, did you?

Kitk34(185) Clarified
1 point

Hey, I'm sorry for the idiot part.

I appreciate that. Apology accepted. I also, feel strongly about this issue. Probably, for different reasons. We all have biases. I cannot doubt that. It is difficult to escape them. And having an ego, it tends to get in our way.

I have been approaching such issues as, Freedom, Morality, and just living life, etc., from Natural Law Principles. I seek out the Truth and do my best to understand it, then, speak it through my perspective.

As for "media indoctrination", we all get information from somewhere. But I am not indoctrinated. I have broken myself out of that. I am working on self-educating and that is always a work in progress.

It seems to me that we differ on this issue because of our respective locations. Here, where I am (the midwest of the US) it used to be that young people were taught the proper use of firearms in school.

They had shooting teams to practice accuracy, which is just as important as other aspects of handling firearms. Mass shootings were unheard of. In my area, I do not know of any shootings to this day, taking place. They seem to typically happen in areas with very strict measures on guns. Cities, like Chicago, have very high rates of crime, like murder, and guns are "not allowed".

My own upbringing involved being taught how to handle firearms. And if we "played with one" we could face our father, who might kick our ass for doing it. We did not do that. Later, while in the military, I trained with firearms further.

Then, after that, I was hired as an armed security officer. I had continuous training on those weapons. I know and understand how to use them. I am Principled enough to know the difference between right and wrong. I will not act wrongly toward my fellow human-being.

You are talking to one who would work to stop mass murderers from committing such acts, with what I have to do that (preferably a firearm).

1 point

No, you have to ask yourself why you are so stupid. Two hundred years ago you'd have made the same argument that the government wants to deprive law-abiding citizens of their right to own slaves.

I most certainly would not have made that argument. Furthermore, historically speaking, slavery was protected by the Constitution, just one fatal flaw in that document, at it's establishment. They decided to let their posterior hash it out. Which resulted in a very bloody civil war; though it is debatable that slavery was the only issue. Lincoln, himself said that if it meant the Union would stay in tact, he would have kept slavery.

The reason it lasted for so long was that the Federal Government kept it going through enforcement. Other countries refused to go after runaways. In this country, it took people breaking the law through the Underground Railroad, that helped runaway slaves get to freedom. If it would not have been enforced, it would have died out.

The disarmament of a people is what leads to their enslavement. The Principles in the 2nd Amendment was meant for a Free and Principled people to be able to protect their Freedom by being armed against a tyrannical Government who would see them enslaved. History shows this to be true.

Hitler did it to the Jewish people in his country. All done by way of "laws". Then, he ordered theirs and others that were deemed unfit to their deaths. But it was the people in that country who obeyed his decrees that allowed it to take place. All as "law-abiding citizens" or his enforcers.

"Law-abiding citizen" means absolutely NOTHING, because people break the law for the first time EVERY SINGLE DAY. People with no criminal records walk into schools and shoot kids, and you want to defend their right to do that? On the basis that they haven't broken the law previously?

I am not defending someone going in and committing mass murder. I am defending someone having the means (a gun or equal force) to stop that person from doing it. As far as I know, every location where a mass murder took place, was a "gun-free zone".

The cops were slow to respond, and did not act to stop the person, but in one instance, was awaiting "orders" as to what to do. Those mass murderers knew these locations were gun-free. Human Predators will find those who are most vulnerable and prey upon them, with whatever means they have at hand.

1 point

The same way all other laws are enforced you rent-a-twit. If you get caught doing something illegal you go to jail. Do the cops stop you every morning on your way to work to establish that you're not carrying a nuke?

I just... I can't even...

No, but they are known to break into peoples homes based on those people having a plant, or other substance, such as marijuana. They also, have hit the wrong house, killed some of those inside, and getting a way with that.

There is a whole host of abuses by the cops, that go unaccounted for. Some of the most well known are two incidents from the nineties, Ruby Ridge and Waco. Both clusterfucks, and no one in the "government" was held accountable for their actions. And they were "enforcing" weapons violations.

And thanks for illustrating my point. Cops=men with guns, seizing property (guns), and kidnapping, throwing into a cage, or murdering those who resist, under the guise of "enforcing an assault weapons ban" (any weapon could be considered an "assault weapon" if used to assault someone).

1 point

You’re on the money again Burrito , I was quiet prepared to have a conversation with him until I read his response to my piece , the guy is only interested in ramming his idiotic ideas home he is not interested in dialogue he just wants to hear himself

Says the accuser, who is doing exactly what he is accusing the other of doing. The fact is, I welcome dialogue, but that is not what you have given. You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing.

1 point

Do you like living in a civilised society which has laws? Where people aren't allowed to rob you in the street or rape your wife?

I protect myself, and have taught my wife how to protect herself. I do not need others to provide that for me.

Because if you do, then the price you pay for that is government.

Idiots like you complain about guns being taken from "law-abiding citizens", but nobody is more "law-abiding" than the government, because they make the goddamned laws!!!

You have to ask yourself why do they want to disarm "law-abiding citizens"? If they, the so-called "government" are so "law-abiding", then, why are they doing this? It is for CONTROL, not because they are Principled or so much better than your average civilian.

What you just said there is seriously, laughable. Consider Obamacare. Congress is not under it, they voted themselves out of it. But they forced it down the throats of the rest of us, through the Supreme Court.

How about "taxes"? Ones such as Mitt Romney have off shore accounts that shelter them from paying into it. The list is endless. There are things that they could not do on an individual basis, but if done under the guise of "government" it is okay, like continuous unjust wars on other countries; nothing more than mass murder, etc.

Yep, "government" is the "most law-abiding". And you call me the idiot. Sheesh.

2 points

You followed it up with the demonstrably false claim that a gun ban necessitates armed soldiers coming to your door.

Okay, genius, how would such a "ban" be enforced if not by the use of men with guns to do just that?

1 point

I don't need to disarm the government to debunk your ridiculous idea that guns have no relationship to gun violence.

You said, "The problem is giving guns to people." I said to disarm the "government" made up of people. Apparently, you've got nothing for that.

Obviously, guns have to do with "gun violence" as they are being used to force one's will upon others, in an attempt to violate them, to include taking their life. What I described in my statement about gun control being gun violence is accurate because it would take that very scenario to happen if people do not obey such a "law" as an "assault weapons ban". I said that it would take men with guns to enforce such a "law". And it would.

That was an actual event in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The city government said there will be no guns allowed and the National Guard was used to enforce that by going into people's homes and confiscating their property, i.e. guns.

This documentary shows what occurred there:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2ebudnWlh4

1 point

It’s remarkable really you talk about people being compliant with authority and yet here you are totally accepting an authority’s word without once researching the other side

Yes they were trying to be good servants to science .......

Science weekly ......

{{Participants were most compliant when an experimenter encouraged them to continue shocking for the sake of the experiment (by saying, 'The experiment requires that you continue'), the psychologists add. Participants never followed the order: 'You have no choice, you must continue.'}} In other words those identifying with the experiment's purpose ("ideology") were more likely to shock until the end; participants were not motivated by "just following orders".

How does any of this disprove what I said? Those who participated, continued to do a perceived harm upon someone else, all in "the name of science" or because someone in the position of "authority" over the experiment, was telling them to continue. The point is that they chose to continue to actively cause a perceived harm to that person. Regardless of what that person said, such as, "No more" etc, they kept on with it when they should have stopped.

Nonsense , imagine if you gave each of the experimenters a pair of pliers and told them that had to extract toe nails how many would do if? Also in the original experiment the ones giving the shock could not see the victim as a partition seperated them

How is that nonsense? It sounds more like you are arguing for the sake of arguing. I don't know how many would go through with it. Hopefully, none, but in all likelihood it would be roughly the same amount as the original scenario.

Yes, the partition was part of the experiment. What's your point? They were still under the impression that they were shocking someone when they pushed the button.

I claim they were

Based on what? It still showed that there are those willing to blindly obey authority.

Your making an emotional argument now as like most you want to deny the tests were flawed ,I proved why the experiment is flawed but you perfer to deny the why’s as you’ve fallen for an authority figures word on it and are stubbornly adhering to your postion

Look, man, there are no experiments that are perfect, since they are done by imperfect creatures called human-beings. But it does illustrate how far people will go to obey authority figures. It shows that people will go against their own internal process that tells them they shouldn't continue actively doing harm upon another because it is a cause for science or because someone else told them to.

I’m no fan of politicians or to much government power but I am in favour of the law to the extent we have it here I like most have never had a problem with it as it’s never interfered with my freedoms in any way

"Man's law" is all about a perceived control. I adhere to Natural Law Principles as best as I can understand and apply it to my life and what I do. I do my best not to cause or initiate harm upon others. Man's law always interferes with everyone's Freedom and is, essentially, "playing god" when someone "makes a law".

That authorization means nothing, but so many people today will go against their own Principles and moral code or compass, for, one example, a paycheck.

You speak authoritatively of people you do not know sweeping makin generalizations , opinions like yours are nothing but your subjective opinions coming through your particular world view and are just an opinion like any other

I recognize the Truth by observing people's actions. And I have spoken of that with that statement. What you said does not refute the Truth of that statement.

We all as individuals want a certain power and control you haven’t stated precisely what you mean by this , I’ve yet to meet a human that was otherwise

Having an internal power and control over oneself is what anyone should aim for. What I am speaking of is attempting to take that from others in an attempt to exercise power and control over them.

1 point

A gun is a defensive tool, that can be misused or used for evil acts.

1 point

When Americans say stuff like this I just want to slap them in the face. Just so stupid. The problem is giving guns to people.

Then, disarm the "government", made up of people.

0 points

What an utterly ridiculous statement

How so? I followed it with a description of exactly how it is violence.

Right , you know that Netflix drama you’re watching is not reality

So, you have nothing to refute what I described. Got it.

Funny that there’s plenty of people in my gun free country that have no guns so no gun problem , this isn’t rocket science buddy

But you do have a problem with "government" locking people down, keeping them prisoner in their own homes. If not where you are, it is going on in other so-called "gun-free" countries. The fact is, you do have guns, they are just in the hands of enforcers who work for your rulers.

Yet another sweeping generalization

But a sad Truth.

What a load of bollocks all stated with zero evidence to back it up

Do you know what a false flag operation is? Or a Psy-op?

“ Hegelian dialectic “ you probably think that’s a German breakfast cereal

And yet, I described how it works.

It’s not , it’s to address inequalities in society just to start

What is? The Hegelian Dialectic? With the invention of the Colt, called "the great equalizer" for a good reason, it addresses "inequalities of society". And this does not change what I said concerning proper education towards the handling of firearms.

And on and on it goes

And yet still true.

Yes and “a gun is a tool “ etc , etc I’ve heard all this bullshit before

Look, the first people who should disarm are those in "government" then, maybe the rest of us will consider it. But that will never happen.

😴😴😴😴😴

Again, you got nothing to refute this Truth.

Are you for real , the US was reduced to a laughing stock under Trump

I never recognized Trump as a rightful ruler. There is no such thing outside of the Individual ruling themselves and their property.

Well you live in the 126th least peaceful country in the world we don’t

I would rather have True Freedom, that can lead to real peace, then, give up my rights for a little security. When you do that, you will have and deserve neither Freedom, peace, nor security.

I’ve never cried to own a gun in actual fact there would be mass demonstrations if such was proposed

Likely, those protests would be put down with the force of arms from enforcers of your rulers, if those protests are done without permission of the "authorities" in a given area. That happens here too.

Great slaughter each other to extinction and let the rest of us live in peace

There are those who would love to see that happen, and Biden is just another puppet to bring that chaos into fruition. But it would, ultimately, be up to those who are the enforcers for his so-called "laws" to decide not to enforce them, in order to keep that from happening. Unfortunately, there are those who will do his bidding, and they will have blood on their hands.

Biden is violent 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Trump has blood on his hands over covid and also an abuser and most likely rapist his best buddy was Epstein , it’s obscene the way people like you attack Biden but praise a draft dodging scum bucket

Trump is a flip flopper. He was a major contributor to the Clinton Foundation, and a friend of theirs. He was a New York Liberal before he switched "parties". And that was probably because Hilary stood in his way to become the Democratic Candidate. He was just as much a puppet as Biden is, now.

I have never defended nor trusted Trump. I didn't vote for him or Biden. One is no less evil than the other. And a less evil is still evil, anyway.

Yes “many will go along “ you’re a brain -washed cretin mate

Why? Because I am pointing to all the brainwashed people who will go along? It sounds more like you are under such mind control or "brainwashing".

Kitk34(185) Clarified
1 point

I don't see it as a "pissing contest". We are attempting to clear something up. Thanks for the input, but we got this.

Don't believe the nonsense you read online.

I don't. I take in information, investigate it, use discernment and decide for myself if it is accurate, based on what I find. I make up my own mind about it. I would hope that others do the same, even with any information I have posted here.

but since the only reason you come here is to pretend to be experts in things you haven't got the first goddamned clue about

I am not pretending to be an "expert" on anything. I do have knowledge, an understanding, and this is one way to express them, which is necessary because a person needs an outlet. And neither one of us is keeping anything a secret. We both have posted links to where we got the information from.

Kitk34(185) Clarified
1 point

It doesn't say that mente is an older form than mentum. Is says that the Latin mente came through old French to English to make the adverb suffix "ly", which is not the suffix in government. The Latin mentum came through old French to English to make the noun suffix ment. As in government.

It says that "mentum" comes from Late Latin. And "mente" comes from Latin. One shows a time difference, i.e. "late". It does seem like mentum was chosen to be adapted into English, and that looks to me like a form of obfuscation.

Look, if "mentum" means instrument/medium and govern means "to guide, steer, direct, control, etc, what is that instrument in the word "government"? And how is it separate from the Individual?

Kitk34(185) Clarified
1 point

This doesn't change your other arguments, but it doesn't need to. We are speaking English, not Latin.

We have Latin mixed into our language. Many of our words come from other languages. To get concise about what one is talking about, it might be necessary to get down to the root meaning of the words you use to eliminate confusion.

You are saying that "government" is the means by which we govern, but you talk as if it is a separate thing outside of ourselves.

Etymologically, I am still correct to describe it as "to control mind". If govern means guide, drive, steer, control, etc. and the earliest use of the suffix ment or mente also, means mens, mentis or mind, then, it is correct.

"From Old French -ment, from Latin mente, the ablative singular of mēns (“mind”).

From Old French -ment, from Late Latin -mentum"

1 point

Let me ask you something, who pays for all of this "free stuff"? Where are the funds coming from? And who has the RIGHT to conscript doctors, teachers, nurses, firefighters, etc.? All of that is socialism and it is also, slavery. By conscripting someone, you are enslaving them to YOUR will. MAKING them do what you want them to do. So, who pays for it? And what would you call THAT?

3 points

Gun Control IS Gun Violence. With it you have men with GUNS coming to a persons home and taking property that they own, for defensive purposes, and kidnapping them, throwing them in a cage or killing them if they resist.

The problem is not guns, but people. People's moral code is so screwed up that they are willing to take out a bunch of others because nothing matters, etc. Not to mention the mass shootings that take place are likely, false flag operations to continue the narrative on the whole gun "issue". It is the Hegelian dialectic that is in play. Problem, reaction, solution. This acts to get people on board to give up their rights and freedoms. And it works to a great extent.

Their really is no "control" outside of ourselves. The best way to solve the problems of so-called "gun violence" is education. For Principled people who are wanting to use the weapon as a means of self-defense, this will reduce the amounts of accidental shootings. For those who would commit acts of mass murder, having people in place ready to respond to such acts, is key in reducing those shootings. The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to have a good guy with a gun there and ready, willing, and able to use it to stop them.

The 2nd Amendment was written to recognize and protect the right to self-defense. It was an attempt to codify that right. As was the rest of them. But it has done little to no good because "shall not be infringed" has been shredded in a number of ways through "gun control" bs "laws". And people have allowed it to happen. Now, it has become "just words on paper".

The rest of the English speaking world is jealous of us. They gave up their rights when they allowed themselves to be disarmed. They are effectively, enslaved. They can cry about it to their rulers, but they have no teeth to back it up. We have not, fully, given up those rights.

If the current ruler, Biden, gets his way, cops will be allowed to go in, absent a warrant, and seize peoples property in the form of guns. This may very well kick off an extremely, bloody civil war. It seems Biden is quite bloodthirsty. I'd say that is pretty violent. So, much for "uniting and healing the country", huh? All of that is criminal, but many will go along. We shall have to see.

Kitk34(185) Clarified
1 point

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/-ment#English

I got it from the same site that you used. It is under the English variant. You have to scroll down and you'll see a pattern that describes the word -ment from Old French and Late Latin as mentum, however, it shows from plain Latin, meaning there is no indication of time on it, shows that it is mente. This also, is a variation of mens and/or mentis, which means mind.

It seems like it is describing what I have shown, but it is more descriptive when it shows a "mechanism" or means. So, we use our mind to do whatever we do. This could be that the mind is being described as the means for which we do anything.

This does not change what I said about "government" only existing within each person on this planet; not that everyone is fully functional in that. It is self-government of the Individual that, ultimately, matters.

1 point

I’m afraid you’re drawing false conclusions from Milgrams experiments , when the participants were asked afterwards how they felt the majority claimed they felt just fine , the reason they felt this way was because they were told by Milgram before the testing they were doing a great service to the world of science which is why they felt fine

Not false at all. Actually, the fact that they "felt fine" due to being in "service to science" shows that they were trying to "be a good servant to science" while doing the experiment, but it was in contradiction to what they should have done, which was to stop doing it, from the get-go.

