The Myth of Consent

[iOWNme]

The Myth of Consent


In the modern world, slavery is almost universally condemned. But the relationship of a perceived “authority” to his subject is very much the relationship of a slave master (owner) to a slave (property). Not wanting to admit that, and not wanting to condone what amounts to slavery, those who believe in “authority” are trained to memorize and repeat blatantly inaccurate rhetoric designed to hide the true nature of the situation. One example of this is the phrase “consent" of the governed.

There are two basic ways in which people can interact: by mutual agreement, or by one person using threats or violence to force his will upon another. The first can be labeled “consent”– both sides willingly and voluntarily agreeing to what is to be done. The second can be labeled “governing” – one person controlling another. Since these two – consent and governing – are opposites, the concept of “consent of the governed” is a contradiction. If there is mutual consent, it is not “government”; if there is governing, there is no consent. Some will claim that a majority; or the people as a whole, have given their consent to be ruled, even if many individuals have not. But such an argument turns the concept of consent on its head. No one, individually or as a group, can give consent for something to be done to someone else.


That is simply not what “consent” means. It defies logic to say, “I give my consent for you to be robbed.” Yet that is the basis of the cult of “democracy”: the notion that a majority can give consent on behalf of a minority, That is not “consent of the governed”; it is forcible control of the governed, with the “consent” of a third party.

Even if someone were silly enough to actually tell someone else, “I agree to let youforcibly control me,” the moment the controller must force the “controllee” to do something, there is obviously no longer “consent.” Prior to that moment, there is no“governing” – only voluntary cooperation. Expressing the concept more precisely exposes its inherent schizophrenia: “I agree to let you force things upon me, whether I agree to them or not.”

But in reality, no one ever agrees to let those in “government” do whatever they want. So, in order to fabricate “consent” where there is none, believers in “authority” add another, even more bizarre, step to the mythology: the notion of “implied consent.” The claim is that, by merely living in a town, or a state, or a country, one is “agreeing” to abide by whatever rules happen to be issued by the people who claim to have the right to rule that town, state, or country. The idea is that if someone does not like the rules, he is free to leave the town, state, or country altogether, and if he chooses not to leave, that constitutes giving his consent to be controlled by the rulers of that jurisdiction.

Though it is constantly parroted as gospel, the idea defies common sense. It makes no more sense than a carjacker stopping a driver on a Sunday and telling him, “By driving a car in this neighborhood on Sunday, you are agreeing to give me your car.” One person obviously cannot decide what counts as someone else “agreeing” to something. An agreement is when two or more people communicate a mutual willingness to enter into some arrangement. Simply being born somewhere is not agreeing to anything, nor is living in one’s own house when some king or politician has declared it to be within the realm he rules. It is one thing for someone to say, “If you want to ride in my car, you may not smoke,” or “You can come into my house only if you take your shoes off.” It is quite another to try to tell other people what they can do on their own property. Whoever has the right to make the rules for a particular place is, by definition, the owner of that place. That is the basis of the idea of private property: that there can be an “owner” who has the exclusive right to decide what is done with and on that property. The owner of a house has the right to keep others out of it and, by extension, the right to tell visitors what they can and cannot do as long as they are in the house.

And that sheds some light on the underlying assumption behind the idea of implied consent. To tell someone that his only valid choices are either to leave the “country” or to abide by whatever commands the politicians issue logically implies that everything in the“country” is the property of the politicians. If a person can spend year after year paying for his home, or even building it himself, and his choices are still to either obey the politicians or get out, that means that his house and the time and effort he invested in the house are the property of the politicians. And for one person’s time and effort to rightfully belong to another is the definition of slavery. That is exactly what the “implied consent” theory means: that every “country” is a huge slave plantation, and that everything and everyone there is the property of the politicians. And, of course, the master does not need the consent of his slave.

The believers in “government” never explain how it is that a few politicians could have acquired the right to unilaterally claim exclusive ownership of thousands of square miles of land, where other people were already living, as their territory, to rule and exploit as they see fit. It would be no different from a lunatic saying, “I hereby declare North America to be my rightful domain, so anyone living here has to do whatever I say, If you don’t like it, you can leave.”

There is also a practical problem with the “obey or get out” attitude, which is that getting out would only relocate the individual to some other giant slave plantation, a different “country.” The end result is that everyone on earth is a slave, with the only choice being which master to live under. This completely rules out actual freedom. More to the point, that is not what “consent” means.

The belief that politicians own everything is demonstrated even more dramatically in the concept of immigration “laws.” The idea that a human being needs permission from politicians to set foot anywhere in an entire country – the notion that it can be a “crime” for someone to step across an invisible line between one authoritarian jurisdiction into another – implies that the entire country is the property of the ruling class. If a citizen is not allowed to hire an “illegal alien,” is not allowed to trade with him, is not even allowed to invite an “illegal” into his own home, then that individual citizen owns nothing, and the politicians own everything.

Not only is the theory of “implied consent” logically flawed, but it also obviously does not describe reality. Any “government” that had the consent of its subjects would not need, and would not have, “law” enforcers. Enforcement happens only if someone does not consent to something. Anyone with their eyes open can see that “government,” on a regular basis, does things to a lot of people against their will. To be aware of the myriad of tax collectors, beat cops, inspectors and regulators, border guards, narcotics agents, prosecutors, judges, soldiers, and all the other mercenaries of the state, and to still claim that “government” does what it does with the consent of the “governed,” is utterly ridiculous. Each individual, if he is at all honest with himself, knows that those in power do not care whether he consents to abide by their “laws.” The politicians’ orders will be carried out, by brute force if necessary, with or without any individual’s consent.TMDS

[Ponce]

There are only two laws......the law of the people by congress (not always good) and the law of the gun (always bad) ........ for example, in 1930 President Hoover pass the property tax law, that law was thrown out in 1971 or 1972 (forgot which year) however, the government never told the people about it so that people are still paying property tax by the will of the gun.

V

[singular_me]

until the day we become fully responsible for ourselves, myths will continue to abound

[Dogman]

until the day we become fully responsible for ourselves, myths will continue to aboundOut of context but myths also give reasons to strive and explore or teach life lessons in a third/forth party way. The day myths die, imagination dies and then why live?

[palani]

The system works as much on honor and dishonor as it does on consent. People are sent to prison for dishonor more than any other reason. These people tend to fall into argument and would rather fight than agree. Never disagree. Also never make a statement. A statement presumes you have facts. You have no facts. Even things you see or hear are subject to your interpretation and this part of the process can be easily shown to be flawed.

People are not told that dishonor is punishable or even that they have an option other than to fight. This is not a topic that is ever taught in any public school and few parents know it so that they might pass it along to their children.

[singular_me]

I fully agree with what you say, Dogman!! :)

it all depends on which side of the fence one sits on...

positively: myths teach us about the true human nature and leave a message in their wake, how we can improve ourselves.
negatively: they make us walk in circles - when oblivious to their message(s).

People who are serious about knowing humans better must investigate ancient Greek and Egyptian myths.

And ultimately, myths incarnate the Universal Psyche, so they'll always be there... to guide us through the process of becoming self-aware. :)

Myths will always convey both sides of the fence, thats why we call them Myths... (same holds true with religions)


Out of context but myths also give reasons to strive and explore or teach life lessons in a third/forth party way. The day myths die, imagination dies and then why live?

[hoarder]

[FONT=verdana]If a citizen is not allowed to hire an “illegal alien,” is not allowed to trade with him, is not even allowed to invite an “illegal” into his own home, then that individual citizen owns nothing, and the politicians own everything.Hey Big-Lib, you're very predictable. You attach liberty to the obliteration of borders.

So, when are you going to tell us who controls the media and the Federal Reserve?

[singular_me]

hey Hoarder, borders are another myth... so, it is all fine as long as you live within your own national territory... but then need the **permission** to leave your country for another one, what we call VISA ??? where is freedom to travel and adopt a new area, in all that ???

the question of open borders is a tough one but it cannot be resolved with the current and average mindset. It is all about economic xenophobia in the end... follow the money.

Freedom canNOT exist without the possibility to travel and settle down wherever one wishes.

Freedom within one's own borders only = cage with invisible bars



Hey Big-Lib, you're very predictable. You attach liberty to the obliteration of borders.

So, when are you going to tell us who controls the media and the Federal Reserve?

[hoarder]

hey Hoarder, borders are another myth... so, it is all fine as long as you live within your own national territory... but then need the **permission** to leave your country for another one, what we call VISA ??? where is freedom (freedom to travel and adopt a new area, in all that ???

the question of open borders is a tough one but it cannot be resolved with the current and average mindset. It is all about economic xenophobia in the end... follow the money.

Freedom canNOT exist without the possibility to travel and settle down wherever on wishes.The mass genocide of my people is a myth because it doesn't suit your ideology to acknowledge it.


. "We must realize that our party's most powerful weapon is racial tensions. By propounding into the consciousness of the dark races that for centuries they have been oppressed by whites, we can mold them to the program of the Communist Party. In America we will aim for subtle victory. While inflaming the Negro minority against the whites, we will endeavor to instill in the whites a guilt complex for their exploitation of the Negroes. We will aid the Negroes to rise in prominence in every walk of life, in the professions and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause."
Israel Cohen, A Racial Program for the Twentieth Century, 1912. Also in the Congressional Record, Vol. 103, p. 8559, June 7, 1957


"The Jewish people as a whole will be its own Messiah. It will attain world domination by the dissolution of other races...and by the establishment of a world republic in which everywhere the Jews will exercise the privilege of citizenship. In this New World Order the Children of Israel...will furnish all the leaders without encountering opposition..." (Karl Marx in a letter to Baruch Levy, quoted in Review de Paris, June 1, 1928, p. 574)

[singular_me]

Hoarder, in my view racial issues are another myth... it is all about $$$, Blacks were shipped to the US because they were a "cheap" workforce. Thats slavery's prime cause ... then come the consequences

I think racial issues in the US (and beyond), rather show **massive** brainwashing, aka mind control.