This is the problem with these type of tests we only get to hear the results and never how the participants are treated before in this case they were all primed and the results from the tests absolutely worthless

Unless they were told about the actual experiment, the results are not worthless. In fact, Milgram being the "authority" along with the ones wearing lab coats, conducting the experiment, telling them what he did, showed that they "felt fine" because "authority" absolved them of any wrongdoing. This shows the blind obedience to authority.

This reflects the world, today, in the form of police, military, and any others who are "authorized" to do what the rest of us have no right to do. It is a flat out lie. That authorization means nothing, but so many people today will go against their own Principles and moral code or compass, for, one example, a paycheck. And some for power and control of others.

1 point

For the etymology of government, the suffix "ment" does not derive from "mens", it derives from "mentum" which is means, medium, or instrument.

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/-mentum#Latin

The suffix "ment" is used "to make nouns indicating the result or product of the action of the verb or the means or instrument of the action."

https://www.etymonline.com/word/-ment#etymonline v32036

The etymology does not indicate government means "mind control", it indicates that government means "guiding/steering/controlling mechanism".

My definition of government is exactly in line with the etymology. I thought I had already explained this, but I didn't want to sift through to find it. So this may be redundant. Responding to the rest would definitely be redundant.

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/-ment#English

You didn't dig deep enough : "From Middle French -ment, from Old French -ment, from Latin mente, ablative singular of mēns (“mind”). This Latin noun was feminine, which explains why adverbs formed with this suffix use the feminine form of the adjective; for example, vivement comes from vive (feminine form of vif) + -ment, and could be glossed as "in a lively spirit"."

You are mistaken etymologically. The etymology is the ORIGINAL ROOT MEANING of a word, not what came after. The links you gave has French mixed in, but the word came from Latin, as I pointed out already. . . .from Latin mente, ablative singular of mēns (“mind”). It indicates "to control mind" or mind control.

It has to be a sufficient closer to say that I'm glad not to live in a world where we all feel it's good to let the geriatric dementia patient wander off and freeze; Where we look on with a sense of virtue for letting the addict overdose before our eyes; Where we neglect to pull the jumper from the edge to help him address his problems.

In my description of how to handle those situations, not once did I say to do nothing. I did describe a way to do it WITHOUT FORCING YOUR WILL upon them, which does not help and actually would cause more problems.

Like, if a person is on the ledge of a building, and you have their attention, if you attempt to grab them, to forcefully remove them, you could in fact cause them to loose their balance and they fall to their death anyways. And you did not help them after all. "Oh well, they wanted to die anyways, right?" But you would be responsible for their death because you had no right to do that action to begin with.

You want to say that deep down, your detractors know you're Right and they know your outlook is the Truth. It's simply not the case. People who who believe that the inherent value of life has primacy, have no such doubt about your beliefs. I harbor no doubts, deep down or outwardly, that you're conclusions are factually and morally wrong.

I don't care what others think of me. I am in service to Truth, and that is what I care about and where I start. I said this is my perspective of the Truth.

I am discovering the Truth and doing my best to align my beliefs with them. Your entire argument can be boiled down to arguing in favor of slavery because "who will pick the cotton?" You can hardly be more immoral than that. You have a poisoned world view, and it shows.

1 point

Wow, I did this debate, like six years ago. Thanks to all for bringing it back. The experiment I spoke of needs to be clarified, I think, because There were some good answers, from different perspectives. But I reread the description of the debate and the question is not in line with the description, very well. Those who answered might be familiar with the experiment. However, as I said, it is not very clear.

Okay, so a break down of the experiment goes like this: A participant was told to zap another one, in a different room, while they were answering questions. They were told that it was being researched on how punishment effects a persons answers on a test, quiz, etc. How well do people do under pressure on a test, if I remember correctly. Now, the person being zapped was hooked up to an electric meter, that was to increase as the answers were answered incorrectly.

As I pointed out in the description, there were about 60-80% who continuously administered those shocks, regardless of the person in the other room saying no more. The person in the lab coat would tell questioners that the experiment must continue. And they did it. Soon enough there was no sound coming from the other room.

There were some who discontinued doing it, either right away or as soon as the person said no more. They also, checked to see who would follow others when they discontinued. There were some who followed that one, who was an actor, as was the person in the other room. The real experiment was to see how far people would obey authority, even against there own judgement and moral code.

So, maybe the better question should have been "what would you have done in such a situation?" And I think it answers my original question, which is kind of an obvious answer, but unfortunately, many obey anyways.

1 point

When using words, I'm concerned with communication. Making up a personal definition for a word that already has a general definition is not useful to the goal of communication. Arguing the on semantic grounds for a definition that is personal and contrary to the general definition is a waste of time. Worse then that, it is detrimental not only to communication, but also to persuasion.

Getting down to the root origins of words is useful to be concise on the meaning of those words. Our language fluctuates according to the "authority" of the day making their own definitions and putting it out there as if that is what they mean. When, in fact, obfuscation has been developed to cause confusion on that very communication that you speak of. Especially, the Truth. "Anarchy" and "Government" are both prime examples of what I mean.

I have not made a personal definition of the word force. I made a distinction of the words force and violence based on moral grounds, or right action vs wrong action. It is in the how or use of what those words represent.

I explained this multiple times. Initiating harm, or aggressing upon someone, is the wrong committed. Using whatever force is necessary to repel the attack is a person's right to do, or the right action to take. This applies to coercion, the threat of harm done upon another to get them to do what you want, is wrong. I made the distinction on this, as well.

With that, I will (re)post some definitions:

Freedom is the ability to act on one's own judgement concerning one's self and one's property, absent coercion or constraint from other agents.

Now the definition for authority:

Right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.

Now government:

The mechanism by which a group of people regulate behavior within a group and determine collective goals or actions.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/authority?s=t

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/government?s=t

I posted the above links to keep things accurate. The definition you provided for "authority" sounds close. What I said concerning authority can be boiled down to this, you rule you and I rule me. As long as we respect that we are fine. Once that is disrespected by either one of us, we have a problem or conflict. We have a right to rule our own lives and our property. We do not have a right to control others, or rule over them. That is slavery.

When someone is a guest in your home they have a respect for what I said above. They recognize that it is your house, your rules. When they disrespect that, you are within your rights to ask them to stop, or leave. That would be an exercise of your authority concerning your home.

But once they leave, it no longer applies to them. This would also, apply to any individuals who get together and decide how they are going to operate, say a business or an association. They cannot come up with rules and then, force others to abide by such rules who have nothing to do with their business or association, etc.

I broke down the etymology of the word "government". It stems from gubernare, as one variation I have seen. There is also, guberno, or gubernor, meaning to control, steer, direct, or guide, etc. And mens, mentis, meaning the mind, along with a short list of similar words.

https://www.online-latin-dictionary.com/latin-english-dictionary.php?parola=gubernare

https://www.online-latin-dictionary.com/latin-english-dictionary.php?parola=mens

If you put those words together, it really does translate to "to control the mind" or mind control. And the only place that exists is within each individual on this planet. To attempt to do that to others is the same as enslaving them.

I have already argued that we limit freedom all the time in social interactions. We give subtle and overt warnings that are both verbal and non-verbal. These warnings are coercive since when those warnings are not heeded, people sometimes fight about it.

It depends on how those warnings are used. If a person gives a warning to back off of them because someone is in their face, attempting to push them around, they are right to do this. If the person that is in their face threatens them with physical assault if the other person does not obey them, that is wrong. That is coercion.

Such fights happen all the time, though they are rare when compared to the times people heed to warning signals of others. Of you doubt this explanation, consider the interactions of people on the internet, where no coercion is enforceable.

Again, "your money or your life" is not the same as "back off of me, now, you are in my personal space". The internet is different in the sense that the interaction is not face to face or in person. There are still options given, like on this forum where the moderator can ban someone and keep them from interacting on the debate that was created.

The above is the subtle way in which we limit freedom. Your defense of your property is an example of you limiting the freedom of the trespasser. Did the trespassers "abuse" freedom? Sure. He acted on his own judgement concerning himself, but he acted in a manner that interferes with your property. So you have the right to decide to order him out of your house, and to enforce his obedience. According to the above definitions, that's you exercising authority to limit his freedom. If you accept that you have the right to kick out the trespasser, then you accept that freedom is not an inherent good (it can be abused), and authority is not an inherent evil (you have the authority to remove his freedom to trespass).

Freedom is desirable. It has an inherent value. It is inherently good. I covered "authority" already. See above. If someone is trying to persuade another, that is not wrong. If someone is trying to use their own "authority" and force another, against their will, through aggression, coercion, initiation of violence or fraud, that is wrong. Meaning that person who is doing that is acting immorally, to get another to do their bidding.

-If a person with dementia insists on going for a walk on a cold winters night without proper clothes, pretty much anyone with the means has the right to restrict the dementia patients freedom and keep them in a warm environment.

No, they do not have that right. They can attempt to persuade them to do otherwise. They can appeal to reason and give them other options. But no one has the right to restrict that persons free-will choice to do that action. If a person does try it, they might have a fight on their hands, depending on the other person who is said to have dementia. And I wouldn't blame the latter.

-If a person has already had too much heroin and they are ready to inject another full syringe, but this one is the good stuff with fentanyl, you have the right to take that syringe, limiting.their freedom in the process.

How much is "too much"? Isn't heroin bad to take? Isn't smoking bad for you? Isn't a whole host of habits, or vices, not a very good idea? Where is the line drawn here? Even in the above case, you would not be right. Though it might be forgivable by the one doing the heroin. You do not have the right to tell people what they can and cannot do with their bodies, or to make them obey what you think they should or should not do.

-If a person is in the midst of an emotional crisis and they are actively attempting suicide, it's right to stop them long enough for them to come through the crisis and get the help they need. It's right, and it restricts their freedom.

Again, you can persuade them not to do it, if they are in fact trying that, and talk them out of it. But anyone who is determined to end their life, will do so. It is out of your hands. However, if you are attempting to stop them, using the above methods, yeah you are in the right.

Convincing someone that they do have a good reason to continue on is the correct way to go. But you have to listen to them, effectively. What happens when you recognize that they are dealing with something internally, but are not actively seeking to end it? You do not have the right to take away their Freedom, simply because you cannot understand what is going on.

The best way, and right way, to handle that is to let them be. Maybe, they will ask your input. Maybe, they will share what they are going through. But it is something that you cannot possibly understand, unless you were them or went through a similar experience.

Having them locked up (restricting their Freedom) does no good for them. That is not help. And if they want help they will ask for it. You can even offer it, but you are not right to force it upon them.

The above examples infringe on the rights of people to harm themselves in very different ways. Self-harm due to cognitive deterioration, due to addiction (accidentally seeking death), and due to emotional crisis. Each situation has a time horizon that the individual involved cannot see. They want the freedom to act according to their own judgement now, but later they are likely to seem that judgement differently. You would be right to stop them. Their freedom doesn't have inherent value, their life does.

No, you wouldn't. You have a right to offer help, but ultimately, it is not your call. And it is not your life. It is theirs. Their Freedom absolutely, does have an inherent value. Their life may be meaningless to them if they are locked up, but did nothing wrong. Then, are released and made to take poison (that does nothing but, covers up their issues, in the least, and kills their spirit and emotions.) And if that medication effects them that way, it may also, effect them in their mind and body, killing them physically. Ultimately, you did them no favors. Acting in fearful ways does no good in such situations.

Human freedom has an incredibly high value, but that's because we need it, as animals of reason, to live and to thrive. The life has primacy.

Uh, we are more than just animals of reason. There is more to us than only our physical bodies. An individual human being has a right to life, and they have a right to decide what to do with their life, if it is not causing harm to other individual human beings. No others are right to interfere with such an individual. That is a healthy respect for life and Freedom because one without the other, falls flat. If a person does not have True Freedom, they are not truly living, but existing under the control of someone else, i.e. they are a slave. Death is a part of life and we cannot escape it.

Just as you have the authority to hinder the freedom of the freedom-abuser, a government has the authority to hinder the freedom of the freedom-abuser. By which I mean that people organizing a mechanism by which to regulate behavior are right to regulate freedom-abusers.

I am right to stop the abuse, but that is as far as it goes. I would be right to defend another from abuse, as well. Your "government", as it is today, is a criminal class. They act as if they have "special" rights, above everyone else. They are serious Freedom abusers.

"Voting" them out is not doing any good, but just lends support to what they are doing. And people are letting them get away with it. It is an attempt to steal our Freedoms and inalienable Rights, from us. It has been done incrementally, but now, they are speeding it up. And their enforcers (cops) are helping it happen.

As I argued above, people regulate the behavior of others all the time. It's a natural consequence of interaction. The ways in which people regulate behavior are as numerous as individuals and circumstances. But some limited circumstances involve so called freedom-abusers. People feel victimized when one such interaction occurs. I'll call those true crimes. When a true crime occurs, each of us respond in singularly unique ways. That's actually a problem.

How is that a problem. We are individuals. We might be connected, but we are not the same. I am not you or vice versa. I might handle a "Freedom-abuser" differently, then, you. Maybe, after a fight, we have a beer and discuss things. It could be he comes away from that interaction with a lesson learned and he becomes a changed man. Acting on an individual basis, with each other, is really all we have. Regulating conduct in that way is right, or correct.

True crimes are highly emotional things. Hence, vigilantism is a highly emotional thing. As such it is very often incorrect and imprecise in it's response. People organizing a mechanism by which to regulate the behavior of vigilantes reduces, though does not eliminate, the imprecision and inaccuracy of justice seekers.

The only case that I know of, historically, of "vigilantism", is called the "Oxbow Incident". But those involved, if I remember correctly, were a law man and men who had been deputized, and organized into a posse. That was how they did it then. Justice was swift and harsh. There was, also, an unwritten code of conduct that people tended to operate by on the frontier. But, life there was often dull and boring to some. Hollywood did a lot to obfuscate the Truth of what really took place during those times.

I said earlier that due process reduces the injustice of false positives which vigilantes are prone to and you only responded that it's doubtful.

Really? What did I follow with on that? Show me.

That's an irrational doubt. Due process has laws (yes laws) requiring that standards of evidence be met before a suspect can be prosecuted. There are no such standards in your anarchy.

And evidence is manufactured very often, to get a conviction. That's if it even goes to trial. Typically, people are COERCED into confessing to something they did not do and taking a deal.

Such laws in the US start from a presumption of innocence, putting the onus of proof on the one seeking justice. As a result, guilty parties often walk free. They can later capitalize on books that outline their guilt.

And very often innocent people (who did no harm to anyone else) end up in prison. What you describe sounds good in theory, but it is not working very well at all.

That's not quite justice, but it's better than each individual presuming the guilt of the person they are really really sure did the deed and then going and taking their vengeance as they see fit, then failing every time the actually guilty party has the muscle for it.

Let me ask you. How did due process work for Randy Weaver and his family at Ruby Ridge? He lost his wife and son. And those who pulled the trigger did not get locked up for it. How about those who burned at Waco? Same scenario. The Enforcers got away scot free. Not to mention the "government" ruler at the time, was not held to account for his orders.

Due process is necessarily a system of laws. It cannot exist absent government. It cannot exist in your anarchy.

And it hardly exists now, under your "government". With the self-defense principle, anyone has a right to account for their actions. And there are options that people can come up with and use to put that principle into effect. It would be, largely, better than what we have now.

Private resolution requires voluntary parties. But true criminals, your abusers of freedom, are not interested in resolution. You had to force the trespasser to leave, of not with threat, then with force. And you had the right to order him to leave and enforce his obedience. That's authority.

Yeah, and I covered "authority" already. I am talking about attempting to rule/control others, outside of the right to do it for yourself. I am speaking about those who have not aggressed or initiated harm on anyone else. No one has the right to do that. That is enslavement.

And because that right does not exist, no matter how many people get together to try and make it right, it renders your "government" non-existent. Which means that they are a gigantic criminal organization, imagined to have the right to exist. It is a false belief system and a religion. A very dangerous one. This applies to the world over, as well. Not just here.

This is my perspective on what the Truth is.

1 point

Just what the literal fuck?

How about, "Jody gave me his infinity"?

Amarel, you are one of these people who is so catastrophically stupid, that even when somebody with a first class degree in journalism tries to explain that you have used a word incorrectly, you still respond with, "No you!!"

You are fucking retarded. Shut your mouth you idiot.

A word to the wise, slinging insults does not strengthen your argument. I cannot speak for whatever history you have with this person, but I have already said this conduct will not be tolerated. I gave time for individuals to correct themselves, but they did not. They are no longer welcome on this particular debate. I have given the same consideration for you. If it continues you, also, will not be welcome here.

I obviously, do not agree with him, but we haven't slung insults at each other. I ask that you give the same respect. If you have an argument to present or anything productive to add, please feel free to post it. Otherwise, knock off the shit.

1 point

I'm not interested in reading or watching any of the sources you've provided. If they have any relevant points to add to this discussion, it is your role to present the points.

I have presented those points. You kept saying that I was making baseless assertions. I provide sources to back up what I am saying, and now you are not interested in looking into the material for yourself and make up your own mind about it. I figured you had your own discernment and could do that for yourself; maybe I figured wrong.

If a bible thumper wants converts, they need to present a good case. Not simply tell people to read it and they'll understand.

I haven't done that.

Furthermore, I'm well acquainted with natural law theory, and I continue to take interest.

Really? You haven't provided your take on it.

I take no interest whatsoever in snake oil salesman. They have been peddling Truth since forever. I've read enough of them to know the difference.

Now, your just being full of shit, dude. None of the sources that I provided are snake oil salesmen. And peddling Truth? What the fuck does that mean? The difference of what? Getting the Truth out there to people who will listen and pay attention? Then, maybe, they will see the world for what it is?

When someone makes an effective point, repeating yourself is not the same as standing your ground. When someone disagrees with you, it's not because they actually know you're right but can't except it. They just disagree with you.

I was consistent on my statements and what I said. I explained many times over what my points were because you continued to attack them, saying "that's not true", but not providing any proof as to where I was incorrect. It was not satisfactory for you. I made my assertions, I stood by them consistently, explaining where I was coming from. You could not even acknowledge my points that I made.

If I tell you that you know that Communism is the Truth, but excepting it means rethinking your worldview and you don't want to put in the work, I haven't made an argument. I have merely asserted my conclusion and added an ad hominem. If I repeat that Communism is the Truth, I haven't stood my ground, I've abandoned reason for the sake of my conclusion.

What's your point? And where did I do what your claiming?

We can keep on if you like. Maybe this is a useful endeavor for you. For me the most useful insight from this debate has been the fact that the anarchist is against the right to a fair trial. Thanks for that insight, but you can keep your anarchy.

Well, the most useful insight that I have gotten is that the cult called "government" has a firm grip on you. May your chains lay lightly upon you. But don't try to shackle the rest of us who want True Freedom and are willing to do the work to bring it about.

1 point

Due process is by definition a legal process. It cannot be provided by the market. Not even "some how". Every time you say "there are better ways" without providing an example, you are demonstrating the baselessness and Utopianism of your position. But then if you provided examples, critics could pick them apart.

I have provided examples. It most definitely can be provided by the free-market. Arbitration is an example that can also, be used in a similar fashion. Ideas like Dispute Resolution Organizations are a possibility. Human-beings create markets. We are capable of coming up with ways to solve problems and resolve disputes. And it does not require the belief in "authority" to do this.

I base this on the Truth. You have not provided any proof that I am incorrect that people do not have the right to control others, i.e. "authority". And you do not like where this leads.

This answer explicitly avoids providing a specific. That's because any specific example of what a person might do to remove an unwilling trespasser will demonstrate that violence is occurring at the hands of the home owner.

I provided the best answer according to the scenario given. You didn't get specific about how they got in in the first place. Am I home at the time? Did they force their way in? If they have done that they are aggressing against me and my family. They are in VIOLATION. I would address it and I would get them out of my house with what I have available to do this, and it would be using Force in a defensive capacity. It is Self-defense.

The definition of violence does not carry any moral implication at all. If you find a source that puts moral weight on the definition, let me know. Making up your own definition and insisting it is Truth, casts significant doubt on your other unsupported claims of Truth.

Tell me what does definition mean, then? Does it not mean getting definitive about what one is speaking about? I have done that with the difference between Force and Violence.

Mine is based on the Truth. Yours isn't. See how easy it is to baselessly claim the truth is on your side? Your claim that you have the Truth is as unsupported and invalid as the identical assertion I just made above. What happens when your idea of the Truth meets a person who thinks he knows the actual Truth is that property rights are as fictional as the government that protects them?

I provided evidence of what I am talking about. You have not done that. You have demonstrated that your belief in "government" is based on pointing to conveniences that have been provided through theft. This country is, largely, socialist. Tell me, what are you going to do when your exalted Ruler, Biden, gets his way, and they put a ban on assault weapons?

When you start with a verbal warning (coercion), then a show of force (gun), after that it is up to them to get out or possibly die (coercion backed by violence).

By the very act of breaking into my home they have initiated the threat(coercion) I have answered with a warning, the beginning of defensive use of Force (many might shoot first and ask questions, later) a show of force (teeth to back up the warning). Then, they have the choice to get out, and continue to live. This is an escalation of the use of Force, used in the right or correct way to defend oneself. They are the violent one if they attack (immoral, acting wrongfully). I'd say that is pretty goddamn clear.

And that trespasser who believes the Truth is that you have no right to tell him where he cannot go will see your action as a violent attempt to rule over him.

Then, I guess he would have a problem, wouldn't he.

Not in the slightest. You personally may never go into someone's empty house without permission, but lots of other people would.

Maybe, and maybe not. There are many out there who believe in moral relativism. But then, when they grow up seeing "lawmakers" making the "law", i.e. playing God, I guess one could understand why they believe (falsely) that way.

And those people need to be held accountable. Not by the magic of Karma, but by other people, and preferably through due process or it's just a lunch mob.

Calling it "the magic of Karma" shows you, really, do not know how that even works. Now, tell me, does this apply to everyone? The accountability I mean?

If there are not enforceable laws by which guilt is determined, it's not du process. It just takes reimagining to bring the moneyless world of Star Trek to reality.

There is. It's called Natural Law. It applies to our behavior.

Since anarchy with due process is imaginary, why not imagine higher?

Whatever. I already told you how it CAN work, and it would be prime compared to what we have now.

Nominal prices, sure. But we live in the most prosperous times in human history, with more actual wealth at our disposal on ever economic level. Almost all Americans are better off today than John D Rockefeller was in 1900.

Inflation is through the roof. People are in debt up to there eyeballs. Not to mention being "tax slaves" to pay that debt off. Oh, and the "government" shutdown the economy. People are still struggling to make ends meet. But they gave us a tiny bit of our money, that they stole, back to us. Hoping that will do something. This is not prosperity. This is misery and suffering.

I told you that I'm not interested in a society of the sort that Thomas More presents. If are familiar with it, and you like the idea of slave chains made of gold, then perhaps you are presenting anarchy all wrong. No door locks there by the way. Guess why.

So, I'll ask it again, did you read it? I did not, and I am not familiar with it, however, I am also, not continuing to point to it as a diversion, either.

1 point

Your answer to specific questions is always "somehow". How do you expect people without written laws to solve X dispute? Somehow. How do you expect people to seek a fair trial (due process) without laws? Somehow.

I gave an honest assessment of what can be done, without "authority" taking over as we have now. I do not pretend to have all the answers as to what it will look like down the road. Nor am I seeking to be a "ruler" in terms of telling what must be done. I addressed each one of those questions with more than a "somehow". You best recognize that. You just do not like those ideas.

The big problem you would face if all the institutions crumbled today is this. The few like you would hunker down or wander off and hope the next group of thieves aren't more armed because in anarchy, might is successful, whether you feel it's right or not.

First off, I and others like me, would be fighting and standing for True Freedom. You do not fucking get it, you DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO RULE OVER OTHERS. No one does. What you describe is taking place today, in this country, as we speak. As well as the rest of the world. Here is a link to a book that breaks down the Control system that is in place and continuing to grow:

https://www.amazon.com/Mass-Control-Engineering-Human-Consciousness/dp/1931882215/ref=sr 11?crid=1M2SREB5JC2VI&dchild=1&keywords=mass+control+jim+keith&qid=1616636590&s=books&sprefix=Mass+Control,aps,269&sr=1-1

You talk about how what I describe is Utopic, and it's Utopia, but you never answered whether you ever read the book. Well, I read the book 1984, a dystopic world. And it is so close to that, now, it is unbelievable. This is enslavement, on so many indirect levels.

The rest of us would form governments to guide might, constrain force and violence, stipulate consistent consequences for wrongs, and seek the fairest process by which guilt is determined.

Then, I and others like me, would be there, fighting you, every step of the way because you have no right to control anyone and "stipulate" consequences for wrongs. There are better ways to achieve Freedom, but that is not it.

Due process is not a natural right. It's a legislated right in place to protect the innocent and it arises due to the high degree of fallibility of vigilantism.

Right, and I guess innocent men or women have not been put to death by the "government", ever. As if they even recognize due process. The court is by their rules. The jury is typically ignorant of what "beyond a reasonable doubt" means.

They are thoroughly checked by the lawyer to be sure that they get such a pool. And the judge gives the jury "instructions" about finding according to "the law" not whether there was any wrong done in spite of the "law", as in was there someone harmed.

It does not exist without laws because it IS the law for how to determine punishable guilt. Given the fact that due process is literally and necessarily a host of laws, it cannot exist without government.

Then, I guess it does not exist because "government" as in, "political authority" does not exist. And they cannot give us our rights, those are inalienable.

There is no "somehow" to have due process in anarchy. When you go marching off to kill the killer, only to find too late that the supposed killer was defending himself, isn't the right person, did it completely by accident, or any of a number of mitigating factors, you can tell the lynch mob coming for you that you know you are RIGHT because you know the TRUTH, but they will not be convinced. Especially not when they're actually right and what you insist is Truth turns out to be misguided opinion that lead you to murder someone.

I said I would go after the killer of my family, with the means I have available. I did not say I would out right kill them. But I would not let them get away with it. That is my point. I would find out why. I would investigate for myself to find Justice for my family.

What I have spoken here is not misguided opinion. I have been researching this and studying it, for several years now. Not to mention my own experiences.

Just as due process in criminal law is created to protect the innocent from incorrect retribution, the process of civil law is created to fairly determine appropriate restitution. These are human institutions so of course they can get it wrong. However, they reduce the amount of human error in retribution and restitution. Your so called anarchy maximizes it.

That is very much doubtful. And it is not my anarchy. It is what is. It is what we have now. "Authority" attracts the very types that you say would take over. Newsflash, they already have. The many tyrants, known as congress, are cockroaches. The political circus only emboldens them, and they play god when they write "laws".

True conflicts of restitution and of retribution both necessitate an irresistible independent arbiter for resolution.

I did not dispute that. In fact, I said people could hire an arbiter to do just that. But they don't pretend to have "authority".

The alternative is a world of tyrants where it doesn't matter whether might makes right so long as might is effective.

We already have such a world.

Your position is one of Rousseauian idealism and subjectivism.

Hardly. Your position is supportive of a gigantic criminal gang called "government". It is dystopic. It is Slavery.

It shares much with other utopian ideologies. You will convince very few so long as you insist on having the TRUTH while neglecting to provide any basis beyond that assertion.

I have provided sources to show what I am talking about. I posted a video of a presentation that was done on Natural Law. Did you watch it? In this response, I provided a link to a book that breaks down the massive mind control that has been implemented. Will you read it?

Here is another book link:https://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition/dp/B0886DW69H/ref=sr 11?crid=E4Z6VAOEQV7I&dchild=1&keywords=the+most+dangerous+superstition&qid=1616639678&s=books&sprefix=the+most+dangerous,stripbooks,295&sr=1-1

I doubt you will get through any of the material I just posted here. Because you aren't interested in Truth. You certainly, did not provide much for your argument. As far as I know, you know nothing about Utopia, but continue to use that to try to divert from what I have been saying here.

If you choose to respond to this and the response is as repetitive as this discussion has become, you can skip it. It would be sufficient to just assume I disagree. That's what I will do rather than responding.

It only sounds repetitive because I stood my ground and did not waver. Anyone reading it will see that this is the case. If you want to bow out, that is fine.

If anyone, who is reading this, is interested, I provided a link to Mark Passio's work. It is extensive, but well worthwhile in delving into it further. He has always highly recommended, that a newcomer to his work, start with his podcasts at number 1. It builds from there.

Supporting Evidence: WOEIH (www.whatonearthishappening.com)
1 point

1. Due process is a necessary right that can only be provided through a government structure.

Due process is a joke in this country. It can be provided through non-governmental structure in the free-market.

2. What specific, truly non-violent actions could you take to get the unwilling trespasser out of your house?

I have addressed this scenario multiple times. But I will say it again, I would remove them through whatever means I have available to do so. They are in the wrong when they aggressed upon me by the immoral use of force (violence). I am in the right by doing what I must do to force them out of my house.

If you're justified in a particular belief, then you have a good reason for having it.

And what would be a good reason for such a belief?

Your justification for how and when freedom should be limited/constrained/restricted is based on property rights. But you hold an inconsistent belief, that freedom is inherently good while finding cause to limit it.

Freedom is only limited by our conduct with each other. I do not find any cause to limit it. It is not up to me, alone, but to anyone I interact with, with rightful conduct. This is not a belief, it is a fact. And Freedom is inherently good because the definition of inherent means "an essential part of something" It is desirable, which is a definition of what "good" means. This is very much consistent.

You also find it necessary to change the word from "violence" to "force" because you don't like the fact that you are comfortable initiating violence under certain conditions (such as protection of persons or property).

"Violence" is an immoral use of force. A wrongful act that causes harm to another sentient being. A violation of a person's rights. Force, which is necessary to do anything that we do, we use it to act. Using it to stop a violent attack is not the same as violence that was initiated upon a person. One is in the right, by stopping it, and one is in the wrong by starting it.

I don't initiate violence, the immoral use of force, in any circumstances.

If your only response to this critique is to assert that what you say is true, then you're ignoring truth in favor of your comfortable, though baseless opinion.

My opinion is based in the Truth, the best support I can ask for. What's yours based on?

Maximizing freedom means restricting the freedom of those who would restrict the freedom of others, such as an attacker. The attacker cannot be left free to attack. But this also means that any restriction of freedom done in response rather than in defense must be left to an independent power.

What independent power has any actual "right to rule", God? Certainly, not man. Because men are not angels, none are fit to rule.

In other words, after the attacker has attacked and left, retribution must come only after due process and in accordance with a pre-established punishment (law).

God's Law? Or Natural Law? Man's law is contradictory to that or redundant and unnecessary.

The alternative is blood feuds and gang wars.

What we have already, from lower levels, up to "governments" and their wars with each other.

How do you intend to remove the trespasser who insists on his right to drink beer on your couch. Seriously. Answer that question or concede the point.

Already answered it, several times. I WILL NOT concede. Now, I ask that you address my point about coercion.

Both parties are engaged in violence. You're merely averse to the word.

No they are not both engaged in violence. One has started the fight, they are in the wrong, they have used force immorally. The other is in the right to use equal force of action to stop them. You just can not stand the Truth of this point.

Not in all circumstances, according to your own position on trespassers.

Yes, in all circumstances, including dealing with trespassers.

You agree that free means absent coercion or constraint. You admit people can abuse freedom, meaning they can freely harm others. In a specific example of such an abuse of freedom, you have demonstrated your willingness stymie such abused freedom. Why do you insist that freedom is in and of itself inherently good?

Because it is most desirable (good) as opposed to the opposite, slavery. Of which, we are finding ourselves in more and more.

Provide a a specific example of what non-violent action you could take to make an unwilling trespasser leave or concede the point.

It depends on them. With me, I would start with a verbal warning, then a show of force (gun), after that it is up to them to get out or possibly die.

There is no dictionary available that recognizes this distinction.

That does not change the Truth of the matter.

When someone implores you not to defend yourself because "we must not resort to violence" the correct response is not to explain why you breaking a aggressors nose wasn't violent. The correct response is "sometimes we must".

My response would be "He started it."

You could have just said "yes, that law is out of bounds" rather then explaining that you don't break laws you agree with.

I do not recognize "man's laws", so there is no agreement one way or the other.

Lots of other people break that exact law. Do they deserve due process?

What "law" again? Anyone should have a way to defend their actions, what we have in this country is not that. The deck is typically, stacked against them.

In a much larger part because many of those armed people are organized into a military under civilian government control.

Not hardly, those people are waging immoral wars as we speak. This would cause someone to want to fight back. The fact that there are millions of guns in this country, is a huge deterrent to an invading "government" army.

Not without charging those who enjoy public lighting. That's tax.

There are other ways to pay for such things. The neighborhood, wanting to light their area, can get together and start a fund raiser for the project. And "tax" is extortion, another form of theft.

If they match that security with due process, it's a government.

How so? Due process can be done through other structures without "government" or "authority". It just takes reimagining it.

Someone else is the reason the roads are navigable. Someone else makes it happen and you help to pay them for it.

Money is stolen from me, then, distributed to them. I was not asked about it.

You do know that those things are paid for from the pool you contributed to. And you know that money is fungible (your dollar can pay for one thing as easily as a different thing).

I did not contribute anything if it is stolen from me through coercion and theft.

A private party could not defend an entire area for free. They collect payment from those who enjoy their protection without also charging those within their area who do not wish to pay. Absent payment, a free rider would be forced, through coercion to either pay or leave said area so as not to literally steal from the private party. Free riding is theft.

"Free riding is theft" kind of like the government programs, such as welfare.

Not if the "free rider" is willing to provide his own protection, which he would be forced to do if he refused to pay. Then, he is not a free-rider.

It's nothing compared to a government stockpile of ICBM's

It works just fine. Those ICBM's won't be able to take out everyone in this country.

The framework which enables capitalism to exist costs money. If you make enough money within that framework, you help cover those costs.

We do not even have capitalism, we have corporatism. I sure as hell do not want this framework you speak of. It is immoral and illegitimate. And don't I get a say in whether I will pay for those costs? Where's the choice in it?

Stand by it, but it's unsupported. Calling it the truth doesn't make it the truth.

The Truth supports what I have said. I have based everything that I have said on the Truth. You just do not want to accept it because it means that you might have to rethink a great many things in your life. And you may not want to do that work.

In spite of bad government policies sure. But markets rely on good government institutions. Strong legal structures provide confidence in trade and reduce costs.

Reduce costs? Prices have gone through the roof in the last 50+ years, and government interferes more and more.

If people just said "well I'm honest enough to keep my word without signing a legally binding contract for the so-called government", then they would be proverbial lambs to the slaughter.

People have and still do this. It is called "my word is my bond".

If everyone was actually did all the right things without the necessity of listed consequences for the wrong things, you'd have your Utopia.

Again, you reference that book, but you never answered whether you ever read it. Also, I said Natural Law is discoverable and meant to be understood. It has been called The Law of Consequence. And it is the only "list" that we need.