I dont care about your point of view, slavery is just utterly wrong... therefore I will NOT take side with people behind it, nor the victims. Neutrality is the only way to END the vicious Sado-Masochistic STATE of affair that is slavery.

[hoarder]

Hoarder, in my view racial issues are another myth...Of course it is. Not only is it convenient for people of mixed race not to acknowledge that race mixing was engineered by Jews to marginalize Whites, but when you have an ideology (one which was marketed to you by Jews like IOWNbagels) you're going to be inclined to see the world through ideological glasses rather than how it really is. Nothing personal.


it is all about $$$, Blacks were shipped to the US because they were a "cheap" workforce. Thats slavery's prime cause ... then come the consequencesDig a little deeper and the facts prove otherwise. Jews like the Monsanto family shipped the Black slaves to this country, and this is very consistent with their agenda of stratified genocide. Just because there is a profit motive to hide behind doesn't mean it was their only motive.
I am very doubtful that you will acknowledge this truth. Again, nothing personal.

[Hatha Sunahara]

The first two sentences in the OP are an example of mega-irony.


In the modern world, slavery is almost universally condemned. But the relationship of a perceived “authority” to his subject is very much the relationship of a slave master (owner) to a slave (property).

In the modern world slavery is almost universally condemned; however authority is almost universally worshipped. And mythology is away to get people to stop thinking and accept an answer to an important question that you believe everyone else believes. Mythology is therefore a tool to establish conformity and obedience. It is the main tool in the arsenals of the politicians and the priests and everyone else who wants to get control over the minds of the masses. It's essence is mind control. So, when they want you to believe an absurdity (like implied consent) they just present it in a way which leads you to believe that everyone else accepts it, so you conform and obey. Only the non-conformists will challenge the absurdities of the politicians, and they are easily marginalized. The politicians want us to believe that the natural state of humanity (cattle) is slavery. We accept politicians as authorities--and we allow them to lead us in what we believe. Only a few people have the courage and the will to challenge the lies the politicians tell us. The politicians tell us we don't want freedom. We agree. Freedom is too difficult. We cannot lead ourselves. We agree. We need politicians to lead us. We agree. So how big a stretch is it for them to get most people to believe that they own everything, including us? And that we are their slaves? We agree. Consent is nor really a myth. It is a lie that we have fallen for.


Hatha

[singular_me]

I will not get into any racial argument... but will point to ALL psychopaths undermining Mankind, regardless of their race and/or culture/color.

I am NOT proud of the Belgium King, Leopold II, who ordered the massacre of 10 millions African people in the early 1900s, as red rubber was a hot commodity at the time. (I was born in a former belgian colony, today Rep Democratic Of Congo, formerly Zaire)

ps: the way I see it, freemasons/caucasian elite and zionists/jewish elite are two sides of the same coin.




Of course it is. Not only is it convenient for people of mixed race not to acknowledge that race mixing was engineered by Jews to marginalize Whites, but when you have an ideology (one which was marketed to you by Jews like IOWNbagels) you're going to be inclined to see the world through ideological glasses rather than how it really is. Nothing personal.Dig a little deeper and the facts prove otherwise. Jews like the Monsanto family shipped the Black slaves to this country, and this is very consistent with their agenda of stratified genocide. Just because there is a profit motive to hide behind doesn't mean it was their only motive.
I am very doubtful that you will acknowledge this truth. Again, nothing personal.

[Dogman]

I will not get into any racial argument... but will point to ALL psychopaths undermining Mankind, regardless of their race and/or culture/color.

I am NOT proud of the Belgium King, Leopold II, who ordered the massacre of 10 millions African people in the early 1900s, as red rubber was a hot commodity at the time. (I was born in a former belgian colony, today Rep Democratic Of Congo, formerly Zaire)

ps: the way I see it, freemasons/caucasian elite and zionists/jewish elite are two sides of the same coin.But that is exactly what they want!

Woman, you know the actors here and their agendas, They are a black hole of thought, my problem with them is they focus on one race or people, when the problem is much bigger.


But easy targets are preferred..

[hoarder]

I will not get into any racial argument... but will point to ALL psychopaths undermining Mankind, regardless of their race and/or culture/color.

I am NOT proud of the Belgium King, Leopold II, who ordered the massacre of 10 millions African people in the early 1900s, as red rubber was a hot commodity at the time. (I was born in a former belgian colony, today Rep Democratic Of Congo, formerly Zaire)

ps: the way I see it, freemasons/caucasian elite and zionists/jewish elite are two sides of the same coin.You have dogmatically stated your position, yet you have not attempted to refute what I stated. How inconvenient the truth is has no bearing on whether or not it is true. You have dismissed the truth as a "racial argument".

How can non-Whites expect Whites to be their brothers if they will not even acknowledge the current mass genocide? Put the shoe on the other foot.

[Jewboo]

The first two sentences in the OP are an example of mega-irony. In the modern world slavery is almost universally condemned; however authority is almost universally worshipped....





http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/4d/8a/92/4d8a92db8c07007dfc825be428ae3344.jpg



:rolleyes: who "rules" and who makes the "laws" Maggie?

[Horn]

Much of consent has to do with a nations policing force these days, such as what is taking place in Conneticut with police refusal to enforce a written gun law. Here in Costa Rica any citizen can veto a law once written and send it back for judicial review even before it becomes implemented.

Consent still exists in many places, but like Ponce stated, police in U.S. have really big guns and the system many feelers into your life so the time lapse of a law through to enforcement is almost instantaneous with no time for consent of the people to even be realized and or given. If you get caught even questioning a police officer in U.S. its like you've written your own ticket to Guantanamo.

[Dogman]

You have dogmatically stated your position, yet you have not attempted to refute what I stated. How inconvenient the truth is has no bearing on whether or not it is true. You have dismissed the truth as a "racial argument".

How can non-Whites expect Whites to be their brothers if they will not even acknowledge the current mass genocide? Put the shoe on the other foot.Woof, as far as dogmatically. you have a very focused agenda. Not saying you are wrong, other than history. The real one not the one that people like you want to re wright history, past my time you all will win. And then there will be another someday cleaning, or tried . but thank god the world is getting smarter.

You said it yourself in the past , brown is the way it will be..

Horder, I respect you, but your ar as perceptible as the sun rising. now can you change it..

your god adolf did not make any diff other than getting a bunch of people killed, tho we now are due another mass killing.

I respect you , but unlike you I am pragmatic...I know I can not change a dam thing.


There are eproches, in history, and one thing about history, there is not any civilation that has stayed intact , history speaks to that fact..


Now the thing is who is right? only the dust will tell. in the long run..

We are stronger united., which is a joke...


Now your turn, with your logic...which sounds good but is flawed.


With respect.

[hoarder]

Woof, as far as dogmatically. you have a very focused agenda. Not saying you are wrong, other than history. The real one not the one that people like you want to re wright history, past my time you all will win. And then there will be another someday cleaning, or tried . but thank god the world is getting smarter.

You said it yourself in the past , brown is the way it will be..

Horder, I respect you, but your ar as perceptible as the sun rising. now can you change it.. How predictable or focused someone is has nothing to do with dogmatism. Look it up.


your god adolf did not make any diff other than getting a bunch of people killed, tho we now are due another mass killing. Hitler is not my god. He was probably a Jew.


I respect you , but unlike you I am pragmatic...I know I can not change a dam thing. I'm pragmatic too, but that will not prevent me from exposing mass genocide for what it is.



There are eproches, in history, and one thing about history, there is not any civilation that has stayed intact , history speaks to that fact..Relatively speaking, the Khazars have done a great job of remaining intact in spite of being widely dispersed among the goyim.

[Dogman]

How predictable or focused someone is has nothing to do with dogmatism. Look it up. Hitler is not my god. He was probably a Jew. I'm pragmatic too, but that will not prevent me from exposing mass genocide for what it is. Relatively speaking, the Khazars have done a great job of remaining intact in spite of being widely dispersed among the goyim.
I spent abt 45 min replying to you. then I realized nothing will change.

you focise on jews, I do not because it is bigger than them, greed has no race/creed.

I hit you for my own reasons, in many ways we are the same, but our foci is light years apart.
But we still strive for the same thing.

But I am pragmatic not a dam thing I can do....Any display would make my life harder than it is now. And I have not much life left, I hope i can make another 10 years before ..

Edit: I am susprised to make this far, another ten years or less, who knows..

I may keep living to give you shit, only because your history and real .. I love to keep it real.

[singular_me]

You must have missed many of my postings on GSUS. A criminal/genocide is a criminal/genocide, period, and must be exposed.

any race/culture war is the mother of all illusions, and this is the only thing that has to be acknowledged. races/cultures are fractals (or piece of) of the **same** big picture/puzzle, we cannot fight any fractal as ALL fractals mirror each other. Attacking any fractal comes down to destroy the Whole. That what racism is about.

Each culture/race possesses an attribute that another does not have.


-0-0-


You have dogmatically stated your position, yet you have not attempted to refute what I stated. How inconvenient the truth is has no bearing on whether or not it is true. You have dismissed the truth as a "racial argument".

How can non-Whites expect Whites to be their brothers if they will not even acknowledge the current mass genocide? Put the shoe on the other foot.

[iOWNme]

Hey Big-Lib, you're very predictable. You attach liberty to the obliteration of borders.

Did you even read what i posted? Of course you didnt. You are a Pavlovian conditioned robot who cannot think on his own. When i make a post, you instantly hear the bell ring and follow me around like a drooling idiot.