Anarchy is as much a myth as it's kindred fantasy, communism and for the same basic reason; human kind isn't like that.

No one has the right to rule over anyone else, therefore, Anarchy is Reality. This renders "government" or "political authority" non-existent. It's a belief system not based on the Truth. It is a religious cult, an extremely dangerous one. And communism is built in.

Human kind isn't like what, exactly? This begs the question, what is humankind like?

1 point

Most criminal law refers to property crime and violent crime. If you threw out all drug prohibitions today, you would leave most of our criminal laws in tact.

I am not talking about just drug prohibition. I am talking about prohibition in general. There are far less "criminal laws" then, the rest. If you did a way with all of the prohibitive "laws" and "regulations" you would have a much smaller beast, and yet, it would still be a beast or demon really.

And if you don't get health insurance, you pay at tax time. The only way they could make it Constitutional was to make it a tax. As much as that is bullshit, it's not a substantial change. Money at tax time is par for the course.

It is substantial enough. And I already covered "taxation". Yes, par for the course, stealing the fruits of our labor.

The only property rights in a stateless society are those that you can secure with your own threat of violence. Just like the trespasser in your house. The existence of property rights negate absolute freedom. As I have explained, your enforcement of property rights limits the freedom of another to use said property.

Not hardly, if you are talking about a truly moral society. That is one that recognizes Objective right and wrong, acting in accordance with that, and therefore, MAXIMIZING Freedom. I can acquire property, outside of myself, through trade with others, with whatever is available to be a means of exchange.

By protecting that property, I am not using the threat of violence, but defending against it. As I have already explained. They do not get to claim ownership over my property, that is stealing. They can try and may even get a way with something of mine. It does not mean that is right for them to do. And I have a right to attempt to get it back, if possible.

Political authority has historically made property disputes resolvable so efficiently and peacefully that we are now able to enjoy the large and complex modern society that no commune or stateless backwater can produce. That's why people won't walk away from society. They are better off staying.

Right, better off living as slaves. I will take the "stateless backwater" over whatever you call this, today, any day. I rather fight and die standing for Freedom, then, live on my knees. What you have is a gigantic collective that tries to rule over people and enslave them. It certainly is a far less of a moral "society" then, in the founder's days.

Yet that's exactly what you do with the trespasser. Calling your property nan extension of yourself does not actually make you and your property the same thing. It merely makes your actions against the free movement of another seem justified to you. The trespasser can use your same position to justify self-defense against you on property that he does not believe nyoi can call your own.

I already covered this over and again. That is not what I do with the trespasser. Living in my house, does not restrict his freedom of movement. And breaking in is an initiation of force, a threat towards me and my family. If I own land, depending on how much I own, I can post signs and put up a fence, but this acts only as a delay barrier. I can probably, not do much when it comes to someone moving across said land.

Unless, I am active in keeping tabs on it. But that really is an extension of me. I have a rightful claim of that land. The trespasser does not. His self-defense argument would hold no water because I have the rightful claim, i.e. I acquired it through first use or through trade with another valid owner.

If you write down an explicit example of Natural law, and then write down the consequences for breaching it, you have created man's law.

That is not true. The Bill of Rights, for example, listed what the Federal Government was not to do in the case of Natural Law Rights. It was simply a recognition that such rights exist and will not be infringed upon. Yet, writing them down did nothing without people acting in accordance. Today, that is not done. The "laws" on the books do more to violate those rights, then enforce them.

Natural Law could be called "God's Law", "Spiritual Law", "Cosmic Law", etc. It is meant to be discovered, not created out of thin air. Man's law changes with the whims of those "in charge". Natural Law does not change. It is immutable.

In fact, the only difference between natural law and man's law is the difference between laws you personally like and laws you don't.

This makes me think that you have not paid any attention to what I have said here at all. I posted a video on a damn good presentation of what Natural Law is. I very much doubt that you took the time to watch even a small amount of it. But I challenge you to do so, then, come back and argue against what is presented there.

What you said here is a crock of shit.

Furthermore, laws are fundamentally statements of consequences, not merely dictates.

While that might be true, they are very often in contradiction to Natural Law and Natural Law Rights. And therefore not valid, in other words unjust.

What is an example of Natural law? What is the consequence for the crime you would list?

It has been called "The Law of Consequence" or even Karma. A consequence for the violation upon a person, in the form of the threat of violence, all the way to full on attack, is that the person being violated would stop the attacker(s), with whatever means they have at their disposal, and defensive equal force of action, to include deadly force. It is done through our actions and response ability.

Is inanimate property ownership a right under natural law when it necessarily restricts the freedom of others? What is the consequence for breaching that right?

Okay, how does private property restrict the freedom of others? No one has said that they can't acquire property for their use, as long as it is not harming another to do this, like stealing. And they would be held to account for that theft.

Since government can be used for evil, you advocate it's elimination. But freedom can be used for evil, so why argue for it's maximization?

"Government" is really a criminal class of people claiming and believed to have "authority" or the right to rule. Freedom is a person living their own life, minding their own business, governing themselves in their affairs.

When they have stepped out of bounds and attempt to take that Freedom from others in varying degrees, that is not Freedom, that is attempting to do what they want to others because they can. It is a misuse of free-will. And by doing it, they begin to loose their Freedom. Depending on the degree to which, they violate others Freedom, it could cost them their life.

It is freedom. You just dislike it. If you agree with my definition, then the trespasser is simply using freedom in a manner that is a problem for you, and you are restricting his freedom as a result.

I am stopping him from using his Freedom to violate mine. That is an abuse of Freedom. Freedom cannot exist without Principles to live by. If we do not live by those, it falls flat and becomes non-existent. It is a set of Principles to live by in order to co-exist amongst each other. Once those Principles are abandoned, it is no longer Freedom.

If freedom can be used for evil (it can), then it is not inherently good. It should be upheld where it is good and restricted where it is not, such as when you restrict the freedom of a trespasser.

It is not True Freedom if used for evil. True Freedom is inherently good. But it requires understanding the Principles to live by and doing so. Otherwise we are just kidding ourselves, living with an illusion of Freedom. So, if it is "used for evil" the degrees to which we have it lessen, with that abuse. And it effects the aggregate of Humanity.

This is another unsupported argument that begs the question. You've also avoided my entire point about turf wars.

It is supported by the Truth. Take a look around the world, today. They act in the very way that you describe. What about turf wars? My point was that "government" acts just like those gangs involved in turf wars. Bombing other country's for the natural resources, which is what they are doing, amongst other agendas.

I presented the irrational economic reasons, but bloody feuds arise for emotional reasons as well. A disinterested third party with superior fire power suppresses such feuds.

So, might makes right? That is not the way to go about things.

If an employee breaks the rules that govern the business, the owner or manager may dock pay, or force the employee to leave against their will. The employee is no longer free to stay. They are your trespasser.

That does not answer my question. That does not mean that it is a "government". And they would only be a trespasser if they attempted to stay anyways.

Yes. There's always an "or else". You tell the trespasser to leave your house "or else". The grocery tells employees to do their job in this or that way "or else". Social pressure carries with it a host of implied "or else". This is what I talked about earlier. People coerce others and restrict freedom in a whole host of ways.

Again, you failed to answer the question. I said do they get to tell others that want nothing to do with their "group" what to do, or else? If so, they are in the wrong. I addressed "coercion" already.

It is not the same as persuading others, without the threat of bodily harm. What you describe does not show that there would be such harm done. Just because there is an "or else" does not mean it would be that.

If the grocery manager tells the employee to do their job "or else you no longer work here" that means they will lose their job, but it is not a threat of bodily harm or injury. If they say do your job "or else I will make you do it, like whipping you" that is coercion and what I have been talking about. And that is slavery. The opposite of Freedom.

The "ment" in government is not derived from the Latin "mente" or mind. It is derived from the Latin "mentum" or instrument/medium.

Uh No, "mentum" means the chin. "Ment" does come from Latin mens or mente, I have seen both and they mean mind.(Cassell's Latin Dictionary).

Government is the mechanism or instrument by which behavior is governed, as I said. This meaning of "instrument/medium" applies to other "ment" words such as establishment, management, compartment, etc. Again the etymology is from "mentum", not "mente".

As I said, the only place in does in fact exist is within the Individual. Externally, outside of man, that which governs our behavior is Natural Law.

Again, the etymology is from "mens" or "mente" meaning the mind. And gubernare means to direct, steer, or control. I would be curious to know where you came up with that, however.

This is why I said that even your conflicts are resolved through inexplicable agreement. Most of the time people can work through disagreements. This is because there is some larger principal that is agreed on. Some common value appealed to by both. Less commonly, though still prevalent, is the situation where conflicts cannot be resolved through common value. The only outcome here is force (through coercion or barrier). Either one party will be forced to leave without their value being achieved, or they will force the acquisition of their value from the opposing party.

Yeah, then there might be bad blood, and that is unfortunate. So, this would be a "winner and a loser" scenario. The last option, likely involving the threat or use of violence, would be wrong to do, if it entails those actions.

So, my conflicts are resolved through unexplainable agreement? Is that what you are saying? Again, you have not really been paying attention to what I have said, if that is the case. I explained how people might resolve their conflicts. Hiring a third party to arbitrate is an option. That is a private third party. And the way that it would work is that both parties honor the decision. Or there is no point.

I am not interested in the kind of society Thomas More presented. Likely neither are you.

So, no you haven't read it? I don't know if I would be interested because I have not read it, but then, I am not claiming anything to be Utopic or a Utopia. I can not make such a call, other than people like to through it around alot. And it does not seem like they read it, either.

Or else what?

Meaning we all live on this earth and we will have peaceful co-existence or not. Right now, we do not, to a large degree have that. And Freedom, in the aggregate, is disappearing at a rapid pace.

We do not have to live around others. There are still empty places an unsociable person can choose to go.

Like what, the ocean? There is lots of land in the US, but it is held by the federal government as Parks.

But if we choose to live around each other, we are going to be subjected to consequences. Others will always present soft and hard forms of limitations on freedom. Soft forms are encountered all the time with human interaction. Hard forms are laws, and they aren't going anywhere either.

Freedom requires self-defense to protect it, or it is lost. That means taking action and responsibility for oneself. Many do not want to do that. They want the Freedom without the responsibility. They want someone else to take care of them. The system is set-up to cater to people like that. They are parasitic.

"Hard forms are laws", but man's law is not Real Law, and is more often than not unjust. And they are, likely, to get worse, these politician scribbles, and the enforcement of them. If we let them.

1 point

That depends. While many things are better left to the market, that market exists within a larger framework provided by government. The market cannot itself provide that framework because that framework necessarily relies on a monopoly on the initiation of force independent of market forces such as profit.

There should be no such monopoly of the initiation of force(violence). The market would be driven by the people who interact amongst themselves, providing products or services, and trading. What you describe is not a necessity, but a convenience that so-called "government" provides.

That's not true.

It absolutely is true. No one has the right to initiate physical harm upon anyone else. No matter how many are involved, you cannot turn a wrong act like that, into a right.

The person you believe is the killer has a right to due process. That process is necessarily a legal process. That's why you don't have the right to take it upon yourself.

I absolutely do have the right go after that killer. And I said with the means I have available. The "government" does not give me that right. The legal process is a convenience, so, people do not have to deal with that killer, themselves. It is essentially, passing the buck to a third party.

If there's no government, then there's no possibility for due process. In that case, you and anyone else can seek retribution against whomever you believe is guilty for whatever reason. And we would all be much worse off.

Worse off because we would have to take responsibility for ourselves? And we seek retribution regardless of whether there is a "government", that exists in your head, or not. Or a third party that we go to to resolve differences. It would be better if we hired that service, rather than rely on some political "authority", that does not in fact exist.

That's my mistake. They are building an institution where legal institutions are weak. Of there were no legal institutions, people would create them.

Only if they believe in "government" or political "authority". There are better moral ways to do it.

Cops aren't allowed to just follow orders. When an illegal order is followed, they get sued and fired and sometimes imprisoned. Cops follows laws and policies. Orders must be within law and policy for a cop to claim they were justified in acting on the order.

They very much do follow orders. As I explained, every politicians decree, or "law" is enforced by the police. They might get thrown under the bus, at times, but they still follow orders when they are "just doing their jobs". If they didn't follow orders, and just enforced "laws" that are mala in se, there would be no one doing time for victimless crimes, or did no harm to anyone else.

Anyone can become a politician

Sure, and anyone can become a social engineer, or a tyrant. A dictator. What's your point? They are still trying to be a ruler over others.

Do you mean the process of Legislation? Enforcement? Judicial operations?

I mean politician scribbles on paper, calling it legislation or "law", their order followers enforcing their decrees, and the injustice system (because that is what it is today).

You are limiting a trespassers freedom with barriers and, if that barrier is breached, you are using violence or the threat of violence to remove them (coercion).

I provide a boundary that they are not to cross because that is the beginning of a transgression upon me. I have not misused Freedom to do harm upon that person. I have simply showed that they are crossing the line, they are not invited, and they need to stop what they are doing.

I AM NOT using violence. They have initiated the aggression (no matter how passive). They are in the wrong if they continue. They are attempting to violate my Freedom to be secure in my home.

You are claiming the right to do so. When you explain that it is your right to do so, you aren't negating the fact that this is what you're doing.

I absolutely am negating the fact that it is violence that I use to defend myself, and property, from attack. That IS NOT the case. It is the difference between Force V.S. Violence. So, I would be using a threat of force if they continue with their violence, or violation. That is not coercion, or the threat to initiate force because I have not started the violation.

That's not true. An action can cause no harm to others and still be wrong. I described nothing about the trespasser that implies harm to you or your family. The person is merely where you don't want them to be. How are you acting different from government?

It is true. What action would be wrong to do, but causes no harm to others? There is no such action. If an action causes no physical harm to another sentient being, it is not wrong to do, therefore, it is a right action to do. The fact that they are trespassing is the beginning of a transgression upon me or my family. I do not know what their intention is towards us, hence, they present a threat. I did not say that I would not find out. But they are in the wrong, and if they continued they would have problems.

I am different in the sense that the "government" does not have the right to claim ownership over people's property. They take money from them in the form of "property taxes". If the person does not pay their property is confiscated(stolen) from them. That is claiming ownership over said property. The "government" is a collective. A group, and no group has rights, only individuals have rights because they are the ones who do physical acts.

You tell the trespasser what he cannot do, then you physically enforce it if they disobey.

That is not the same thing. As I already explained, the trespasser is the transgressor. They are attempting to violate my rights, and I stop them from doing that through DEFENSIVE Force.

The government has a law that says they will punish you for assaulting someone.

The proper consequences for actions of assaulting someone, is that they defend themselves and stop the attack. Nothing further really needs to be done. If a person is unable to defend themselves, they can hire someone to do that for them, or teach them how to do it, which would be better.

They will punish you is a predetermined way in accordance with predetermined rules and only after you're granted due process. But to you, this is out of bounds. It's far better than your alternative.

Oh, they grant it to me, huh? Then, it is not a right. They cannot give me rights. It is not for them to do. They are not God. At that is out of bounds. My alternative is to leave people alone. An ultimate Individual right.

I am not interested in "necessary and proper". I am interested in what is right or wrong. Recognizing the difference, and acting in accordance with what is a rightful action.

Do you really not see how protecting yourself could harm a person? When you punch a person to keep them from continuing to punch you, is their broken nose not harmful to them?

If they initiated the attack, they have disregarded their right to not be harmed. They started the violence upon me, physically doing harm upon me, braking my nose, etc. So, at that point, I could care less what harm I am doing to them, when defending myself against that attack. And a badge won't stop me.

You don't stand against your right to rule against trespasser in your house.

I have already said, you have the right to rule you, and I have the right to rule me. That includes my house. That trespasser, by the very fact of being a trespasser, is in violation. They are a foreign invader. And it takes action to stop them. But there is a difference between using defensive force and violence. I am not the one in violation. And I am not taking their right to rule themselves. I am stopping them from attempting to do that to me.

You're claiming that right. But you perceive harm in a trespasser where the trespasser perceived no harm. Are you really going to keep this stranger from finishing his 6 pack on your couch? Will you initiate violence against him to see home off your property?

It's not about perception, alone. If the perception is not in line with reality, it is false. The Reality of what you describe here, is that the trespasser, if he managed to make it past the door, is in violation of my rights, my Freedom. I will most definitely, defend myself, using whatever force is necessary to remove him from my home, up to and including deadly force. And that is not initiating violence. He has presented the threat of violence(coercion) upon me and my family. That is the Truth of the matter.

Laws are the previously agreed on rules. Legislators came up with them. The vast cast majority of them concern the protection of people and property.

No, they are not. They are decrees and dictates by those politicians pretending to have the "authority" to pass them. I didn't agree to their rules, and you would be hard pressed to find anyone who actually did. You say previously agreed upon rules, where are these rules?

The "Legislators came up with them" which, suggests that man can make up "laws" on a whim, that change as they see fit. And the vast majority of them have far little to do with protecting people and property, but have more to do with control.

This is probably your best bet. A small commune of like minded people can accomplish all kinds of things that a larger society cannot. Communism has functioned to varying degrees in communes. That doesn't make it a good model for society. Which is why my challenge was to present a large integrated society.

Well, this example is not one of communism. And you didn't specify the size of population. If you really, want an example of an "integrated society" large cities would be such an example. Anything outside of that would not be a "large society" and is less integrated.

In Cospaia, they relied on a "Council of Elders and Heads of Families" which "decided with whom the members of the families would associate personally and in business". They didn't use threat of violence, but family pressure. I saw the Godfather, but other then that I don't know what "family pressure" looks like in Italy. Anyway, good for them. Providing a commodity that your larger neighbors want, but is banned is a nice way to stay in business when you're too small to stave off military invasion.

They lasted for nearly 400 years. That's a long time, considering, they had potential enemies around them. And it worked.

Zomia has some cultures that limit the amount of wealth and power you're allowed to display. Some further reading on Zomia shows that most of what is out there comes from an author named James Scott, who coined the name for the region. The area is composed of many different groups of people living in small communities scattered across the region. Scott lumps them all together and puts every cultural artifact in terms of purposeful resistance to a state. He even claims their illiteracy is on purpose.

I am not seeing a problem so far, here. He mentions that their "illiteracy" is on purpose because they do not want beaurocracy to creep in with the written word. Giving rise to a "government".

If you want to know anything about the people of this fabricated region of Zomia, you have to look at each culture. A glance at Hmong people in asia indicates that a woman may be better off staying with her highly abusive husband because community backlash against divorce would be worse for her.

Yeah, and no one is perfect in any place upon the earth.

The Karen people aren't avoiding the state, they just keep losing when they try to form one. They occasionally have charismatic leaders rule over large enough groups to go fight the government and then they are smashed to bits and scatter back to the hills.

It does not sound like they are trying to form a government. But it does sound as if they are attempting to fight for their Freedom.

Zomia could be analogous to appalachia. Where people don't like the government and handle things themselves.

And good on them. Good luck ruling them.

Where literacy is low and substance abuse and violence are high. Some cultures in zomia probably have their own Hatfields and McCoys.

Says you. Do you have anything to show that is the case in Appalachia?

There is a distinct difference between you and things. You ARE you. You OWN things. A person can infringe on your property rights without you even being present. This is not so with your person. As such, your ownership of yourself is distinct from your ownership of inanimate property. For you to even claim ownership of inanimate property as you claim ownership of yourself requires commonly accepted rules.

What's your point? I have said "Anarchy" does not mean without rules. You said "commonly accepted rules". That sounds like common sense to me. And is something that ought to be taught to children at a young age. This does not answer my question about "my very existence restricting others Freedom". That is where your logic goes.

Many (most?) supposedly anarchic societies disregard your conception of ownership of inanimate things. Your rules about property don't apply to them. If you attempt to make them apply, you restrict freedom. To those who disregard inanimate property rights, the trespasser has the RIGHT to physically defend himself against your violent aggression when you attempt to remove him from your couch.

I have not heard of any such societies that completely disregard property. And if they have a central "authority" to enforce such rules, they are not "anarchic". You have not shown any such societies. If I defend my Freedom to own property, including my person, I am asserting my right to do so. That is not, restricting Freedom, but recognizing it. They would not be recognizing it in what they do.

You say it, but it's not unsupportable.

What? We do not even have capitalism in this country. We have a mixed economy. A marriage of "government" and business. In other words, Fascism.

Do you know what checkers is without ground rules? Cardboard and rubbish. There is no game. Government provides the rules of trade for capitalism.

This is not a game. "Government" interferes with the free-market, giving an advantage to companies that would otherwise fail because of bad quality of service or product. And it takes away from those who might be able to compete with those companies. Have you heard about "to big to fail"?

A baseless assertion. As nation states have grown in complexity and efficiency of enforcement, violence between individuals and groups has plummeted. Archeological research shows that pre-modern life, where people lives in small tribes, was exceedingly violent. Life was too often nasty, brutish and short.

How so? I highly doubt that. Crime between people has plummeted in spite of government, not because of it. And the murder rate from "Government" killing it's own people is humungous, especially in the 20th century and into the 21st. It is called democide. Or death by government.

I would like to see the research results for what you spoke of. We are part of nature, and we would do well to quit trying to separate from it.

You're making up property rights to assert a right to rule over the so called trespasser. If all is actually anarchy, then🎵 this land is your land, this land is my land🎵.

I am not making up anything. Our rights are inherent in nature. I am recognizing them. As I already pointed out, the trespasser is attempting to rule over me, I would be stopping him from doing this.

If you kick me out of the house and call it yours, you are initiating force, and I the trespasser am defending myself. If anarchy is reality, then property rights are as meaningful as the fiat currency you used to acquire your supposed property.

That is bullshit and you know it. If that house is mine, and I kick you out, it is within my right to do so. I said "Anarchy is reality in the sense that no one has the right to rule over others" that is attempt to control or enslave them.

Rights require action in the form of self-defense to keep them in force. If a person does nothing they have let themselves be ruled. They are attempting to abdicate their responsibility for themselves.

And the fiat currency is given to us by your so-called "government". The Federal Reserve was developed by private bankers and given to the "government", who accepted it and put it into place.

That's Utopic. People DO force things on others. Without a state, there is no due process to deal with such people. So the minute someone does what people often do, victimize another, you have no recourse but a completely subjective sense of retribution, possibly against the wrong person.

Utopic? It does not sound like you know what you are talking about. Who says there would be no due process in place in such a society? I can come up with ideas, but I do not pretend to have all the answers nor predict the future. People could certainly, put something in place, but that does not mean it would be a monopoly on violence. There should be no such monopoly. But there should be a distributive use of force; everyone is armed.

It depends on what you mean by withdrawal. People take off to Alaska, Siberia, or even rural Colorado. No one care. Others choose to set up a criminal enterprise for not only elicit substances, but human trafficking (prostitution), dog fighting, murder for hire, and a host of other harmless endeavors deemed "wrong" by the government. Those kinds of dissenters are hunted and put in cages. Most people are glad for it.

The first two "crimes" you mention are not such. Prostitution, unless coerced into it, is not a crime. And the "government" has been mixed up in drug trafficking through the CIA. They have been doing it for years. And you can hardly speak for most people.

People can and do work most things out amongst themselves in the US today. And other people victimize people. The violent criminal cannot be addressed by folks working things out with each individual case. They must be addressed through due process, which is necessarily governmental. The alternative is the mob and vigilantism. Both of which require only the emotional impulses of the vengeance seekers.

The violent criminal is always dealt with on an individual case basis. A person must defend themselves in order to stop that criminal. Many criminals get away with their crimes for a variety of reasons, some are technicalities. Or they are given light sentences and are out, without rehabilitation in "society". Due process does not have to be "governmental". There are ways to come up with such that does not require "authority".

Again, the point is that laws are predictable and fairly consistent over time. Even bad laws.

Look, they outlawed alcohol, then, a few years later, changed their minds. So, it was okay to do one day, then not okay the next, then okay again. They did the same with cannabis, but did not change it back. Many people in certain areas have gotten it legalized, however, it is not in other areas. You can own and carry a gun in one place, but if you cross an imaginary line, you are suddenly in violation of "the law".

Man's laws are not consistent. They change on the whim of politicians. They do not always call them "laws", they are also, called regulations. There is also, the ABC agency's that have there own "policies" that they got into place without a vote.

Your argument, that there are so many laws that no one knows when they are breaking one, requires that you are unaware of evidence of your assertion. By naming those laws that you don't like, you admit that you are aware of them. It is true that there are a substantial number of regulations on business. Too many. These regulations do not result in unforeseen criminal charges for private citizens nor for most companies. That's because people know what the laws are. Which is my point. It is almost never the case that people are charged for ignorance of their own illegal activity.

And my point is that there are so many on the books that it is ridiculous. A person cannot possibly keep in line with all of them. There is so much red tape that a person hardly wants to bother with certain activities that would not be harming anyone. These laws and regulations, and such, are prohibitive and are about control, not protecting individual rights. They violate those rights with everything they do.

And one has to stretch to see most of the ten planks in the US. Income tax does not mean we are all Marxists now. And if we were, we would be that much closer to the stateless end Marx sought. I'm glad we aren't.

Apparently, you are unaware of what has been implemented throughout the years. The link below shows this implementation.

Supporting Evidence: The Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto in The US (libertyzone.com)
1 point

Right, that's your justification for how and when freedom should be limited/constrained/restricted. Meaning you are in favor of restricting freedom in some specific contexts. The existence of those contexts demonstrate that freedom is not an inherent good.

It's not a justification, it's stating the Truth. A justification is, essentially, making an excuse. That is not what I am doing. Unlike you.

I am not in favor of restricting Freedom. I am in favor of protecting it. And maximizing it. But that entails recognizing and acting according to objective right and wrong. Doing the right action and avoiding the wrong.

And here you are presenting the circumstances wherein coercion is acceptable, demonstrating that coercion is not inherently bad.

How so? Did you read what I said there? I said "threatening to do harm to another (coercion) is wrong. . ." If a person has done no harm to another, then, you would be wrong in using the threat of physical violence upon them, to get them to do what you want.

Violence is a specific kind of force. If you punch someone in the mouth to stop them from punching you in the mouth, that force is violent in nature. It's justified, as violence occasionally is.

No, self-defense is not violence. Someone who has initiated the fight is using violence upon the person they have attacked. They are in the wrong. The person defending themselves, is using equal force of action to stop that attack. And in the right to do so.

Not in all circumstances, according to your own position on trespassers.

Yes, in all circumstances. With trespassers, I do not know what their intent is. They are presenting a threat. They initiated the coercion by stepping foot inside my home, uninvited. THEY are in the wrong. They are attempting to take Freedom from me, the Freedom to be secure in my home. They are misusing their own Freedom to infringe upon me and mine. I did not say Freedom couldn't be abused, but then, it decreases because Morality is, then, decreasing. And this is happening in the aggregate of Humanity.

How specifically will you remove an unwilling person from your house through non-violent self defense? A panic room won't get them out. The fact is, you would have to put hands on them. You would have to push, pull, punch, or engage in some other violent force to remove them. The most peaceful method would be to present the threat of violence if they do not leave.

Because self-defensive force is not violence (see above). It is defensive use of force against the initiated use of force (violence). I would be using that defensive force to remove them, in the means I have available.

Not all force is violence. But all violence is force. Calling a violent thing violent is not putting a moral label on it. Violence is a form of force. The moral correctness of it depends on the contexts.

The context is the one who initiated the use of force upon someone else. It's the one who started it that is violent.

There is a law against you going into someone else's empty house without permission. Is that out of bounds?

It is redundant and unnecessary. I would not do that to begin with, law or not. And I expect the same respect given to my house. But you did not address what I pointed out.

"No because they tell me what I can and cannot put into my own body, where I can and cannot go, make me pay for things I am morally opposed to, tell me I must wear a mask, what to teach my child, etc." This is what "government" does.

For truly public goods, you can't help but use them. There are plenty of problems with government spending and taxation. But you reject all government activity. You reject the fact that someone else is the reason your area hasn't been invaded.

My area has not been invaded in large part due to the fact that many people are armed.

Someone else is the reason street lights illuminate the neighborhood. Someone else is the reason streets are patrolled for security.

The neighborhood can take care of these things, and it would be just as effective. As for security, the people are the militia (at least that was what it was supposed to be) and they can provide their own security if it was even needed.

Someone else is the reason the roads are navigable. Someone else makes it happen and you help to pay them for it.

I am forced, under duress or the threat of violence upon me (up to and including deadly force, if I resist). I do not have an itemized list of where the money goes, so I do not know that it is even paying for these things that you mention.

That is, if you're paying taxes. If you aren't paying taxes, you still get to have navigable roads, public security, lights at night, and protection from foreign invaders. You cannot help but utilize public goods.

Only because the so-called "government" does not allow a private person to provide such things. They hate competition. And I wonder why? Because that person can do that without stealing from his neighbors. As for protection from foreign invaders, I already mentioned the militia, that every abled bodied person is supposed to be a part of.

The fact that there are millions of armed individuals in this country is more of a deterrent to invasion, then, what the "government" does. They are at constant war now, invading other lands, and killing the inhabitants. It is immoral. It is murder. Ah but "war is the health of the State" as has been said. This "government" has become the invader.

The framework which enables capitalism to exist costs money. If you make enough money within that framework, you help cover those costs.

Yes, isn't socialism grand. I said the private market can provide a framework that does not steal from people. I stand by that statement. And if a person willingly and knowingly pays that money, of their own free-will, then, I have no problem with it.

Lots of things should not be tax payer funded, but that doesn't make taxation theft.

"Taxation" is extortion, another form of theft. It absolutely, is. Taking from people, through the threat of physical violence upon them, is what that is. It is a euphemism to cover that it is theft. If I tried to do the same thing to you, it would be wrong because I have no right to do it. And I cannot give to another what I do not have; it is impossible.

And me and two others cannot make that right to do for anyone else in our stead. It does not matter if there are millions of people, they still cannot make that right to do. Calling it "government" does not change this Truth. Therefore, it renders them illegitimate, and nothing, but a gigantic criminal gang.

This is the Truth of the matter. You just don't like it, but it does not change it.

The victim.

What about them? That they, if they are alive, have to pay for taking care of that offender? It is as if they are being victimized, again. Once by the offender and then, through the State.

The market functions more efficiently because of the presence of essential governmental functions. There is no game without enforced ground rules. The fact that certain government action can unnecessarily hinder market efficiency does not eliminate the necessity of government as such.

The market functions in spite of so-called "government" functions. This is not a game. Their meddling gives rise to companies that use government to their advantage to push out any who might provide better products or services on the free-market. And it is not a question of necessity, concerning government, it is a question of legitimacy. It is immoral what they do. They have no right to do it. Therefore, "government" does not exist, except in your head.

1 point

When you said the government was way out of bounds I asked what you would find to be in bounds. But there was nothing. You aren't presenting an argument about right and wrong so far. You have only stated things that you believe are wrong, to include all government functions.

You ignored the rest of what I said on that. I said they would have to stop acting as if they have "special rights" that the rest of us don't have. And I will add here, that the law would have to apply to them, as well. Which in many cases it does not. Then I said, but then it would cease to be government or the State.

That is all I have been presenting. You have not been paying attention to what I have said, if you believe that. I have stated things that I know to be wrong, yes to include all government functions.

For my position, if it is right it is also functional. I have been arguing mostly for the right things government does (while I acknowledge government does wrong as well). Those right things are functional as well.

Well, all right actions are functional, or they would not be actions. So, I guess maybe I am not clear on what you mean there. Functional as far as what? Useful? I mean if I wanted to ingest a remote control to my tv, I have the right to do that. It's my body. But that does not mean, it is a good idea. And it would render my body to not function correctly. It is still my right to do so.

Just because I can do what I want with my body, does not mean that I would not be responsible for my actions if I do some drugs then, murder a person. The drugs should really not be a factor because I made the decision to ingest them. But I took a persons life, and should be held to account. The so-called "Justice" system does take those things into account. Then, says that the murderer was not responsible for his actions because he was intoxicated by the drugs.

Anyways, I just got done replying to your other response and wrote a book. So, I will post this now.

1 point

Restrict or constrain, the principle remains. You are limited the person's freedom of movement with a barrier around your property.

You dictate that others cannot freely enter your property. You present your own rules about limitations on freedom where rights are concerned, but those are still limitations on freedom.

I have said, on this debate, that "your freedom ends where my nose begins". I take steps to protect hearth and home, they can still make the choice to do wrong towards me and I have the right stop them. It always boils down to the one who started it, is in the wrong, such as, a fight.

Coerce is the correct term. By coerce I mean persuade an otherwise unwilling person to do something by using force or threats. That's the basic definition of coerce. People do it all the time. It is not inherently bad just as freedom is not inherently good.

No, there is persuading someone then, there is threatening to do harm to them. I am talking about the latter, and it is wrong to do that, if they have done no harm to anybody else.

Freedom is an ultimate good that can be achieved.

Threat of force is in the definition of coercion.

There is a difference between force and violence. You have to use force to do any action. Violence, thruthfully, is a violation upon someone. To threaten to use violence would be the use of coercion to get them to do what you want them to do. That is wrong.

How do you suppose you will remove an unwilling person from your property or your car? What non-violent force will you use?

By using self-defense. I am not acting in a violent way. They are. I am stopping them from doing the wrongful act. By being there, uninvited, they have presented a threat.

So when you say that they are way out of bounds, there is literally no way for you to conceive of them as in bounds.

No because they tell me what I can and cannot put into my own body, where I can and cannot go, make me pay for things I am morally opposed to, tell me I must wear a mask, what to teach my child, etc.

If someone provides you a good or service that you do not wish to pay for, they can sue you to receive compensation. When they receive that compensation it was not stolen from you as there was an exchange. Whether or not you like the services rendered by the state, they are providing them. That's not theft. With the basic functions of government, their services are necessarily state functions and cannot be for profit (via the market).

So, where is the itemized list to show where my money goes, along with the choice to pay for the services that I choose to use? There is none. How about the choice to not pay for what I do not use, or that I am morally opposed to? Nothing. They extort the money and use it as they see fit to. That is theft.

That literally depends. Sometimes restitution is built into the laws (they call it restorative justice) and sometimes judges build it into the sentence.

So, the money goes to the family of the victim or victim themselves? And sometimes this happens? Not likely. I am betting any funds goes to pay for the one in prison, taking care of them.

The government produces services, not goods. Those services produce the institutional framework that enables market functions to operate. The less corrupt those institutions, the better the market functions.

That sounds good on paper, but the government interferes with the market more than it helps it. The more it gets involved in services that had been or are provided by the private sector the worse that market gets. Healthcare is a prime example. Insurance, medicine, regulations, etc. Prices are through the roof. They do more harm to the market than good.

It has a monopoly on the initiation of force and force in retribution. That's necessary.

No it is not. No one should have a monopoly on these things. I initiate force anytime I do anything. So, the truth is that it is a monopoly on violence. Something no one has a right to do to anyone else. And if my family is killed, I have the right to seek Justice with the means I have available. If that means I go after the killer myself, then, I will do so.