The belief that politicians own everything is demonstrated even more dramatically in the concept of immigration “laws.” The idea that a human being needs permission from politicians to set foot anywhere in an entire country – the notion that it can be a “crime” for someone to step across an invisible line between one authoritarian jurisdiction into another – implies that the entire country is the property of the ruling class. If a citizen is not allowed to hire an “illegal alien,” is not allowed to trade with him, is not even allowed to invite an “illegal” into his own home, then that individual citizen owns nothing, and the politicians own everything.

Why do you believe this MYTH? Can you intellectually rebut this? Can YOU put YOUR own personal thoughts into a coherent discussion? Or can you only call names and deflect the discussion?

If you IMAGINE that 'boarders' are what keep you free, then YOU are the victim of mind control. You sound like a slave who is upset that his Master is going to take the fence down.

[hoarder]

I spent abt 45 min replying to you. then I realized nothing will change.Perhaps your time would be better spent determining what is true rather than trying to change others views.

[hoarder]

Did you even read what i posted? Of course you didnt. You are a Pavlovian conditioned robot who cannot think on his own. When i make a post, you instantly hear the bell ring and follow me around like a drooling idiot.Big-Lib, who controls the mass media and the Federal Reserve?

[hoarder]

Each culture/race possesses an attribute that another does not have.
At least we agree on one thing.

[Horn]

In my estimation tptb think of races much like vegetable gardens,

in many cases you need to plant them sparsely enough to get the desired strong root results. Then weed out the weakly.

Like many have said ultimately it would be in their interest to keep them segregated also to keep the game going.

Where hoarder sees genocide, tptb might just see a well maintained white tomato garden.

[iOWNme]

Big-Lib, who controls the mass media and the Federal Reserve?


What are YOU so afraid of?

(Please keep playing these games, it just lets more and more members and guests see the logic and rational of voluntaryism. If my ideas werent a threat to you, YOU WOULD IGNORE ME. = You've already lost.)


Things like 'uncertainty' and the 'unknown' (YOUR words) dont scare me one bit. Probably because i can 100% provide and defend for myself and my family using my own 2 hands. Something most Statists are DEATHLY afraid of. That and self responsiblility.

Why do these things scare you so much? Is there any chance that your Masters have trained this into you?

You IMAGIINE that you should be able to own your own home and car, but think that the 'Politicians' should be able to tell you who can come inside your home and who can ride in your car, thus PROVING you dont own ANYTHING. If the 'Politicians' can tell you who you can associate with, then YOU ARE A SLAVE.

You literally rally and advocate for your own enslavement. Stockholm much?

[Jewboo]

What are YOU so afraid of?




Whoever disagrees with iOWNme is "afraid".


:D

[Dogman]

Perhaps your time would be better spent determining what is true rather than trying to change others views.Never would try what cannot be changed! Yours and others here views are narrow, when the real problem, is greed for wealth/power has no lock on any race or skin color! Some like to have "scapegoats" to blame rather than look into a mirror.

Greed expressed in its many faces is a basic human condition for all of us that walk on this mud ball we call home (earth)!

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Forum Runner

[Horn]

Whoever disagrees with iOWNme is "afraid".


:D

He missed that "and the Pursuit of Happiness" clause.

Do as your were ordered to do, and pursue happiness, iOWNme.

[iOWNme]

Whoever disagrees with iOWNme is "afraid".


:D

No. Whoever advocates for 'Government' is by definition AFRAID of the 'uncertain' and the 'unknown'. Again, WHY are you so afraid of these things?

Can you actually articulate to me what YOU personally disagree with?

Thanks for keeping my threads alive! I love it!

[iOWNme]

He missed that "and the Pursuit of Happiness" clause.

Do as your were ordered to do, and pursue happiness, iOWNme.

It is 100% IMPOSSIBLE to pursue happiness when there are Statist LIKE YOU who will not leave other people alone. The Founders knew this all to well. I am not stopping you from having a 'Government' who rules over YOU. Thats your choice. But YOU on the other hand can not let me and others live outside of YOUR 'system' because you are a STATIST who can not leave other people alone.

Thanks for keeping my threads alive! I love it! More and more people are coming around to Voluntaryism. Thanks again!

You can easily ignore my threads. If i wasnt a threat to you YOU WOULD IGNORE ME.

[Horn]

Thanks for keeping my threads alive! I love it! More and more people are coming around to Voluntaryism. Thanks again!

de nada.

[palani]

http://i59.tinypic.com/ebd2zn.jpg

[palani]

Public Measures ........ are permitted and allowed, BUT NEVER CONSENTED TO.


http://i60.tinypic.com/n20hlh.jpg

[mick silver]

What are YOU so afraid of? you ask hoarder stuff , why not answer hoarder ................. What are YOU so afraid of?

[EE_]

What are YOU so afraid of? you ask hoarder stuff , why not answer hoarder ................. What are YOU so afraid of?

You're not going to get an answer. I've asked a question many times and haven't got one yet.

My question:

Say we at gsus are all fully on board, every last member. We're not afraid and we no longer IMAGINE there is any 'Authority'. Nothing more needs to be said, we all get it!

Q. Now what happens? What happens next? What changes?

[mick silver]

What are YOU so afraid of? EE

[hoarder]

You're not going to get an answer. I've asked a question many times and haven't got one yet.

My question:

Say we at gsus are all fully on board, every last member. We're not afraid and we no longer IMAGINE there is any 'Authority'. Nothing more needs to be said, we all get it!

Q. Now what happens? What happens next? What changes?Nothing changes. All this ideological BS relies on "If everybody" did a certain thing or believed a certain ideology, which will never happen, and they know this. They just want us to view the world through ideological glasses, IOW have a distorted view of reality.

But the Bagelmeister never gives up.

[Jewboo]

My question:

Say we at gsus are all fully on board, every last member. We're not afraid and we no longer IMAGINE there is any 'Authority'. Nothing more needs to be said, we all get it!

Q. Now what happens? What happens next? What changes?




GSUS takes it to the NEXT LEVEL (https://www.google.com/search?site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1536&bih=734&q=hat+imprint&oq=hat+imprint&gs_l=img.3...42528.47708.0.48923.11.8.0.3.0.0.76.4 16.8.8.0....0...1ac.1.37.img..4.7.364.NEAZ7LDetWc)



:rolleyes:

[Dogman]

GSUS takes it to the NEXT LEVEL (https://www.google.com/search?site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1536&bih=734&q=hat+imprint&oq=hat+imprint&gs_l=img.3...42528.47708.0.48923.11.8.0.3.0.0.76.4 16.8.8.0....0...1ac.1.37.img..4.7.364.NEAZ7LDetWc)



:rolleyes:



You a true hoot..

[Horn]

Q. Now what happens? What happens next? What changes?

Anarchy is a religion that needs disciples.

Take this bag, and spread my seed thru the forest...

[mick silver]

http://www.promo-wholesale.com/Upfiles/Prod_p/20-Gallon-Foam-Cowboy-Hat-W-Custom-Impint_20090706288.jpg

[Dogman]

They that feel is way are free to .


totaly them selfs.

Which is good as long as they cause no harm to others.

[EE_]

Anarchy is a religion that needs disciples.

Take this bag, and spread my seed thru the forest...

I wish I would have known that before I sent 'Josie the Outlaw' 20 bucks to wear this shirt in her next video.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_k7sPBn2Dhsk/TMdY6VAH3dI/AAAAAAAAAC0/BTxyjGdUlhc/s1600/DSC_2729.jpg

[Hitch]

Say we at gsus are all fully on board, every last member. We're not afraid and we no longer IMAGINE there is any 'Authority'. Nothing more needs to be said, we all get it!

Q. Now what happens? What happens next? What changes?

We are all onboard and we are doing what we should be doing. Preparing. Take action to get our personal situations ready as best we can to weather any storm that may be on the horizon.

This includes buying food, being able to filter and store water, gold and silver, and guns and ammo.

Until then, enjoy life as best you can. That's all you can do. Too many philosophical debates is just mental masturbation.

[Horn]

I wish I would have known that before I sent 'Josie the Outlaw' 20 bucks to wear this shirt in her next video.


EE_ that image that you might have in your head, of Anarchists sporting pierced nipples, is clearly a JWO implant.

[Dogman]

Most men want to return to her womb, and the sets the stage fof most of the drama,, A good set of tits, just adds to it

Me are programed to try and return to the womb... And that makes it fum for both sexes.

As long as no one blames the femile for what the male does, itis all good.

fixing to shut down for the night..

Be well all!

[singular_me]

everything comes down to beliefs... everything.... the problem are **absurd beliefs** like trying to change things that cannot be changed or expecting everybody to embrace the same coercive ideology... look at the state of the planet and the US Constitution today.. ???

It is a blessing in disguise that Anarchy cannot be enforced and that is enough to understand the stakes we are facing, volontaryism has to be a personal epiphany... the understanding that one must first accept how things are.

again, Francis Bacon, freemason: to conquer Nature, you must first obey it... people who dont grasp this canNOT understand the inner workings of the NWO and will continue to fight ghosts and shadows and blaming whatever culprit(s)

Submit to What It Is... or die. Freedom is the result of an explosive polarity.

The more contracts, the less freedom. I think am borrowing this from Hatha.


Anarchy is a religion that needs disciples..

[EE_]

EE_ that image that you might have in your head, of Anarchists sporting pierced nipples, is clearly a JWO implant.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_75VGPxUPI

[Jewboo]

I wish I would have known that before I sent 'Josie the Outlaw' 20 bucks to wear this shirt in her next video.




http://media.npr.org/assets/news/2010/04/09/michiganmilitia-883b40fe7fa18ad392b54c348e95ebd9e1ba01f6-s6-c30.jpg
Fuck yeah! Let's kill a cop or rob a bank or sumthin......................for Josey the Outlaw !!!