Yeah, that's an example of people creating legal institutions where they are too weak or few. If the police were completely non-existent there, these organizations would necessarily take on a more coercive role. But the police aren't non-existent there. I'm familiar with what you are talking about. Police are too thin, not unwilling to go into those places.

I already talked about coercion, above. They might take on a stronger stance. And you are calling it a legal institution, yet it is private. So, what do you mean when you say "legal institution"? Is it private, public, or do you see no difference?

Yeah? Does the cop get a bonus for arresting more people? No. That's illegal. It's an uncommon situation min the US that a profit motive creeps in on a local level. That's illegal and it's corrected when investigated by a different governmental agency.

No, the cop follows orders. One definition of profit is a valuable return, not necessarily money. It could something akin to human resources in the form of more prisoners for human labor. Private prisons thrive on this.

You don't become part of the US government via your class. There are many thousands of people in government from federal to local. I've never heard anyone claim the right to rule over others. At least not in any way that's different from you ruling over others's ability to enter your property.

Politicians, for example, would be considered ruling class. There are alot of NGO's that might be considered part of the ruling class because they have so much influence in governmental affairs. It's all compartmentalized so many people do not know what the higher ups are up to. And the claim is through the actions and operations of these people.

As for "ruling over other's ability to enter my property" I have covered this already. I am not ruling over anyone. Claiming such a right is the same as enslaving someone. I have not done this with the protection of my home and family, or myself.

As long as they call it a wrongful act, then they are no different from you. You claim that it's ok to restrict others from doing what you call a wrongful act, and to force them if they disobey your "no trespassing edict".

It is absolutely different. Did you read what I said? If the act does no harm to others, then, it is a right action. That is not what they do. As I pointed out above they tell me and everyone else how to live their lives, what they can or cannot do with their bodies, etc.

I have a right to protect my home , family, and myself from harm. That is, it is a right action, that does no harm to anyone else in doing so. This is the same as anyone has the right to do. It is not what I call a wrongful act, it is the Truth. An act that causes harm to another sentient being is a wrongful act.

The fact of the matter is that some circumstances require that a person's freedom be restricted or their actions forced. You have agreed to this fact. What you disagree with is an organized institution doing exactly that in accordance with previously agreed on rules of conduct.

I am not opposed to organization. I stand against "authority" or the "right to rule over others", when no such right, in fact exists. Where are these previously agreed upon rules of conduct? And who came up with them? What are they?

First, ancient to medieval Ireland was not a large integrated society. It was fractured among clans.

Second, you take issue with a governmental class. According to your source, "Kinship with the clan was an essential qualification for holding any office or property." The article goes on to talk about how Brehon Law determined the nature of the use of a noble person's land by some lesser tenent.

Third, we only know about Brehon Law because they were written down. They were codified law written by lawyers. There's nothing "private" about that. They codified such laws as "February first is the day on which husband and wife may decide to walk away from the marriage". How about you Brehon's stay out of my bedroom?

Brehon Law also set down what crimes were subject to a fine. I expect a modern version of Brehon Law would be subject to all of the same criticism you have of any other governmental institution (which is what Brehon Laws were).

So, you don't like that example. That's fine. Here is reference to a small area in Italy that held their independence from 1440 to 1826:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic ofCospaia

Every one of those examples save one involve rules that people are required nto abide by, with some instances of violent enforcement of their values. The only exception is that plot of desert that has no government and no one lives there, which is little different from international waters.

You discounted Zomia, and it does not say anything about "violent enforcement of values" which is what the State does.

Most of those examples enforce rules against property. The existence of property requires restricting the freedom of others who do not own said property. This is a small example of why anarchy and capitalism are not compatible.

Well now, my first property that I own is my body. So, I guess, by your logic, my very existence restricts other's freedom. I say "capitalism" can actually thrive when Freedom is maximized. The best way for that to occur is under voluntary conditions. This negates the State.

A stateless society would not eliminate the forcing of will. It would not stop you forcing your will on the innocent trespasser who merely wants the freedom to do what he wants with your property. A voluntary society falls apart when a member no longer volunteers, which becomes increasingly likely the larger the society is. Which is why a state is required for a large or complex society.

I didn't say it would. But it would reduce it down to a much lesser degree than what we have now, with government.

And the trespasser is not innocent if he is trespassing or trying to steal my property. I would be stopping him from doing this. He initiated the use of force when he trespassed and tried to steal my things or do harm to me or mine.

A Free Voluntary Stateless Society does not mean volunteer. Voluntary interactions amongst each other, without anyone forcing others to do their bidding against their will. So, what happens when people start to withdraw support for the State of that large, complex society. Is it going to force everyone stay under it's thumb?

It is not necessary, no matter how large a given population is. People can and do work things out amongst themselves. We are Individuals, not a collective like a behive. We are not the borg.

Those laws are not unpredictable. People imprisoned for drug crimes knew they were breaking the law. Even if I agree with you that drug laws are not good laws, they are still predictable and change little over time, which was the point you were responding to here.

Yeah, they should have obeyed authority er the law. Those laws should not be in place, to begin with. If there is no victim, there is no crime.

That's almost never true.

But it is. There are mounds of laws, regulations and such on the books. You need a license to do just about anything anymore. And a license means "permission given for what is illegal". You mentioned the Communist Manifesto. If you take a look at it's ten planks, almost if not all of them have been established here in the U.S.

Most criminal law refers to property crime and violent crime. If you threw out all drug prohibitions today, you would leave most of our laws in tact.

There are far more prohibitive laws on the books than there are to do with evil acts or ones that do harm.

What was the major change to your life that resulted from that particular bill you're referring to?

If I am not mistaken, it was the Obamacare Act. It made it a requirement to get health insurance or be penalized by the IRS. Trump might have done a way with that part, but now Biden is in there; it changes with their whims.

One of the functional arguments against drug laws is that legalization would reduce violent crime. This is because black markets, operating outside of the standard institutions of coercion, must rely on threats of violence to ensure informal contracts are honored. When someone breaches an agreement, retribution is swift and brutal so as to send a message to others that the threat of violence is real.

Then, ask yourself, why are those markets there to begin with. That was my point, that they get larger the more restrictions that are placed on a populace by the government. The government relies on threats of violence with everything it does, by the way.

They don't until one party disagrees with another, breaches a contract, presents their product falsely, act in good faith but with negligence, imposes unworkable conditions, or any of a host of issues that arises from honest human interaction (not to mention criminal interaction). The rules of the game pre-exist the play. There is no capitalism without government. Anarcho-communism used to simply be called anarchism. That's because anarchy is incompatible with property rights. Anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction.

People can and do organize and come up with a means to resolve such issues. "Political Authority" or government will not do this, but will make matters worse. There is the free market and there is property rights in a free society, i.e. stateless one or no centralized political authority.

But Morality must be recognized and adhered to, in order for Freedom to be maximized. Anarchy reigns, regardless. When I say that "no one has a right to rule over others" that means that right does not exist. Ultimately, no has control over anybody, but themselves. And to try to take that control from someone else is wrong, and flatout evil.

Laws do not equal enslavement. When you block their entry, you restrict their freedom. When they enter and you force them to leave, you reduce their freedom to stay down to 0. And you're right to do it. Because their freedom is not inherently good.

Natural Law doesn't. But man's laws do. The rest of what you describe, I would agree with except the last part. What they have done there is the miss use of Freedom. It does not show it to be inherently, not good. It is an attempt to abuse others. That is not Freedom.

Another issue is that of turf wars. Absent formal institutions, business territory is decided by might. This is an example of human irrationality at play. By agreeing on boundaries, many factions could co-exist. However, if one of them is strong enough they can more than co-exist, they can thrive. The allure of being the only gang on the block is enough to cause ongoing turf warfare, rather than cooperation. An independent monopoly on violence is necessary to force gangs to honor contracts and abide by business boundaries. That only happens if we legalize drugs, or in other words we bring them under state regulation.

Except that the governments of this planet have become the biggest criminal gangs and do exactly what you describe. The U.S. being one of the biggest. Drugs should not be legalized, they should be decriminalized. Not the same thing.

It absolutely involves government. When people agree, outside coercive influence is not necessary. Everyone waves at the police in "nice" neighborhoods where everyone already agrees. To them, the cop is Officer Friendly, the helpful social handyman that talks to kids about not doing drugs. Those people in the nice places rarely feel the coercive pressure of government, because they already agree.

I highly doubt they agree. Really, man, those who live in such areas are more likely inclined to mind their own business. That is what I am really talking about. Let people live their own lives as they see fit, as long as they do no harm to others. As for their opinion about cops, that has likely taken a serious dive, even in the "nice" neighborhoods. And they do feel such pressure, it's just more subtle or indirect.

Government is the mechanism by which a group of people regulate behavior within a group and determine collective goals or actions.

So, is a grocery store a government? I mean there is no real "authority". There are leadership roles, but that is not the same as a ruler. Everyone in that vast and complex network is operating voluntarily, of their own free-will. No one is forcing them to work there.

That definition is going to include everything from the democratic decision making of small, supposedly anarchic, communes to large tyrannical totalitarian states. That mechanism is neither inherently good nor bad and it exists wherever groups make rules regulating behavior and determine collective goals or actions.

Is it centralized "authority"? Do these groups, no matter the size get to tell others who want nothing to do with their group that they must adhere to their "rules" or else? If an organization does not force others under it's decrees then, how can it be government? No, government, by the root meaning of the word means "to control mind". Or mind control. The only one who can rightfully really do that is the individual. The rest of it has to be voluntary interaction or it is no good. That and/or leave people the hell alone.

Anarchy is the absence of that mechanism (as it is that mechanism that determines rules). Anarchy only exists when individuals or parties do not have a common mechanism for behavioral regulation and collective goals and actions. In anarchy, conflict is resolved by whomever wins. What you describe is a situation without conflicts, where even conflicts are resolved through inexplicable agreement. That's utopia.

That mechanism is someone declaring that "the law is what they say it is, obey or else!" People still have a Conscience(though many might ignore it these days) and a moral compass. And conflict seems to be resolved that way now, in some cases, depending on the degree. But I have not said that there would be no conflict. What I describe is certainly not that. There will always be conflicts. The trick is to find ways to resolve them.

So, did you ever read Utopia? And you say that as if we should not try for it. But really, utopias don't exist. But we have to live around each other. All I am saying is to let people do that. And we do not need the politicians to tell us how.

Kitk34(185) Clarified
1 point

It seems like you are coming at this from a utilitarian approach. Or maybe, just a practical one. I am coming at it from a moral approach, or the right and wrong in the way things are done through the government, and elsewhere.

The Truth is, without the understanding of the difference between right actions and wrong ones, then acting in accordance with that understanding, that is doing the right over the wrong, the collection of individuals, no matter how large, will devolve and fall apart. No government will stop it. In fact, it will only make it more inevitable.

The people living during the founding of the country, warned of such things. No one is heeding their warning, it seems, these days.

1 point

If you have a gated fence around your property, that constrains the free movement of others. Same thing with locked car doors. If someone bypasses your legitimate constraints on their freedom, then you rightfully coerce them out of your home or car (or have the police come coerce them).

I think the appropriate term would be restrict. My gated fence would be keeping that person from crossing the boundary of my property. Said property is an extension of me. Therefore, I am not doing anything to limit their free movement, except to draw a line as to where my property is.

If you mean that I force them out of my home or car, then, we are on the same page. Coerce, I do not think, is the proper term for it.

In social interactions we give each other countless verbal and nonverbal cues that tell people where social barriers are (constraints) and sometimes signal a warning (threat of coercion) when barriers are crossed.

You might think that I am arguing semantics here, but I am pointing to proper terms to use simply for clarification. Social barriers, as I see it, is our personal boundary, i.e. your body being your first property. In your example, we do not use constraints, we use restrictions. And the threat of force to warn off a pending attack. That is not coercion. Coercion is the threat of violence upon someone if they do not obey one's will. In that case a threat has been made towards that person, to get them to comply.

What would you consider to be in bounds for legal institutions?

I don't consider the State to be a Lawful entity. These Institutions are made up of people who operate within them. Said people act as if they have "special rights" that the rest of us do not have, i.e. doing wrongful acts and calling them something else to "make it okay for them to do". Like stealing and calling it taxation.

The in bounds of these people would be to stop acting in such ways. But then, the State or government would cease to be.

That depends.

Depends on what? There is no restitution made to a victim or their family. It all goes to the State, as if the State is the victim. It's a crock.

No it can't. Free markets are profit driven. That's fine for people who willingly come together to hire a private mediator. It doesn't work at all for general criminal law enforcement. You cannot have a profit motive to arrest people. In places where profit motivations creep in, we call it corruption and the public suffers for it.

As if the State isn't? The government doesn't produce anything. It takes from others. It, also, has a monopoly on the use of force, which is absurd.

The free market most certainly can provide for a replacement of the "general Law Enforcement". In places, like Detroit, they have a private organization that helps to provide security in places that the police won't go into.

The State, already has a "profit motive" to arrest people. Especially, for victimless crimes. The system is corrupt and was developed that way on purpose.

Functionally, that means without legal institutions.

It means without a ruling class. What we are describing here is a collection of individuals. These people claim to have "the right to rule" over others. There is no such right.

Some people want to steal things. Anyone who would stop them or punish them would be dictating that they cannot steal and controlling their attempts to do so.

Yeah, stopping them from doing a wrongful act. That is not the same thing as someone telling people how to live there lives. Dictating to them, what they can and cannot do with their bodies. Writing this down on paper and calling it "law".

No there aren't. Not in a large integrated society. But if you're willing to provide historical examples, I'll consider them.

Okay, the Brehon Private Law system worked for the Irish, to varying degrees. People were leaving England, going to Ireland because they preferred that way, rather than be subjugated to the King of England. This system lasted for over a thousand years. It is the second longest running system.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Brehon-laws

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brehon#:~:text=Brehon (Irish: breitheamh - IPA brᶽehəv ɤ or,law, which was also simply called "Brehon law".

Here is a list of anarchic societies that thrived. Some are still active today. I do not agree with their ideology, but it does show that it can and does work:

https://listverse.com/2016/06/29/10-instances-of-anarchist-societies-that-actually-worked/

There are better ways than what we have now. A Free, voluntary, Stateless society would be a better way to live than everyone forcing their will and living at the expense of everyone else.

It happens regardless, but to a far lesser degree where strong institutions are present. Take any given country with weak legal institutions and compare it to any given country with strong legal institutions. There is a significant difference in violent crime and property crime.

First off, even in this land, the higher crime rates are within larger populated areas, like big cities. These cities have "strong legal institutions" and yet, crime is high there.

If there is a difference, it would have a greater deal to do with the population of that area, as far as crime rates go. It has less to do with the "strength" of legal institutions and more to do with people being crammed together like sardines.

I am curious to see a source for your claim, though.

Mostly it is not hard to tell. Laws remain relatively consistent through out the course of a lifetime with changes being made around the margins, mostly dealing with how a given law is prosecuted (mandatory minimum sentences and whatnot). The vast majority of people do not get arrested, and those that do are rarely confused about the legality of what they've done.

Then, explain the huge amounts of people who have not harmed another person, but is serving time for a victimless crime, such as drugs. There are so many laws written that you cannot tell if you are breaking a "law" or not. And the vast majority of them are what is called "mala prohibita" or prohibition laws rather than "mala in se" or evil acts, i.e. acts that cause physical harm to another person.

How can you say that laws remain relatively consistent throughout the course of a lifetime when the politicians do not read the legislation being proposed, that has thousands of pages to it in many cases, and they have to "pass it to find out what is in it"?

That's your claim. But there is no example of a functional complex economy that operates without the assurance of government enforced laws. In those countries lacking a functional legal institution, strong men reign and tribal conflict is the order of the day. The nice cars they have came from other countries and are owned only by the men with the strongest gang and only for as long as they stay on top.

Such as where? The "government" is the largest criminal organization. And they get away with it because people believe they have the "authority" to do what they do. There are examples in the list I provided above, of people operating outside of the governments in their region. Also, there is the Black and grey markets that get larger the more government restrictions are placed on a populace.

An economy is really, just people interacting and trading. They do not need a government to tell them how to do this.

Then stop locking your doors. Freedom must be constrained lest certain actions freely taken by one impose on the freedom of another. You constrain others freedom when you lock your doors.

No, I am not constraining anybody. As I pointed out above, I take measures to protect my property. They still have free-will and could find a flaw in those measures, then, break-in an steal the things I own. They can still choose to do the wrongful acts.

You seek to rule over those who would harm you by constraining their ability to do so.

I do no such thing. I am not trying to enslave them. I am protecting myself, my family, and property when I lock my doors. As I pointed out, they could still do harm. The potential is there and always will be for as long as there is a human race.

If anarchy is reality, then anarchy with functional government is far more conducive to freedom than anarchy without it.

No, Freedom is directly proportional to the Morality of a people. When I described Anarchy as Reality, I said, you can still have tyranny and the rise of a totalitarian State. Which is what is happening in this country. As Morality decreases Freedom will in turn decrease. And as it increases, Freedom will also, increase. This does not involve "government".

I am interested to know, how do you define Government? The actual word.

Supporting Evidence: Definiton of Coercion (www.dictionary.com)
1 point

So in answer to my request for specification, you say we'll come up with ways to resolve our differences... In other words, you have no specific way to deal with wrong doers, and you don't even know who the wrong doers are..

Sounds like a perfect place to live.. DUDE!

I don't pretend to have everything figured out. No one can predict the future. But look at what we have now to resolve our differences outside of the State getting involved. We have arbitration, a third party organization that parties involved agree to use for contracts.