[Hatha Sunahara]

The more contracts, the less freedom. I think am borrowing this from Hatha.

This is something Palani pointed out. I would point out that contracts are voluntary agreements between people to bind them into doing something they agreed to.

The problem most anarchists (freedom lovers) have is with being COERCED into doing something they disagree with. That coercion comes from authority, dressed up as government, which claims to protect their freedom if they are willing to become slaves. Anarchists are consciously aware of the absurdity of this 'offer' and reject it--so the government coerces them into being slaves regardless. And with other specious arguments governments claim that they have 'consent'.

Maybe along with Orwell's non-equations:

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

We should inlude:

Coercion is Consent

Orwellian enough?


Hatha

[singular_me]

Very thoughtful answer, Hatha

Coercion is consent... I hadnt thought of that one!!! Damn

[Horn]

everything comes down to beliefs... everything.... the problem are **absurd beliefs** like trying to change things that cannot be changed

Anarchy is the fleeting space between Monarchies.

Your belief is in AnarchUtopia, or the current Autonomous Republic of Kiev?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestor_Makhno

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestor_Makhno)iOWNme's political party below.


insurrectionary anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrectionary_anarchism) are strongly influenced by egoism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egoist_anarchism) and radical individualism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism), believing anarcho-communism is the best social system for the realization of individual freedom. Some anarcho-communists view anarcho-communism as a way of reconciling the opposition between the individual and society
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestor_Makhno)



Revolution and insurrection must not be looked upon as synonymous. The former consists in an overturning of conditions, of the established condition or status, the State or society, and is accordingly a political or social act; the latter has indeed for its unavoidable consequence a transformation of circumstances, yet does not start from it but from men's discontent with themselves, is not an armed rising, but a rising of individuals, a getting up, without regard to the arrangements that spring from it. The Revolution aimed at new arrangements; insurrection leads us no longer to let ourselves be arranged, but to arrange ourselves, and sets no glittering hopes on "institutions." It is not a fight against the established, since, if it prospers, the established collapses of itself; it is only a working forth of me out of the established. If I leave the established, it is dead and passes into decay. Now, as my object is not the overthrow of an established order but my elevation above it, my purpose and deed are not a political or social but (as directed toward myself and my ownness alone) an egoistic purpose and deed - Max Stirner

[iOWNme]

What are YOU so afraid of? you ask hoarder stuff , why not answer hoarder ................. What are YOU so afraid of?

Im afraid of statists like YOU advocating for a 'Government' to protect YOU while it robs me.

[hoarder]

Anyone who isn't an anarchist is a "Statist!Statist!Statist!Statist!Statist!Statist!St atist!".

[BrewTech]

Anyone who isn't an anarchist is a "Statist!Statist!Statist!Statist!Statist!Statist!St atist!".

One either advocates for others to control their lives, or they don't. What other options are there?

[hoarder]

One either advocates for others to control their lives, or they don't. What other options are there?Ideologies become the glasses through which we see the world....IOW a distorted view of the world. Your oversimplification doesn't take into consideration that individuals cannot compete for power against groups. Obliteration of borders will eventually lead to world government. There are no power voids. They will be filled the moment they become vacant.

[palani]

What other options are there?
well for one ... you might advocate for a government that controls the lives of those who are not able to control their own. Just like you might advocate for incarceration of the insane to protect others or the insane themselves.

Your viewpoint appears to consider everyone rational. That is far from the case. The government considers everyone to be an animal and maybe they are until you decide the status is not yours.

http://adask.wordpress.com/2014/03/13/consumers-are-animals/

[Jewboo]

One either advocates for others to control their lives, or they don't. What other options are there?




http://www.grjournal.org/artp/34170dd24a2c66161386779316061.jpg


:D here's mine

[Jewboo]

I would point out that contracts are voluntary agreements between people to bind them into doing something they agreed to.





Contracts are ENFORCED via lawsuits before evil government Judges and Courts.


:rolleyes: you Bitcoin guys always want it both ways...lol.

[Horn]

One either advocates for others to control their lives, or they don't. What other options are there?

Agreeing to a set of written rules in a common law to guide all lives. A base level of state that is a requirement for civilization to work, hardly a statist.

For Anarchy to work a constant state of war would need to be declared on anyone trying to enforce their own laws, which would be a constant because there wouldn't be any law, as hoarder says the vacuum.

Its just that simple.

The problem is all the laws that write themselves after the initial set, instead of individual assessment (case by case) based on the original set. A statist supports that kind of over generalization and auto creation.

[mick silver]

i protect no one but my family and i have never called the law to help me and if you got rob thats because you let someone rob you , again i did not rob you
Im afraid of statists like YOU advocating for a 'Government' to protect YOU while it robs me.

[mick silver]

i like to learn all i can so would you answer hoarder .................What are YOU so afraid of? you ask hoarder stuff , why not answer hoarder ................. What are YOU so afraid of?

[Hatha Sunahara]

Contracts are ENFORCED via lawsuits before evil government Judges and Courts.


:rolleyes: you Bitcoin guys always want it both ways...lol.

Do you have any suggestions for how to get people to honor their agreements? Would a 'feedback' system, (like in eBay) be a good substitute for evil judges and courts? Ultimately, civilization depends on people being honorable. If no means of keeping people honorable exists, we do not live in a civilized world. I'm not advocating for evil judges and courts--just a means of establishing consequences for not honoring one's agreements.


Hatha

[Horn]

I'm curious to find what the anarcho-crew would do about mandatory liability auto insurance?

In the example where another anarchist ran a red light creating some lifelong debilitating injury to other parties.

I guess he's just held responsible enough on his own account?

"Sorry, really I am, here's $5 for each lost appendage."

That's hypothetically speaking if there were a red light to begin with, in the anarcho-world.

[iOWNme]

Ideologies become the glasses through which we see the world....IOW a distorted view of the world. Your oversimplification doesn't take into consideration that individuals cannot compete for power against groups. Obliteration of borders will eventually lead to world government. There are no power voids. They will be filled the moment they become vacant.

WHO are these 'grooups' made up of? INDIVIDUALS. Your using circular logic. AGAIN.

If there were no 'Government' tomorrow WHO would stop individuals from organizing and cooperating? for their mutal benfit?

If there was no 'Government' tomorrow, would YOU personally be over run by these 'groups'? Or would YOU and others try and resist them? Your logic is a fucking joke. You prove yourself WRONG with your own statements. LOL

[Horn]

As commander of the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine, more commonly referred to as the Makhnovshchina, Makhno led a guerrilla campaign during the Russian Civil War. Makhno fought all factions that sought to impose any external authority over southern Ukraine, battling in succession the Ukrainian Nationalists, the Imperial German and Austro-Hungarian occupation, the Hetmanate Republic, the White Army, the Red Army, and other smaller forces led by Ukrainian atamans.

3 characters

[Jewboo]

Do you have any suggestions for how to get people to honor their agreements? Would a 'feedback' system, (like in eBay) be a good substitute for evil judges and courts? Ultimately, civilization depends on people being honorable. If no means of keeping people honorable exists, we do not live in a civilized world. I'm not advocating for evil judges and courts--just a means of establishing consequences for not honoring one's agreements.

Hatha


I was mostly teasing the Bitcoiners who boast non-government sovereignty then later sue in government Courts for their now "missing" Bitcoins.

I dunno Hatha. Trillions went missing from Wall Street in 2008 and the government put nobody in prison. FRB never audited. Maybe "honor" is what they teach us gullible goyim in public schools while TPTB teach their own kids how to "legally" rob us blind. Maybe you and me should finally admit that we don't live in a civilized world and never did.

:(??

[Horn]

Corporations have loopholes because there isn't a person there to consent to his rights.

Its the hook they offer even us for losing them.

[hoarder]

WHO are these 'grooups' made up of? INDIVIDUALS. Your using circular logic. AGAIN. The Mafia is made up of individuals, too.


[B]If there were no 'Government' tomorrow WHO would stop individuals from organizing and cooperating? for their mutal benfit?

The largest, most ruthless and most clever organization would win and set up whatever kind of government suits them and thus conquer the world. That's human nature. It's inevitable.

[iOWNme]

The Mafia is made up of individuals, too. The largest, most ruthless and most clever organization would win and set up whatever kind of government suits them and thus conquer the world. That's human nature. It's inevitable.


I get that you think that. But would YOU resist them? Or would you allow them to rule you out of some IMAGINED moral obligation?

Because without the IMAGINED moral obligation, NOBODY would obey 'Government'. If people could remove their belief in 'Authority' they would be able to see what 'Government' REALLY is: A violent GANG of CRIMINALS.

[hoarder]

I get that you think that. But would YOU resist them? Or would you allow them to rule you out of some IMAGINED moral obligation? It isn't a matter of whether I would resist, it's a matter of who wins. Might does not determine who is right. It determines who is left.



Because without the IMAGINED moral obligation, NOBODY would obey 'Government'. If people could remove their belief in 'Authority' they would be able to see what 'Government' REALLY is: A violent GANG of CRIMINALS.There always have been gangs and there always will be gangs. I would prefer the gang to be our Constitutional Republic in spite of it's flaws.
Global anarchy would result in world government. A national anarchy in say...Israel for example would be OK with me. They can try it and see how it works.

By the way, Big-Lib.....who controls the mass media and the Federal Reserve?

[mick silver]

What are YOU so afraid of?

[iOWNme]

It isn't a matter of whether I would resist, it's a matter of who wins. Might does not determine who is right. It determines who is left.

Are you serious? It absolutely matters. Dont you think if people resisted it would change who wins? Holy crap man....


There always have been gangs and there always will be gangs. I would prefer the gang to be our Constitutional Republic in spite of it's flaws.

And YOU can have that gang run your life. But you have no Right to force me to be run by the gang YOU want. Can you understand this?



Global anarchy would result in world government.

Do you want a glass of dry water?

[iOWNme]

By the way, Big-Lib.....who controls the mass media and the Federal Reserve?

Why wont you debate me and find out?

[hoarder]

Why wont you debate me and find out?I already know who controls the Federal Reserve and the mass media, I just wanted you to admit it.

[singular_me]

That's human nature. It's inevitable.

I dont believe this one second, unless it is verifiable, and we wont find out until societies' premises, structures, education are absolutely restarted from scratch... until then nobody can claim that "That's human nature. It's inevitable".

The problem is that every time there is a revolution of some sort, the old system is still in place by another name. The Myth Of Revolution is a good title for another thread.

[hoarder]

I dont believe this one second, unless it is verifiable, and we wont find out until societies' premises, structures, education are absolutely restarted from scratch... until then nobody can claim that "That's human nature. It's inevitable".
There's one way to prove it, but there won't be any going back from there. Believe what's convenient if you wish.

[Horn]

I dont believe this one second,

Answer the redlight question in post #66, Goldie.

Por favor.

[singular_me]

no mandatory insurance but the smartest would get one. Funding courts and jails would be left to donations from people who want criminals to stay locked in... and I am sure many would donate for the own sake of their security, wouldnt they?



I'm curious to find what the anarcho-crew would do about mandatory liability auto insurance?

In the example where another anarchist ran a red light creating some lifelong debilitating injury to other parties.

I guess he's just held responsible enough on his own account?

"Sorry, really I am, here's $5 for each lost appendage."

That's hypothetically speaking if there were a red light to begin with, in the anarcho-world.


Answer the redlight question in post #66, Goldie.

Por favor.

[Jewboo]

Funding courts and jails would be left to donations from people who want criminals to stay locked in... and I am sure many would donate for the own sake of their security, wouldnt they?




http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e105/CommentCrazyGirl/Smileys%20Action/Occupations/judge.gif
HAND HIM OVER TO THE VICTIM'S FAMILY



Fathers, uncles, husbands, and brothers of rape victims should be offered the first opportunity to execute punishment after trial. That's real justice isn't it? Ditto victims of drunk drivers etc...

[Horn]

Accidental manslaughter is an unavoidable part of human nature.

Courts and jails?

Anarchy affords no courts or jails, there are no laws to break.

Punishment of breaking natures laws would have to be left to in an instant.

[singular_me]

I see your point Book, but the way I see it a anarchist society would be more balanced (much less addictions of all kinds, more people responsible due to an unbiased education, etc)... so many of the problems we have today do not apply :)

[singular_me]

that an anarchy society has no court and jails remains to be seen... people are free to organize as they want, as long as it is voluntary... so yes I think their would be jails and courts, for the very special cases... see my reply to Book too.



Accidental manslaughter is an unavoidable part of human nature.

Courts and jails?

Anarchy affords no courts or jails, there are no laws to break.

Punishment of natures laws would have to be left to in an instant.

[Horn]

Your anarchy that has some agreed to laws by the people sounds like a Constitutional Republic.

People freely assembling to constitute themselves under written law.

Such as at forum where iOWNme would like me written up for trolling his threads.

He and Josie like the Bill of Rights though,
if they were real Anarchists they would know that's the part the gains their consent as governed.

[singular_me]

I dont know why so many people view anarchy as the Wild West, it is not. Anarchy is the absence of rulers but there would be rules nonetheless established by the village/town. Rules could be very different from a town to another, but my guess people would segregate voluntarily (as opposed to forced integration) .

for example, you could have a town full of off the grid people into bartering, then the next town for high tech geniuses only... then the next town being exclusively populated with hedonists... each with their own sets of voluntary commitments.

[Carl]

singular_me, you really don't think about what you write, do you....

bless your heart...

[hoarder]

Anarchy is the absence of rulers Singular me, try this. Tomorrow morning when you have your coffee, stick your finger in it and pull it out. If there remains a hole in the coffee where your finger displaced it, then no rulers will replace the ones that anarchy dispossesed.

[singular_me]

Unfortunately or not for you - yes I do. :)

we are discussing anarchy and its potential and challenges. I am not the only one on earth believing that it is the best path for Humanity.


singular_me, you really don't think about what you write, do you....

bless your heart...

[singular_me]

have you read this?

DO WE EVER REALLY GET OUT OF ANARCHY? - Ludwig von Mises ...
mises.org/journals/jls/3_2/3_2_3.pdf

it is either anarchy either from the top down (hierarchical political anarchy) or from the bottom up (pluralist decentralized anarchy)... we cannot escape it. It is a universal model that can go either ways

statism will awlays be about herarchical political anarchy, this essay is a great read for those who are FED up with being fooled by terminology.


Singular me, try this. Tomorrow morning when you have your coffee, stick your finger in it and pull it out. If there remains a hole in the coffee where your finger displaced it, then no rulers will replace the ones that anarchy dispossesed.

[Horn]

And as the good little lawed village grows, you turn into the empire that is the U.S. this is the wild west today.

I think the closest you could come to your Anarchy in today's age is everyone included in an internet congress to represent themselves.

But like any Anarcho-democracy it would need a bill of rights to protect individual right, and still again a judicial group to determine if all laws were clear of the original set of individual rights.

Those judges would rule indirectly.

[Carl]

Unfortunately or not for you - yes I do. :)

we are discussing anarchy and its potential and challenges. I am not the only one on earth believing that it is the best path for Humanity.Did you know that Marxism has the same delusional goal you've espoused? The only difference between a Marxist and a Anarchist is that the Marxist is smart enough to know that the populous must be trained to behave as the Anarchist believes they would behave of their own accord. If a few million die in the training process (communism), that is as it should be...

The wild wild west exemplifies a people absent a uniform rule of law, where the rule of might was the prevailing theme, anarchy.

As for consent, it is given by your continued presence in the system.

If you don't want to consent, leave....

[singular_me]

Carl, you are narrowed minded... so are you accusing even von Mises to be a marxist now, give me a break, will you! I am fine if you'd deem anarchy an utopia but saying but saying that it is a marxist concept, you can't stretch it far enough for me.

all the systems we have had so far on the planet over the last 4000 years have been more or less collectivist/centralized .

Read it before you post you next reply to me. Thank you.

DO WE EVER REALLY GET OUT OF ANARCHY? - Ludwig von Mises ...
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_2/3_2_3.pdf

it is either anarchy either from the top down (hierarchical political anarchy) or from the bottom up (pluralist decentralized anarchy)... we cannot escape it. It is a universal model that can go either ways

[Santa]

Perhaps "hierarchical authority" (I personally hate that phrase) is natures law, instinctive, arising out of the first original system, known as family. Parental authority over children.

Every child is trained to follow the rules of their adult parents, and every adult is merely an older child that's been trained to follow rules.

Where in this family chain does the child actually become independent from the ruling parents, other than getting a job, which only replaces one ruler for another. Either an employer or a client.

Perhaps the root cause stems from the concept of self,... then self ownership...

It leaves a conundrum between servitude and freedom.

Perhaps the illusion is the expectation of freedom.

[singular_me]

I can do with that possible explanation... there will always be some rules of conduct in society, but people must have the opportunity to choose which of them suit them the best or change the latter when they no longer have any purpose. It all comes down to have very flexible rules of conducts since they are all meant to be broken eventually, hence the myth of consent. Thats why statism goes through major upheavals. The best system is which can prevent large scale social breakdowns.



Perhaps "hierarchical authority" (I personally hate that phrase) is natures law, instinctive, arising out of the first original system, known as family. Parental authority over children.

Every child is trained to follow the rules of their adult parents, and every adult is merely an older child that's been trained to follow rules.

Where in this family chain does the child actually become independent from the ruling parents, other than getting a job, which only replaces one ruler for another. Either an employer or a client.

Perhaps the root cause stems from the concept of self,... then self ownership...

It leaves a conundrum between servitude and freedom.

Perhaps the illusion is the expectation of freedom.

[singular_me]

I think this discussion is interesting but also wont change anybody's opinion, because we can't agree on the terminology.

we have to observe the molecular structure to find the answer: atoms voluntarily collaborate but are independent on their own. Such a system would be the best for Humanity. The rules of conduct between atoms is defined by their electromagnetic charge (they band together to achieve a specific goal), so for human sharing emotions/consent is essential to ensure a better harmony. Emotions being electric (frequencies) by nature, thats why we say "being on the same wavelength".

as above so below works at every level, trying anything else is futile/delusional. Anarchy has to be initiated by Reason and the understanding of Cosmic Laws, otherwise statism is here to stay, will never go away.



And as the good little lawed village grows, you turn into the empire that is the U.S. this is the wild west today.

I think the closest you could come to your Anarchy in today's age is everyone included in an internet congress to represent themselves.

But like any Anarcho-democracy it would need a bill of rights to protect individual right, and still again a judicial group to determine if all laws were clear of the original set of individual rights.

Those judges would rule indirectly.

[Jewboo]

http://angryworkingmom.typepad.com/.a/6a0120a4d36c2b970b0133ec3cd076970b-pi
Yeah Goldi...I told the HOA to go fuck themselves







:rolleyes: Anarchy and Freedum

[Hitch]

Damnit Book, I was taking a sip of coffee when I read that.

[Horn]

http://angryworkingmom.typepad.com/.a/6a0120a4d36c2b970b0133ec3cd076970b-pi



This guy might make an excellent judge for my flavor of internet congress anarchy.

He already has a throne.