As for "wrong doers", it depends on the severity of the wrong committed. No one is going to know who the wrong doers are until that action has taken place. If it is someone trying to murder another person, then, that person has every right to stop them, using deadly force if necessary.

There is no such thing as a perfect place to live. Utopias don't exist.

Kitk34(185) Clarified
1 point

However, I would agree that Freedom will increase as people do what you say.

Meaning do what you are talking about.

1 point

Freedom is the ability to act on one's own judgement concerning one's self and one's property, absent coercion or constraint from other agents.

Okay, not all that different then, what I said in my argument about Freedom.

Individuals coerce and constrain others all the time through assault, harassment, swindle, theft, etc. They also coerce and constrain through social pressure and security measures and other commonly accepted means.

I don't think it is all the time. Perhaps it depends on where you are, such as, a bigger city. There really is no right to the use of coercion, or forcing your will upon another. And we have personal constraint that we use.

People create institutions designed to set the standard for what kind of coercion/constraint is not to be tolerated (crimes). These institutions dictate how people will determine if a crime has been committed (due process) and what the consequences will be (punishment/restitution).

Yeah, and those institutions are way out of bounds these days. There are Tens of thousands in prison who did no harm to anyone else. But they are there for a victimless crime of some sort. And there is no restitution in criminal courts, only punishment.

In other words, no one is completely free from other people. Civil and criminal law is the mechanism by which we fight against certain kinds of coercion/constraint in an organized and predictable manner.

The free market can and does a better job as a mechanism to resolve such issues. It is just as organized as the State apparatus, if not better.

Anarchy is the lack of legal institutions.

Actually, it means "without rulers". That just means there is no one to dictate and control others. No one has "special rights" in the name of Government. Or can magically make a wrong action into a right one.

Lacking an organized and predictable mechanism to counter certain kinds of coercion and constraint does not eliminate coercion and constrain.

No, and there are better ways to have such mechanisms, without the State.

Rather it maximizes the ability to engage in those specific kinds of coercion and constraints that laws are designed to address.

Not really. It happens regardless of such "laws". There are so many of man's laws on the books, that it is hard to tell if one is "breaking the law" or not. They are flimsy and change with the whims of politicians.

If someone takes your brand new car, your recourse is whatever you can do to get it back. That means you need more muscle then the guy who took it. Of course, that's assuming a new car could even be produced without the institutions that protect property rights, enforce contract law, maintain infrastructure, and enforce traffic safety measures along said infrastructure.

We don't need a State to do this. As I pointed out, the free market can provide the means to handle these things.

Freedom is not an inherent good. That's why we lock our doors. Some people should not have the freedom to enter without constraint. Nor is coercion/constraint an inherent evil. That why we constrain others with our locked doors and coerce others if they bypass such constraints.

Ah, I say Freedom is an inherent good. Perhaps the ultimate that a person can achieve. If you are talking about self-defense measures, I can agree with that. That is a responsibility that, I say Freedom requires that we do to protect against those who do not see it as wrong to harm others.

Wherever people can overcome differences to sufficiently organize against specific kinds of coercion/constraint, anarchy disappears; and freedom is increased.

No, as I said in my argument, Anarchy is Reality. However, I would agree that Freedom will increase as people do what you say. Or as they increase Morality amongst each other.

1 point

I'm interested in knowing what these "ways" are. Without a codified set of rules and a ruler to enforce them, I simply can't imagine what these "ways" are. Can you be specific??

Well, think of your daily life. You interact with people, assuming you do, and have to come up with ways to resolve your differences, if any. Meaning coming up with something that is a mutual benefit to both involved.

I'm also interested in who's wrongs you're talking about?? Is it MY wrongs or yours?? I don't think they're the same.. Who decides?? Everybody individually??? It can't be a group of people can it? Who put them in charge??

Wrongs are simply actions that do physical harm to another sentient being. Rights are the opposite of that, or actions that do no physical harm to another sentient being. So, someone can claim a wrong has been done to them, but the burden of proof is on them. It seems to me that people would try to work it out with each other, before going to a third party. But that could be an option as a last resort.

1 point

Of course the imbecile and “hero” Amarel jumps in to say something equally stupid as his bitch , you’re right it’s a sociopath

I doubt you even know what a "Sociopath" means.

Thankfully he didn’t start to hold forth on free will his ideas are pages long of academic sounding gibberish that only he or gender issues Jace can come up,with

Why? Because he puts thought into what he is saying?

Oh fuck I spoke to soon Amarel has just posted his usual novel on the concept of freedom would put a chronic insomniac to sleep in seconds

At least he took the time to post something on Freedom, which is what the debate topic is about.

You couldn't even do that.

1 point

I know enough to know Spassio is an idiot

Based on what, exactly? You have nothing to be able to refute his information that he puts out.

Sure yeah , David Icke says the same

Your point?

I cannot educate pork

Ha! Did you come up with that all by yourself?

1 point

I mean that whenever anybody takes the time to explain why you are wrong you call them a troll.

No one has shown how I am wrong. They and you have made baseless claims. Then, sling insults. As for calling you a troll, I am just calling it how I see it.

You are the one with no source. You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that free will exists. All I am doing is explaining basic physics which you should have learned in high school. But you didn't, and hence here we are.

You still have not answered how you can think and do for yourself, and make choices. What you have explained has nothing to do with Free-will. Science has yet to be able to explain it. And you claim this shit without providing any source data.

1 point

I’ve had enough of your bullshit you imbecile you have the intelligence of a pot plant

Good! Fine! Go away, you moron! You're a waste of time.

and I probably wont know when you’re on DI because there are nuts like yourself on there who are just as nuts as you and the common denominator is what ......they’re all ( who would have guessed ) Yanks

Jack Spassio 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂👌

Oh I am nuts because I have Free-will and know it. I can think and do for myself. Yet, you can't because you don't believe in it. Right.

Already covered Passio. He has more intelligence in his pinky finger than you have in your entire body.

You're all done with your shit talk. Banned.

0 points

You keep continuously being called out by various individuals but you seem to be delusional. You are one of these idiots who simply listens to nothing anybody else says. I bet you were real fun to teach in school.

Oh you mean the trolls fucking up the debate? They have done nothing but spew bullshit and insults. The ones who want to debate, I am fine with.

It is a fact that general relativity negates the possibility of free will. It isn't anybody else's fault that you are too stupid to understand. If time is ubiquitous (i.e. exists everywhere all at once) then past, present and future are all already determined. It would be impossible to travel at intensely high speeds in a spaceship and then return to a future Earth unless that future Earth already existed.

He claims with no source, imagine that. That does not explain how it negates Free-will. Do you think and do for yourself? Dumbshit.

0 points

No we didn’t you dummy we called you out on your bullshit now you are all butt hurt

You didn't call on anything. You started carrying on about me being someone else, and hardy har. I made solid arguments and stood firm on my position. You just don't like that.

Facts are not insults son and you will tolerate criticism and so will others , try man up son and thank your betters fo illuminating you

What fucking facts!? There were none. And you damn well know it son. You are certainly no better than anyone. In fact I say that because you think that, you are no better than a dog turd.

Maybe not as it has a fair few foil hatters already

Oh fuck off. Just because you like it, I'm going to get on there, but you won't know it.

1 point

Oh shut up you raging imbecile

No, I won't. You have nothing. And have no balls to admit it.

1 point

We have had this exact conversation dozens of times you nutbag. I have explained to you meticulously how and why the theory of relativity rules out free will. You simply refuse to ever listen to anything anybody else says.

Time is not linear. We simply experience it as such. If time is not linear it rules out free will.

Who is "we"? I don't know you. As far as I know I have not interacted with you on this site. You must have me confused with someone else. Dipshit.

I don't follow your seemingly flawed logic on Time and how that has to do with my ability to think and do for myself, i.e. Free-will.

1 point

Passio the ex Satanist? Are you for fucking real he’s on a par with fellow nut David Icke for lunacy

Bet you wear tin foil on your pin head

And you know SO much about these two Individuals? Do tell.

Both of them are Truth seekers and have come to an understanding of things. That's more than you are showing me.

1 point

That’s deflection son

No it's the Truth, BUB.

So thoughts are not predetermined do tell? If they are not predetermined you still do not have free will as you are in the throes of universal laws which govern molecules which you cannot escape

I have a Consciousness. I make Free-will choices in my day to day living. It sounds like you don't know what you are talking about. Tell me, do you think and do for yourself?

You mean facts like the whacko Spassio who worship spouts .....not

Prove thoughts are not predetermined doofus? LOL

Passio speaks the Truth as he understands it. Which is more than I can say for you. So, I guess you have no proof that Free-will is illusory. In other words, your full of shit. Got it.

Says a guy who quotes a buddy of David Ickes LOL

Your Point?

You’re spouting bullshit you dummy you’re an uneducated oaf who is a fan of Spastic Spacer Spassio enough said

"No you're spouting bullshit. . .blah blah" Again you got nothing productive to say.

No it doesn’t go like that you idiotic feature do another Google church doofus

So, what's your take on it, dumbshit? And what is "Google church"?

Instead of talking shit, why don't you provide what you think it is? What I said IS the best definition of that Principle.

After “ taking you out” how would you manage that dummy?

No, dumbass, I said if you tried, your a deadman. Meaning, I would take you out first.

Also listen up loud mouthed Americans making threats ain’t scary you guys have never even won a war and cannot use guns effectively as you accidentally shoot 60,000 to 70,000 of yourselves yearly

Oh really? We won our war for Independence from the British. They tried two times and lost. We fought and won other wars as well including WWI and II. You best get your history straight.

I like how you just pulled those figures out of your ass, and think they are accurate. Yet, with no source.

-1 points

It's a nice to think that people will obey the rules because, well they're nice. History tells us, however, that if left to their own devices, people won't obey the rules. Hence, rulers..

History also tells us, that the most despicable characters seemed to be the rulers. No, I say people, left to their own devices, will come up with ways to deal with wrongs that are committed by others. We have ways to deal with one another, and coexist. We don't need some ruler or ruling class dictating to us how to live our lives.

Also, sometimes rules need to be broken, especially, if it's some dictate by a "ruler".

-2 points
-2 points
-2 points
-2 points
-2 points
0 points

No it isn't you completely mad idiot. It can be proven very simply. Millions of people work jobs they hate. Why would anybody "voluntarily" do that? Why would they get up and torture themselves every day if they were not being coerced by other factors?

That's their CHOICE, you fucking MORON! I can't answer for them!

Except that person almost certainly hates your guts and feels nauseated even being near you.

You have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

They are there simply so they can feed their kids and pay the mortgage.

Maybe so, but no one is holding a gun to their head.

I used an analogy to debunk your stupid claims. If you don't understand what an analogy is then stop writing dumb shit on the internet and go back to night school.

It was a piss poor analogy. It certainly did not do what you wanted.

Here's another analogy for you. The slaves were offered the choice to work in the mines, so their decision to pick cotton was voluntary.

That's not what I was talking about. You are so full of shit it's nauseating.

You're so stupid I really don't see the point in this conversation. Bye.

Alright, MORON. It's a waste of my time to try to have a discussion with you. And I said, if the insult fest doesn't stop I will ban the ones who do it. So here you go. Banned.

0 points

Yes indeed and he stated an old Amarel-speak chestnut ..... As I already said, your Freedom ends where my nose begins.

It's a True statement that apparently you cannot handle.

1 point

I suspected it was him. He always uses that same ridiculous argument about the will to survive being "voluntary".

Whatever. You are way off, I'm not him.

1 point

It’s that Amarel -speak again that Americans love 👌

Great example with Hitler

Or it's the Truth and you can't handle it. His example with Hitler had nothing to do with what I was talking about.

0 points

Do you actually believe this? Because if you do then you're insane. If society offers you a choice between feeding your family and not feeding your family, then describing your decision as "voluntary" is about as misleading as it actually gets.

This is not insane, it's the Truth of the matter. I choose how I provide for my family, not society. Society doesn't give me anything, it is just a name given to describe a collection of Individuals living amongst each other. And I was describing a working relationship with the person I hired on to do work with. It is voluntary.

How about this? Hitler gave the Jews a choice to abandon their beliefs and join the Nazis, so their participation in the death camps was voluntary.

First off, how does one have to do with the other? I was talking about a working relationship. Your example has to do with politics. Second, there were Jews who fought back as well. They were disobeying the laws, and yet, were still right to do so. And no that is not voluntary.

1 point

I’m afraid not if you are compelled to work for another you’re on their clock

And nothing is stopping me from leaving.

Your actions are limited in the work place as are your words , your thoughts are also not free as free will is illusory

I said you are responsible for your thoughts, words, and actions. You chose to write "free-will is illusory" by exercising free-will. So, don't give me that bullshit.

You’re taking rights now

No, I am asserting my right to not be harmed.

That’s another myth , in Saudi Arabia apostates are put to death I think that wrong they think it right , it’s a matter of opinion informed by various factors , all moral statements are basically agents asserting they approve or disprove of something , morality changes and evolves with society so I do not know what the term “objective “means when applied to morality

It is not a myth. They can believe they are right and still be wrong, in which, they are. There is something called the non-aggression principle. Maybe, you heard of it. It applies to everyone whether they want it to or not. Objective means outside of human-beings. We know it's wrong to commit murder. Why? Because it is stealing a person's life, and we have no RIGHT to do that, etc.

1 point

Your boss owns you every day

No, I have a voluntary association with a person to work with them. In no way do they own me. I own myself, the same as you and everyone else does. You are responsible for your thoughts, words, and actions.

Limited freedom is not freedom that’s all anyone anywhere has

The only true limitation to True Freedom is to do no harm to others. As I already said, your Freedom ends where my nose begins. Yet, we still have Free-will and can do harm if we choose to. But one who does cannot complain when they are stopped from doing harm. There are consequences for our actions.

Who’s morality exactly are you referring to ?

I am referring to objective right and wrong. Knowing the difference and acting accordingly.

1 point

That’s way to broad “ master” in what way ? “Slave “ in what way ?

Master in terms of a person claiming ownership over you, and slave, you being owned. There is no rightful claim.

I didn’t offer one because there is no such thing as freedom only ideas about what constitutes such

I disagree. We have some Freedom in the U.S., however, it is dwindling. As I already, pointed out in my argument I posted, Morality is in line with Freedom, and the degrees to which we have it.

Maybe, you can give what those ideas are?

1 point

As in “master “ , “slave” relationship right ?

As in no one has a rightful claim to own anyone else. A "master" would be one who makes such a claim, and a "slave" would be the one who is owned. There is no such valid claim.

“Natural law” which is ever changing and evolving

No, "Natural Law" is immutable, it is not ever changing. Man's law is always changing and is not in conjunction with Natural Law, typically. Anything that is in line with it, is redundant and unnecessary.

Master / slave got ya

No, Natural Law is not created by Human beings. The only place that I am speaking of concerning Master/slave is with Humans interacting with one another.

Kitk34(185) Clarified
1 point

You need to make up your mind. Are there rules or aren't there?

I am speaking in terms of making the rules for everyone else. In other words, be a ruler.

As I pointed out, there is Natural Law that governs our conduct. It is our choice to live with it or go against it, at our own peril.

What is so confusing about that?

Kitk34(185) Clarified
1 point

Define “freedom” please ?

I did this in my argument I posted. I said that Freedom means "No Masters, No Slaves".

But I was asking for your definition, initially. Or anyone else's, for that matter.

Kitk34(185) Clarified
1 point

It does though. Whoever makes the rules is the master, and whoever has to obey them is the slave.

That's just it, no man is fit to make the rules. Natural Law is not man-made. We discover what the Principles are within it, then, we decide to live with it or go against it, at our own peril. This is what I was pointing out in the argument I posted.

1 point

Okay, I had some decent answers before it turned into an insult fest. I do not want to ban anyone, but I do ask people to be civil. It got way off topic and is taking away the purpose of this debate. I ask that it stops, now.

Here is my definition of Freedom: "No Masters, No Slaves." That does not mean there are no rules to follow, such as, "first do no harm, then, do as you please"-Mark Passio

Anarchy means: "Without Rulers." Again, it does not mean no rules. The only Law that applies to us is Natural Law. I agree with this definition of a Right is: "An action that does no harm to another sentient being."-Mark Passio

Some here said that no law can restrict behavior and still have a person be free, however, as the saying goes, "your freedom ends where my nose begins". We still have to conduct ourselves appropriately, if we are to live amongst each other.

Passio also, observes this Truth: "As Morality increases, Freedom increases. As Morality decreases, Freedom decreases." And yet, Anarchy is Reality. That is, no one has the right to rule over others. That right does not exist.

I agree that Anarchy and Freedom go hand in hand. But Anarchy still exists, even if totalitarianism has taken over and tyranny is successful. The only reason, they would be is because people support them, either directly or indirectly. This would lead to no Freedom, given that they are immoral and supporting evil acts.

Kitk34(185) Clarified
1 point

Okay, but I am looking for what each word means because most people don’t see the two as synonymous. The questions are meant to show that. I’ve had you and one other response. You both make valid points. I don’t disagree.

Maybe, I should have left the second question out. It’s been awhile since I was on this site. But I’m am looking for the meaning of Freedom, first.

Kitk34(185) Clarified
1 point

How so? Can you explain?

I ask only for purposes of the debate.

1 point

What makes any right actually inherent to any person? The very concept of rights is a human cognitive construction, and there is absolutely nothing indicating that the idea of rights exists as an objective reality. There is nothing at all to even suggest that rights would continue to exist independent of and absent our conception of them.

All words are human cognitive construction. Concepts and ideas, such as 'rights' would not be around unless someone identified them. We do not know how other creatures think but, we do know through observation that they claim territory and protect it from predators.