[Carl]

Carl, you are narrowed minded... How does pointing out a delussional ideology make one "narrowed minded"?



so are you accusing even von Mises to be a marxist now, give me a break, will you! I am fine if you'd deem anarchy an utopia but saying but saying that it is a marxist concept, you can't stretch it far enough for me.

Marxism & Anarchism (http://www.marxists.org/subject/anarchism/)

von Mises was/is wrong about almost everything.

He cobbled together the political ideology of Capitalism by modifying and incorporating mercantilism (he "corporatized" it), with the prevailing system of free enterprise then he painted that bastardized obscenity with the romanticized, delusional idealism of libertarian/anarchism, another political ideology.

And the only way any ideology wins out over others is through the use of hierarchical POLITICAL FORCE.

[Horn]

And the only way any ideology wins out over others is through the use of hierarchical POLITICAL FORCE.

Goldie already agreed, her Utopia is something that could not be instituted or even proposed.

As proposition or institution of would defeat it summarily.

What I'm trying to find is why she and iOWNme keep proposing and institutionalizing it through stated threads and comments. :confused:

[palani]

In the U.S. you may do practically anything you like as long as you don't form a political party and create a platform on your views. The political system is great. They will agree with you on everything that doesn't interfere with the implementation of the 10 planks.

[singular_me]

My opinion is simple, a theory that espouses the Laws ruling over the microcosm and macrocosm ALIKE is the only worth considering. So let me stress it again:
we have to observe the molecular structure to find the answer: atoms voluntarily collaborate but are independent on their own. Such a system would be best for Humanity. The rules of conduct between atoms is defined by their electromagnetic charge (they band together to achieve a specific goal), so for human sharing emotions/consent is essential to ensure a better harmony. Emotions being electric (frequencies) by nature, thats why we say "being on the same wavelength".

the theory is a simple as that! Does this **sound** like communism to you? People who do not get that are fighting against the Universe itself... (ie: God)



How does pointing out a delussional ideology make one "narrowed minded"?

You called me delusional first and told me to go away, remember?... so I accused you of being narrowed minded. :)



Marxism & Anarchism (http://www.marxists.org/subject/anarchism/)

von Mises was/is wrong about almost everything.

And the only way any ideology wins out over others is through the use of hierarchical POLITICAL FORCE.

really ??? The use of hierarchical POLITICAL FORCE is the ultimate con game. Force is only positive, in case of self-defense. Coercive laws are meant to be broken. Legal Prevention does not work, it doesnt deter criminal activities. Ethical politicians are not eternal however. I do not always agree with what is posted on mises.org. I also think that hard currencies are NOT going to change anything IF people continue to succumb to the power-elite game/greed/speculation. Booms and busts are here to stay. The Tulip Mania is a good example.

Mises wrong about almost everything ??? Not just so. Every ideology has upsides and downsides, to find the one that it is most workable, we have to put them all together, to be able to see why voluntaryism is the only one that can win the "power game". I do not especially like the word anarchy because it has been twisted for the worse much too often. Voluntyaryism is far better.

[singular_me]

Goldie already agreed, her Utopia is something that could not be instituted or even proposed.

As proposition or institution of would defeat it summarily.

Right I said so. Voluntaryism has to be motivated by self-awareness. We can discuss it to spread that very self-awareness but that's all, persuasion. The Krishnamurti's quotes in my signature truly match my thinking.


What I'm trying to find is why she and iOWNme keep proposing and institutionalizing it through stated threads and comments. :confused:

wait a minute, I didnt start the latest threads about the topic, but since somebody else did, it is an occasion for me to speak my mind. :)

[singular_me]

for those who missed it when I posted it:


Statement of Purpose: Voluntaryists are advocates of non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society. We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy. Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately depends.... more.. http://voluntaryist.com/

Voluntaryism is the doctrine that relations among people should be by mutual consent, or not at all. It represents a means, an end, and an insight. Voluntaryism does not argue for the specific form that voluntary arrangements will take; only that force be abandoned so that individuals in society may flourish. As it is the means which determine the end, the goal of an all voluntary society must be sought voluntarily. People cannot be coerced into freedom. Hence, the use of the free market, education, persuasion, and non-violent resistance as the primary ways to change people's ideas about the State. The voluntaryist insight, that all tyranny and government are grounded upon popular acceptance, explains why voluntary means are sufficient to attain that end. http://voluntaryist.com/fundamentals/introduction.html#.UyTtWIWrOSo

[Horn]

Right I said so. Voluntaryism has to be motivated by self-awareness. We can discuss it to spread that very self-awareness but that's all, persuasion.

Persuasion and proposition, hmmm we're going to need some constitutional judicial hearings to decipher the difference there.

[singular_me]

the human language always persuades... a job interview for example :)


Persuasion and proposition, hmmm we're going to need some constitutional judicial hearings to decipher the difference there.

[Jewboo]

The Krishnamurti's quotes in my signature truly match my thinking.



http://www.j-krishnamurti.org/kb.jpg

Krishnamurti claimed allegiance to no nationality, caste, religion, or philosophy, and spent the rest of his life traveling the world, speaking to large and small groups and individuals.

[singular_me]

That's the kind of life that Id like to have ... working on it :)


http://www.j-krishnamurti.org/kb.jpg

Krishnamurti claimed allegiance to no nationality, caste, religion, or philosophy, and spent the rest of his life traveling the world, speaking to large and small groups and individuals.

[mick silver]

and living off the taxes other pay

[Horn]

and living off the taxes other pay

Its not his fault they tax your income and purchase items.

If it were just purchased items he could not escape tax.

[Jewboo]

and living off the taxes others pay




Helen Nearing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Nearing), who had known Krishnamurti in the 1920s, said that Krishnamurti's attitudes were conditioned by privilege because he had been supported, even pampered, by devoted followers from the time of his "discovery" by the theosophists. She also said that he was at such an "elevated" level that he was incapable of forming normal personal relationships.[92] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiddu_Krishnamurti#cite_note-107)

[mick silver]

"I am going to be purposely vague, because although I could quite easily make it definite, it is not my intention to do so. Because once you define a thing it becomes dead. ................. Someone asked me: 'Do tell me if it is you speaking or someone else'. I said: 'I really do not know and it does not matter'.

[singular_me]

Krishnamurti was unique, born a preacher, and yes the theosophists tried to turn him into one of their own kind because of his high level of awareness, but he escaped their power and went on his own path.

no romantic life? maybe couldnt he find the right mate for his level of Awareness. Christ is also described as being platonic in his relationships. I believe this is the fate of many thinkers as they are above the physical world... friendships are too uneasy because of the high standards one seeks for oneself. There is no free lunch :)

just found this
The book is best known for bringing to light details about Krishnamurti's private life, especially his long-term extramarital affair with Radha's mother.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lives_in_the_Shadow_with_J._Krishnamurti





Helen Nearing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Nearing), who had known Krishnamurti in the 1920s, said that Krishnamurti's attitudes were conditioned by privilege because he had been supported, even pampered, by devoted followers from the time of his "discovery" by the theosophists. She also said that he was at such an "elevated" level that he was incapable of forming normal personal relationships.[92] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiddu_Krishnamurti#cite_note-107)

[singular_me]

could you tell me who doesnt in this evil system, Mick... until we can terminate central banking we ALL take part in this evil on a daily basis, with(out) our consent. The only way to redeem ourselves is to spread the word, Krishnamurti was exposing all the deceptions we can think of, in a dramatic fashion that always provoked an inner revolution


and living off the taxes other pay

[Carl]

My opinion is simple, a theory that espouses the Laws ruling over the microcosm and macrocosm ALIKE is the only worth considering. So let me stress it again:
we have to observe the molecular structure to find the answer: atoms voluntarily collaborate but are independent on their own. Such a system would be best for Humanity. The rules of conduct between atoms is defined by their electromagnetic charge (they band together to achieve a specific goal), so for human sharing emotions/consent is essential to ensure a better harmony. Emotions being electric (frequencies) by nature, thats why we say "being on the same wavelength".

the theory is a simple as that! Does this **sound** like communism to you? People who do not get that are fighting against the Universe itself... (ie: God)

No, it **sounds** like mental masturbation, serving no other purpose other than making you feel all warm and fuzzy on the inside...



Mises wrong about almost everything ??? Not just so. Every ideology has upsides and downsides, to find the one that it is most workable, we have to put them all together, to be able to see why voluntaryism is the only one that can win the "power game". I do not especially like the word anarchy because it has been twisted for the worse much too often. Voluntyaryism is far better.

If you follow an ideology you have submitted to and are in a hierarchical political system.

If you advocate for an ideology you are exerting political force upon others.

The ideology of Voluntarism is just another hierarchical political system and just because you've volunteered for it, does not alter its hierarchical nature.

Weak minded people follow ideologies, especially so if the ideology places human will above intellect as its guiding principle..

[hoarder]

could you tell me who doesnt in this evil system, Mick... until we can terminate central banking we ALL take part in this evil on a daily basis, with(out) our consent. The only way to redeem ourselves is to spread the word, Krishnamurti was exposing all the deceptions we can think of, in a dramatic fashion that always provoked an inner revolutionPlease deny that you admitted living off taxes other people pay. You may not have as much company here as you think.

[Horn]

wait a minute, I didnt start the latest threads about the topic, but since somebody else did, it is an occasion for me to speak my mind. :)

I noticed that,

Carl (as a useful and congenial tool) go back and pick thru some of iOWNme's posts. :)

[Jewboo]

No, it **sounds** like mental masturbation, serving no other purpose other than making you feel all warm and fuzzy on the inside...




http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/x/crazy-new-age-woman-guitar-12642627.jpghttp://www.iknews.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/absurd_scottgriesel_Fotolia-293x300.jpg
It's the evil Loominaughty...................................... .not the jews








The "purpose" is to fill GSUS with new age esoteric nonsense so that this forum cannot focus on the jew problem in the real world.


:rolleyes:

[singular_me]

[No, it **sounds** like mental masturbation, serving no other purpose other than making you feel all warm and fuzzy on the inside...

so now because you cannot disprove what I am saying about the microcosm-macrocosm matching Laws, you have to claim that it is mental masturbation... ROFLOL :)

because you think that your **hierarchical POLITICAL FORCE**, makes sense perhaps, while we have more than 4000 years of track records proving that this ideology has led mankind and nature to the brink.... perhaps are you intellectually masturbating???

I am talking of science, and you, of laws coercing the darkest instincts of man. really, we are world apart, so why bother ??? Are you aware that emotions alter the RNA/DNA... so go ahead with your coercive politics and all you will get IS what you do not want - even more hatred and conflicts.


Weak minded people follow ideologies, especially so if the ideology places human will above intellect as its guiding principle.. ]

You really speak in the wind... the only ideology that will work out best is which that is VERY FLEXIBLE because Laws are meant to be BROKEN.

[hoarder]

If you follow an ideology you have submitted to and are in a hierarchical political system.

If you advocate for an ideology you are exerting political force upon others.

The ideology of Voluntarism is just another hierarchical political system and just because you've volunteered for it, does not alter its hierarchical nature.

Weak minded people follow ideologies, especially so if the ideology places human will above intellect as its guiding principle..Carl gets it!

[Carl]

I noticed that,

Carl (as a useful and congenial tool) go back and pick thru some of iOWNme's posts. :)
iOWNme posts are convoluted irrationalism based primarily in semantic word play, I find him/her/it intellectually repugnant.

[singular_me]

Please deny that you admitted living off taxes other people pay. You may not have as much company here as you think.

deny what??? that everybody is living off taxes that WE ALL pay... military complex makes sure that it is running fine with OUR tax dollars, all of which has kept the economy afloat so far. Thats what I meant in my posting to Mick. Until we come up with a way to terminate central banking and taxation, we ALL are taking part in this evil

Hoarder, do you happen to be honest with yourself... sometimes???

[hoarder]

deny what??? that everybody is living off taxes that WE ALL pay... military complex makes sure that it is running fine with OUR tax dollars, all of which has kept the economy afloat so far. Thats what I meant in my posting to Mick. Until wer come up with a way to terminate central banking and taxation, we ALL are taking part in this evil

Hoarder, do you happen to be honest with yourself... sometimes???

OK....we'll make like you're not getting a check from the gubmint.

[Carl]

...mental masturbation... ROFLOL :) ....

You really don't think about what you write....

Bless you heart...

[singular_me]

The ideology of Voluntarism is just another hierarchical political system and just because you've volunteered for it, does not alter its hierarchical nature.....

Carl gets it!

You both didnt read my postings because the word voluntaryism is not in your lexicon, hence sounds alien to you to start with, but I stated many times that there is nothing wrong with social structures as long as people are NOT coerced. And the absence of coercion leads to voluntaryism.... **hierarchical POLITICAL FORCE** is the complete opposite motion.

it is all about semantic it seems. When human organize there will always be a structure. But **benevolent cooperation** is far better that **forced integration** for Mankind as a whole.

ps: I have already noticed that when word perceived as extremes are removed from discussions, communication goes smoother. The problem is that perceptions are different.

[mick silver]

i dont . you may
could you tell me who doesnt in this evil system, Mick... until we can terminate central banking we ALL take part in this evil on a daily basis, with(out) our consent. The only way to redeem ourselves is to spread the word, Krishnamurti was exposing all the deceptions we can think of, in a dramatic fashion that always provoked an inner revolution

[mick silver]

theys are the same people who will die if the system was to fail they live off my taxes
OK....we'll make like you're not getting a check from the gubmint.

[Carl]

...it is all about semantic it seems. When human organize there will always be a structure. But **benevolent cooperation** is far better that **forced integration** for Mankind as a whole.

And you keep wrongly assuming that the true nature of man is peace and benevolence towards his fellow man.

Your whole ideology is premised around that deadly false belief.

[singular_me]

so you never use FRNs? because those come with a tax/interest attached, I am sure you know :)

come on Mick, everything in this system derives (allowed to exist) from taxation... and banking interests. I live off the grid and trust me I cannot escape it completely myself.


i dont . you may

[singular_me]

The "purpose" is to fill GSUS with new age esoteric nonsense so that this forum cannot focus on the jew problem in the real world.


there is no nonsense Book, I am afraid... we live in a Holographic and Fractal Universe, and that is why 'divide and conquer' is working sooo well. ... anybody understanding this can see why there is absolutely no current system that offers a decent solution to our ills and get rid of global fascism .

[Horn]

Well I understand you, goldie if it means anything to you.

But as is obvious here, that whole anarchy persuasion thing won't go over so well... it would just have to come out of no other option.

The only way your world could possibly come about is with all pervasive communication in the deep future, one where all is public and only the most personal things remain private, where everyone represents him or herself in some sort of impregnable republic.

[singular_me]

Thank you Horn!

The point is not to seek rallying people behind me but laying out other possibilities, opposing opinions so people can make up their minds. Making the information available, thats all. Without this, there is no evolution.

While some on here may think that Anarchy (absence of coercion) and Marxism (absolute coercion) are same, it is not absolutely true. Lets not forget that humanity has always been collectivist (centralization of power) oriented to start with. The dictionary defines "democracy" as a valuable system... and everybody knows on here that is deceptive.... so I wonder why people cannot see that the definition of 'anarchy' is too erroneous on purpose.

Everything has been perverted. The PTBs (and it is not without a reason that they implement **order out of chaos**) just make sure that anything allowing masses to grasp the values of Synchronicity and Randomness, that Creative Chaos is order. It is very important to comprehend the polarity at play here to grasp the origins of Power and why things are going to get worse before they get better.

The way some jump in, like Carl (just an example) is very bullying and coercive. In no way this is persuasion. iOWNme can be, in my view, too edgy when addressing others but its fine by me. People should start paying attention to the way they talk. Being too aggressive is also a form of censorship, as it shuts down minds or make people go into" fear of speaking out mode". And this is quite cynical when one is serious about to helping the truth prevail. This is because of the Laws of Balance, they cannot be overwritten, it is something we cannot change.

Insults will never get one anywhere. Talking aggressively often is easier when we think in terms of right and wrong, black and white. When one has a genuine conversation, one quickly realizes that things get blurred as it allows the views to expand but also see the boundaries of any paradigm and that if we cannot stretch it, the brick wall is coming... so the fear of running into it, consciously or not, prompts verbal or/and physical aggression.

I dont think there is much of a choice out there... freedom/synchronicity/creative chaos... or slavery/coercion/destructive chaos.



Well I understand you, goldie if it means anything to you.

But as is obvious here, that whole anarchy persuasion thing won't go over so well... it would just have to come out of no other option.

The only way your world could possibly come about is with all pervasive communication in the deep future, one where all is public and only the most personal things remain private, where everyone represents him or herself in some sort of impregnable republic.

[iOWNme]

iOWNme posts are convoluted irrationalism based primarily in semantic word play, I find him/her/it intellectually repugnant.


LOL Irrationalism?

You posted this:



As for consent, it is given by your continued presence in the system.

If you don't want to consent, leave....

This is the most irrational argument there is for 'consent'. It makes absolutely no sense and is not based on rationality logic reason or evidence. This was already addressed in the 'Myth' portion of my post. Im sure you didnt even read it because you were to busy drooling over your keyboard as you post. Lets see how the principle of your statement plays out.....

"Though it is constantly parroted as gospel, the idea defies common sense. It makes no more sense than a carjacker stopping a driver on a Sunday and telling him, “By driving a car in this neighborhood on Sunday, you are agreeing to give me your car.” One person obviously cannot decide what counts as someone else “agreeing” to something. An agreement is when two or more people communicate a mutual willingness to enter into some arrangement. Simply being born somewhere is not agreeing to anything, nor is living in one’s own house when some king or politician has declared it to be within the realm he rules. It is one thing for someone to say, “If you want to ride in my car, you may not smoke,” or “You can come into my house only if you take your shoes off.” It is quite another to try to tell other people what they can do on their own property. Whoever has the right to make the rules for a particular place is, by definition, the owner of that place. That is the basis of the idea of private property: that there can be an “owner” who has the exclusive right to decide what is done with and on that property. The owner of a house has the right to keep others out of it and, by extension, the right to tell visitors what they can and cannot do as long as they are in the house."


So what time should i come over to your house to steal your stuff? I mean, you agreed to let me steal it just by living there.

Can you show me where the moral principle lies in your statement and position?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fasTSY-dB-s

[mick silver]

come on over i will help load my stuff up for you

[iOWNme]

come on over i will help load my stuff up for you

So you do agree that by just living in your house, you agree to let me steal your stuff? If you dont like it, YOU CAN ALWAYS LEAVE.

Does this sound rational to you Mick?

[mick silver]

come on over i will leave ... make your self at home ...................... laughing my ass off ...

[palani]

So you do agree that by just living in your house, you agree to let me steal your stuff? If you dont like it, YOU CAN ALWAYS LEAVE.

You voluntarily engaged your dwelling into commerce. You might have done so through ignorance or error but none-the-less by agreeing to abide by the rules of commerce you enabled not the STEALING but the SEIZING for non-payment of your JUST dues.

Fact of life buddy. Don't like it then YOU CAN ALWAYS LEAVE (commerce) for while you engage in it you will be SUBJECT to it.

[Jewboo]

iOWNme posts are convoluted irrationalism based primarily in semantic word play, I find him/her/it intellectually repugnant.





http://www.asap-buckler.com/resources/SS_fastest_growing_jobs_stenographer.jpg



Let the record show that on Saturday, March 15, 2014 the member known as "iOWNme" got owned by the member known as "Carl".