The Declaration of Independence does not prove that rights exist inherent to the human condition and independent of our perception of the rights existing. The very fact that they had to be enumerated as existing to begin with speaks to this, not to mention the utter lack of evidence that rights exist independent of our perception of them.

Well, lets see, The first line of the document in question is:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men were created equal and endowed by their creator, with certain inalienable rights, that amongst these rights are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. . .”

Now, the context of the times certainly has a factor in what they meant by “all men”; It means all human beings. This statement that they made is axiomatic; it cannot be proven nor dis-proven. We are all created equal, given that each and every one of us is conceived the same way. Then, we come into this world equally naked and vulnerable.

All they were doing by making this statement was to recognize this fact because it had been so convoluted by the ruling class of the day; the monarchy. This destroys the “divine right of kings” that had been used as excuse for tyrants to run rampant over people.

Belief in rights is really just one more form of narrative construction that serves to manipulate existing power structures to the advantage of those capable of influencing the rights narrative.

That is not true. That statement made in the Declaration of Independence served to actually destroy the power structure's claim over others. It is recognizing that there is no one who is born superior to any one else. The circumstances are different, but this does not change it. A baby born of a rich family is no better than one born from a 'poor' one. We are all fallible and so, the power structure had to come up with new ways to twist this fact.

You have a right if, and only if, you or someone else is capable of asserting and securing that right.

If that is the case, does that mean that if someone murders you, it is okay because they were able to overpower you thus, asserting their claim to dispose of your body as they see fit, without any regard to what you have to say about it?

^Truly curious to your answer to that question.

1 point

What objectively makes taking away a privilege different than infringing on a right? I have the right to enter my own, I have the privilege to enter a neighbor's home.

One is a violation and one is not.

You have a right to enter your own house because you have a valid claim. You do not have such a claim to your neighbor's home. That permission can be taken away on their say so because they have the say in what will be done with their property.

The same applies to your own house and if someone is barring you from entering your home then, you have a valid case against them. They are stealing from you because they have no rightful claim to your house. That is where the infringement or violation is.

The privilege to your neighbor's home is given objectively or outside of you. You cannot be given that permission unless they see fit to give it. You have the valid claim to your house as your neighbor does.

Tell me, if a person initiates a violent aggressive act upon you personally, is it their privilege to do so?

1 point

as long as it is voluntary

this is the crux of where the tax is theft argument fails - citizenship in the United States is voluntary, you can renounce it at any time.

No, tax is theft. You and I have no right to go to a third person and take his money, threatening him with the use of violence if he does not pay. That is extortion, another form of theft; even if we call it a 'tax' it does not change what it is.

Tell me, does being a natural born person in the land called America suddenly, make me a "citizen" of the U.S.?

Check out some legal dictionaries, you might be surprised at their definitions for what the U.S. is and where it's "jurisdiction" actually is.

Kitk34(185) Clarified
1 point

I do not believe that murder, invasion, stealing, etc. are evil;

Do you believe these acts are a crime? As in they have motive, opportunity, and an intended victim(s)?

On a personal level, would you consider it okay for any of those acts to be done to you?

1 point

"Evil" references an extreme form of moral "wrong";

True, but that is really not any different than what I said.

it is a stronger form of interpersonal, social, and legal behavioral regulation.

Meaning what exactly? Those things you mentioned are there to minimize the damage done by acts that are considered "evil" in themselves.

The term "evil" really has little to do with what is actually harmful; it can refer both to something that is objectively harmful to an individual or group of persons (e.g. genocide), and to something that is objectively non-harmful (e.g. homosexuality).

It is a form of expression to identify an action that cannot be reasonably justified, such as, murder. It has very much to do with what is actually harmful. Just because someone has an opinion about some activity that they find detestable and they claim it's “evil” does not make it so, but they might see that activity as being harmful for a valid reason; such as genocide, murder on a massive scale.

Homosexuality is a lifestyle that cannot be said to be necessarily evil because it has to do with consensual activity. Others might not like it but, it is not up to them to decide for someone else how to live their life; and that applies to anything that is voluntary, however, in order for it to be such, it has to include the giving of consent in a knowing and willing manner.

Young Children, for example, cannot be expected to understand fully what that is, so, a boundary line has to be considered there.

Regarding our choice and culpability for the consequences, I would challenge you to substantiate that assertion. What evidence do you actually have that we actually exercise any free will at all?

Are we going to debate free-will now? Yes? No?

Free-will is self-evident. The very fact that you posed the question shows you exercised free-will. It cannot be proven nor dis-proven.

Kitk34(185) Clarified
1 point

(Please take the example at face value.)

I did and at first glance it looks as if that is what you did, within the example.

Your example reads:

I walk into a room and murder a guy. Another man in the room turns around and kills me. In this example, my act of killing "made" the very same act justified when someone else did it to me. The original act was wrong, but in doing it, I made the same act right for another to do to me. What do you think?

Upon further investigation, no you did not suddenly "make" it okay for him to do the same act to you. If nothing else he had no other choice because it was kill or be killed.

Let's say he does not know you and witnessed literally, you doing the act. In this he reacts and kills you. It would have to be because you saw him, after murdering your guy and swung the weapon to do him in; or this is what he could claim, perhaps.

In this example, my act of killing "made" the very same act justified when someone else did it to me.

I do not see how that is the same thing as “making it okay or right” to ask someone to initiate the act of murder for you and have that be okay or right. Perhaps, that is where the problem lies; the initiation of the act in the first place. That is considered always wrong when we are talking about “universal wrongs” as you put it.

In considering this and your concerns about the reworded question, let me see if this would suffice:

“If there is something that is morally wrong for you to do to another, could it then, be right to ask someone else to do that act for you in your place?

Maybe, that is a better way to ask the question.

Kitk34(185) Clarified
1 point

1) I didn't originally think that "making" something right was in the spirit of the question. If you specifically mean to word your question this way, then the answer is no, but only for the reason that you cannot "make" a think right or wrong. That's the reason I didn't think it was in the spirit of the question.

Well, the title question seemed to leave it open with the question of "what is a 'right'? What does that mean?

So, reworded it narrows it down and what you just said here is exactly the point of the question. It is something that pretty obvious, right?

I wrote in the description that "it was something that people do not tend to consider when it comes to politics"; if they consider it at all.

2) You gave examples that can be considered universally wrong, or wrong in every context. The answer can only go one way if the examples provided are the only examples there are. I gave a different one.

I gave those examples to illustrate that point of the question. I suppose I can be called "Captain Obvious" but, I just wanted to be as clear and concise as I could. You probably could come up with all kinds of silly examples that would show the answer is still no. Someone says "I have 'right' to food and water. I have a 'right' shelter.

Someone should give those things to me." It's bogus, but many tend to think this way when it comes to welfare, etc. My point here is that it seems people get tied up in what they can or cannot actually do.

3) My example is one that shows how context can change the moral value of a particular action. If you tell a man with terrible knees that running is healthy and he responds "that's true for you, but not for me", he isn't being a subjectivist. He is maintaining context. Another example: One man commits murder and another kills in self-defense. You can then say that killing was wrong for one and not for the other. No one made killing right for the latter, it just is. In neither case does the victim consent.

Hmm, point taken. Your original example didn't seem to make that clear to me; this is why I dug in the way I did. I was not confused, but I guess I was not sure what you meant nor how that would change the answer. Moving on.

None of this needs to be complicated by introducing other moral concepts such as consent or motive. It's mostly a simple matter of the question asked. Is the word "make" a required aspect of the question you are asking?

Within what I just covered above pertaining to the question, I would have to say yes, "make" is a required aspect of the question. With your example, no one made the doctor qualified he did that himself.

If it isn't are the example you provided the only applicable examples? If so, why?

No, I don't think so. You could get into a variety of contexts and the question would serve to flesh out the details; that was something I attempted to do. I believe consent and motive are important to consider, but it doesn't have to complicate anything; it's a simple matter of working out the answer..

^

Does that answer your questions?

1 point

I have never heard of evil existing as a thing unto itself. No, I do not believe it can exist as such.

My thinking is that “evil” is simply a descriptive word used to illustrate the vast amounts of human caused destruction. It could only exist in someone who knowingly and willingly destroys other people, in a variety of ways. I do not believe it exists as a thing unto or by itself. Those who act in such ways have chosen to do so, and therefore, are creators of their own demise.

I believe we are all capable of doing wicked things, causing sorrow and/or distress, and destruction to each other. We make choices to do those acts or not, when living and conducting ourselves on a daily basis, individually.

1 point

What you described to be a right, is literally a privilege.

Not true because a 'right' cannot be taken away but can be violated or infringed upon. A privilege is granting permission to do something a person would not otherwise be allowed to do like, being a guest in someone's home. They have granted permission to be there and may have rules that they wish to be adhered to. But the guest cannot come into the home without that permission first, or it would be intrusion.

The guest does not have to agree the rules, of course, and the owner of the home is within his rights to expel them from his property, his home and the land he has ownership of.

However, the home owner cannot hold their guest prisoner against their will; that would violate the guest's right to leave of their own choosing.

I ask what is inherent, and can't be taken away?

First, inherent means by definition: "being an essential part of something." In this case an Individual natural living human person. Next, if you own yourself, then, no one else can claim ownership over you, or your body. Without your explicit consent, there is no valid claim to rule you. Now with that being said, I did not say that this is respected. The point of asking the question is to address that.

You made some points concerning what I just pointed out. I will address them:

I can think of simply 'being able to kill' simple as that, is inherent of being a human, yet we do not generally have this as a right, in fact only a select few are given this privilege under specific circumstances (soldiers in war time, and police with a hostile criminal).

We all have the capability, but no one has a right to take another person's life, without just cause, as in self-defense or protecting others from the actor of the lethal act; that is in stopping the initiation of the act of murder in the first place.

Murder is a wrongful act and can not be turned into a rightful one; it does not matter how it is colored or what you call it, it is what it is. With the right of self-defense (it could be recognized as self-preservation, which is instinctual) permission could be given to others for protection, but it must be voluntary or this falls apart.

The soldiers in war time and the police officers arguably were intended this way, but it seems nowadays are stepping out of bounds, more and more.

Basically, they have no 'special rights' to do anything that you do not have a right to do, yourself. I mean think about it, a privilege has to come from someone having the valid claim to give it, right? Without that valid claim no privilege can be given and does not exist. But things have been deliberately obfuscated and confused. Deception is used constantly, and the so-called education system is really just an indoctrination center that pushes blind obedience to 'authority' instead of guiding towards self-respect and by extension respect for others.

Children seem to grasp the concepts of self-ownership and such that I covered, then, they hash it out amongst themselves; even if they get into fist fights. Sometimes that's all it takes, but these days, they are told by interfering adults that "it does not matter who started the fight. You shouldn't be fighting." But it absolutely does matter who started it because that one is the one who is in the wrong.

Okay, moving onto your next point:

Or how about our very own lives, those are entirely inherent to us being humans, thus we have the right to do as we please with it right? Wrong.

No, this is true, as I have covered already. However>

We can't drink or smoke before a certain age, on the grounds that we would be shortening our own lives before we even understand the repercussions of drinking and smoking.

Yeah, because some politician scribbled on paper a bunch of threats if this or that is done. You barely touch the tip of the iceberg, huh? And they as do many adults think this is going to stop children from doing those habits. If nothing else it does more to drive them towards it. It has never worked very well because children are trying to gain their own independence and develop their personal autonomy. In order for this to be a success for them, they must make their own choices, both good and bad, so they can learn from them. Yet, blind obedience creates mindless drones. Many of whom become the enforcer for distorted reasons and no foundation.

We must wear our seat belts and helmets because if not we're risking our very own lives

Yet, we risk our lives every time we get up in the morning, get into the vehicle and drive, or walking around outside. This is massive overkill on safety, forced upon everyone by those telling us what they think we should or should not do with our own lives.

And the bit to sum it all up, we can't simply kill ourselves, if we even attempt to do so, we'll be detained and deemed mental.

Without digging into this one too much, I will say this; those who are truly bound and determined to do themselves in, will find a way to do so. But I wonder, have you ever seen those commercials with the medications? They list a bunch of side effects, to include thoughts of suicide. These are in quite a few and especially medications dealing with "mental disorders". I suspect those meds cause more mental illness to occur.

I feel these things we call rights, are only different than what we call privileges because we in some countries write them down and call them such.

Well, there is a difference between a "negative right" and "positive" one. In the Bill of Rights of the USA, the writers worded to simply recognize rights that were inherent and specified to Congress that they could not be infringed upon. But somewhere between then and now, things have been deliberately distorted. FDR wrote a "second Bill of rights" and essentially did just exactly what you said. And there is anything from a right to housing to free education, a job, etc. It is non-sense because all of those things a person can certainly go out and acquire for themselves, within reason, but no one can demand that someone provide that for them; that is slavery. This has created a parasitic mentality of people who are now dependent on "the government" to provide their needs and wants; all of course at the expense of others trying to live their own lives.

There is constant aggression and violent conflicts because there are those who flock to power. They want to dominate everyone else. Yet, it really is nothing but an illusion. It is false power based on the continued deception to convince everyone that they must obey 'authority' or the claim of the right to rule; something that does not exist outside of oneself; consent can be given but, it can also, then, be withdrawn. Contracts are made and those who sign on both sides expect the other to follow it, but these have expirations and limitations. They are based on people working with one another to achieve a common goal and mutual benefit. But it can only be enforced upon those who signed and agreed. They cannot sign for someone else who has nothing to do with either parties involved.

Unfortunately, this concept gets twisted and distorted.

I wrote quite a lot here, so I will stop now. But I was wondering, it did not sound like you agreed with anything your wrote? What I mean is that you pointed out a variety of things that happen but, you did not sound like you were none to happy about them?

1 point

No, but I can turn around and have a more qualified person do the procedure.

If you were the one deciding to have the procedure done on yourself, then, yes. Something that was not considered in your example is that neither you nor the doctor can make that decision for another person.

To illustrate my point, you said, "It is morally wrong for me to perform Lasik eye surgery but, it would not be for a qualified doctor." It is true, the doctor is the best choice to perform the procedure and you would not be a consideration. I already established what I saw as problems with your example, so, I will not repeat them.

To rephrase the example to show what I mean it might look something like this: “It would be morally wrong for you to do Lasik eye surgery on Joe, but you can ask Dr. Bob, by request from Joe, to perform the surgery, only if Joe wants it done and agrees to have Dr. Bob do it; you cannot speak for Joe, unless asked to. Dr. Bob can diagnose the need for the surgery, but cannot force Joe to agree to have it done nor can he forcefully perform the surgery on Joe." Joe has the final say no matter what because it is Joe's life and well-being.

That's the reason I chose my example. It illustrates that the same particular action will have different moral value when put in different contexts. What you just illustrated above is that a wrong action is still wrong when the context remains the same.

What I had illustrated was within the realm of the question, from what I can tell. Maybe, I am misunderstanding you, but you believe that your example shows that it changes the answer to my question to yes, somehow. I rephrased your example towards the beginning of this response to include a third ingredient that was not covered by you, initially; the person who is said to need the procedure.

No one can make an action right or wrong (it is or it isn't)

Yes, I agree and that would be the answer, period.

but a person could alter the context around which an action takes place.

I do not believe we disagree here, however, the question I asked is addressing an action that if done would be purposefully harming another person, by a direct cause or indirectly through a third person. That is why I did not think your example worked. I should've just pointed out that it was different because it is.

But I understand where the act of performing Lasik eye surgery is morally wrong for you but not the qualified doctor; it is relative to each person. It is the same as saying "What is wrong for you is not necessarily wrong for me." Some call this subjectivism, if I am correct. And they believe this applies to all aspects of what we call morality. Yet, it falls apart when faced with actions such as murder. They would have to say, "Well, murder might be wrong for you but, not necessarily wrong for me. After all I am qualified to be a contract killer and you are not." I do not think you would agree with that statement.

Yet, the person claiming that has no room when they are put down with deadly force in self-defense and/or what has been called justifiable homicide. And really they are just trying to excuse their actions.

As the saying goes "actions speak louder than words."

You had asked me to rephrase the question earlier and I thought I did. Tell me if this makes better sense:

"If there is an action that is morally wrong for you to do to Joe, without consent, can you make it right for Bob to do that same act on Joe?"

Would that have been a better question? Do you think the answer could be yes, using your example as you initially gave it?

As far as I could tell I never dropped context. You have not shown where I did this. I explored further in depth.

It was never intended to be a leading question, but more of a thought experiment. The question served it's purpose.

I laid out where I saw it going. If you see it differently, why not show that? Take what I wrote and show the flaw in the logic if you can. If I am not correct in what I said there, I might not see it but, you may. That is why I did that, so you know I have nothing to hide. That is the reason I bothered to post the question as a debate in the first place, though as I admitted it would have been more fitting in a perspective debate.

I didn't think you were confused, I thought we might have been misunderstanding each other, though. If you do not wish to continue with the discussion that's unfortunate. But whatever. There is nothing I can do on it other than to leave an open invitation, and I do.

As it is, thanks for participating anyways.

Later.

1 point

Neither. Its the reflection of an A.

That statement is not authorized! There shall be no statements of fact made without authorization!

You are hereby ordered to deny that statement of fact. Do you comply? ;-)

Kitk34(185) Clarified
1 point

since my boss is a Jack Asre (weird that his mom would name him that), can I just ask him? ;)

Legend has it that he was raised by a horse and a donkey. And to answer you question, no you cannot ask him because no one can question the Great Jack Arse, he said so.


1 of 3 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]