[BrewTech]

come on over i will leave ... make your self at home ...................... laughing my ass off ...

But if the guys with fancy costumes and "authority" stopped by with the same demands, I doubt you would consider it a LMAO matter.

You insisted that iOWNme address the assertions posed by hoarder, yet all you do is deflect when iOWNme requests the same of you. He is asking you to compare apples to apples, but you (and others on this board) seem either unwilling or unable to do so.

You respond to his posts as if he is threatening to literally come to your house to take your stuff, which is of course ridiculous, as I can be confident that he has no desire to do so.

[BrewTech]

http://www.asap-buckler.com/resources/SS_fastest_growing_jobs_stenographer.jpg



Let the record show that on Saturday, March 15, 2014 the member known as "iOWNme" got owned by the member known as "Carl".

Stating an opinion about another's point of view qualifies as "OWNING" someone?

Jeez, Book, you must really think you are the shit then.


Why does that not surprise me?

[hoarder]

You both didnt read my postings because the word voluntaryism is not in your lexicon, hence sounds alien to you to start with, but I stated many times that there is nothing wrong with social structures as long as people are NOT coerced.
I'm not new to the concept of voluntaryism. I actually liked the ideology more than a dozen years ago. Since then I have determined that the tribe who is gifted at deceit, brainwashing and manipulation through psychological trickery wants us to adhere to such ideologies which disarm us against their agression.

[Carl]

... The way some jump in, like Carl (just an example) is very bullying and coercive.... How very passive aggressive of you...

Yes, I can see where calling BullSh!t, BullSh!t may give the one espousing the BullSh!t a feeling of being bullyed and coerced.

The whole notion of anarchism as a viable ideology, for weak minded people to follow like sheep being hurded, is idiotic.

Anarchism is nothing more than self indulgent, mentally masturbated justifications, for a belief structure that is self contradicting from inception to its death rattling end.

An amalgamation of emotion based buzz words and catch phrases, there is absolutely nothing about it that is intellectual.

Anarchism is best defined as a hate based, spoiled brat temper tantrum.

[mick silver]

so brewtech tell me how you would deal with the guys in fancy costumes .? i hear a few asking but i never hear there answer i want to learn how to deal with them. because i am not laughing school me
But if the guys with fancy costumes and "authority" stopped by with the same demands, I doubt you would consider it a LMAO matter.

You insisted that iOWNme address the assertions posed by hoarder, yet all you do is deflect when iOWNme requests the same of you. He is asking you to compare apples to apples, but you (and others on this board) seem either unwilling or unable to do so.

You respond to his posts as if he is threatening to literally come to your house to take your stuff, which is of course ridiculous, as I can be confident that he has no desire to do so.

[BrewTech]

How very passive aggressive of you...

Yes, I can see where calling BullSh!t, BullSh!t may give the one espousing the BullSh!t a feeling of being bullyed and coerced.

The whole notion of anarchism as a viable ideology, for weak minded people to follow like sheep being hurded, is idiotic.

Anarchism is nothing more than self indulgent, mentally masturbated justifications, for a belief structure that is self contradicting from inception to its death rattling end.

An amalgamation of emotion based buzz words and catch phrases, there is absolutely nothing about it that is intellectual.

Anarchism is best defined as a spoiled brat temper tantrum.

So Carl, which branch of government do you work for?

Naturally I would ask, given your angry, aggressive, almost desperate defense of the status quo.

Some shills here are more subtle, and harder to pick out. You? Not so much.

[mick silver]

what other answer would you want if this is not clear then come on over ?............come on over i will leave ... make your self at home ...................... laughing my ass off ...

[BrewTech]

what other answer would you want if this is not clear then come on over ?............come on over i will leave ... make your self at home ...................... laughing my ass off ...

Rather than formulate a reply I'll just let the post speak for itself.

[mick silver]

do tell us brew i would like to hear what you would do if the cops come to your home ?

[singular_me]

the planet is in an impasse, I agree. What you say, though, applies just to everything now since the PTBs have corrupted the core meaning of free will... but anybody cherishing free will rather remove his consent than adding another layer of violence to society. IMHO. They have created such a situation, so no matter what direction we choose it will play in their hands, that doesnt mean that voluntaryism is wrong, it just is an impression they want us to have, so we remain confused.



I'm not new to the concept of voluntaryism. I actually liked the ideology more than a dozen years ago. Since then I have determined that the tribe who is gifted at deceit, brainwashing and manipulation through psychological trickery wants us to adhere to such ideologies which disarm us against their agression.

[Carl]

So Carl, which branch of government do you work for?

Naturally I would ask, given your angry, aggressive, almost desperate defense of the status quo.

Some shills here are more subtle, and harder to pick out. You? Not so much.
How very predictable, a fellow spoiled brat wearing his a$$hat comes riding in with the ole "he must be a shill" defense of the indefensible...:o

Well drainless fukwad why don't you put this "shill" on your ignore list and put me out of your misury.

[Jewboo]

Some shills here are more subtle, and harder to pick out. You? Not so much.




http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9kemsakoN1rtr3kno1_500.png
"BrewTech" not-so-subtle selling alcoholism at GSUS








:rolleyes: seldom starts a thread here about anything else

[singular_me]

you seem to confirm what I posted earlier, here it is again, just in case you scanned through it too fast or chose to ignore it.


Insults will never get one anywhere. Talking aggressively is often easier when we think in terms of right and wrong, black and white. When one has a genuine conversation, one quickly realizes that things get blurred as it allows the views to expand but also see the boundaries of any paradigm and that if we cannot stretch it, the brick wall is coming... so the fear of running into it, consciously or not, prompts verbal or/and physical aggression.



How very passive aggressive of you...

Yes, I can see where calling BullSh!t, BullSh!t may give the one espousing the BullSh!t a feeling of being bullyed and coerced.

The whole notion of anarchism as a viable ideology, for weak minded people to follow like sheep being hurded, is idiotic.

Anarchism is nothing more than self indulgent, mentally masturbated justifications, for a belief structure that is self contradicting from inception to its death rattling end.

An amalgamation of emotion based buzz words and catch phrases, there is absolutely nothing about it that is intellectual.

Anarchism is best defined as a hate based, spoiled brat temper tantrum.

[hoarder]

the planet is in an impasse, I agree. What you say, though, applies just to everything now since the PTBs have corrupted the core meaning of free will... but anybody cherishing free will rather remove his consent than adding another layer of violence to society. IMHO. They have created such a situation, so no matter what direction we choose it will play in their hands, that doesnt mean that voluntaryism is wrong, it just is an impression they want us to have, so we remain confused.As I stated earlier, politics are transient, meaning they constantly change. If everyone cherished free will and if everybody removed their consent things would possibly change for the better....at least for a while.
Notice I bolded "if everybody".....this is what's wrong with philosophies and ideologies.....they rely on "if everybody" rather than reality.

This is why I think the best strategy for making the world a better place is to expose lies and help people see the world as it really is, no matter how unpleasant or inconvenient. There are many on both sides of the fence who think that NOT seeing it is preferable. Don't be in that category.

[Hitch]

"BrewTech" not-so-subtle selling alcoholism at GSUS










:rolleyes: seldom starts a thread here about anything else


Interesting, only a recovering alcoholic would make a post like this. "selling alcoholism"..lol. Having a beer or two on occasion is normal for most folks. In fact, studies say it's even healthy.

[singular_me]

your side of the fence is understandable, I value much of what you are saying - but the main problem is that everything in the universe is exponential... the good and the ugly, so if we choose violence as a response, we just set into motion a vortex that can only be stopped at the expense of everybody. The choice is ours.



As I stated earlier, politics are transient, meaning they constantly change. If everyone cherished free will and if everybody removed their consent things would possibly change for the better....at least for a while.
Notice I bolded "if everybody".....this is what's wrong with philosophies and ideologies.....they rely on "if everybody" rather than reality.

This is why I think the best strategy for making the world a better place is to expose lies and help people see the world as it really is, no matter how unpleasant or inconvenient. There are many on both sides of the fence who think that NOT seeing it is preferable. Don't be in that category.

[Jewboo]

Having a beer or two on occasion is normal for most folks.




http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9kemsakoN1rtr3kno1_500.png
What about those who constantly post about brewing their own?




:rolleyes:

[Hitch]

What about those who constantly post about brewing their own?




:rolleyes:
[/CENTER]

It's his job, his career. He's helped countless folks who take up brewing as a hobby with his posts. Beer itself is not evil. That's like saying guns are evil. Beer is a healthy beverage, but in the wrong hands can lead to abuse and alcoholism.

[Jewboo]

The way some jump in, like Carl (just an example) is very bullying and coercive...Being too aggressive is also a form of censorship, as it shuts down minds or make people go into" fear of speaking out mode"...






http://youtu.be/lgr26kntr7c
This is a "bully" Goldi



:rolleyes: obviously nobody has stopped you from saying anything here

[Carl]

the planet is in an impasse, I agree. What you say, though, applies just to everything now since the PTBs have corrupted the core meaning of free will... but anybody cherishing free will rather remove his consent than adding another layer of violence to society. IMHO. They have created such a situation, so no matter what direction we choose it will play in their hands, that doesnt mean that voluntaryism is wrong, it just is an impression they want us to have, so we remain confused.
What a load of nonsensical babble!

Will, free or otherwise, is a state of mind, it is not a condition of being. One can only EXERCISE their will within a condition of being.

A slave in a condition of abject servitude can exercise his will freely without affecting his condition.

You are 100% in charge of your state of mind and it is only influenced by the influences you allow, the PTBs have 0% resposibility for what you keep in your brain.

Anyone, anywhere, at anytime, under any condition, can exercise their will freely.

damn....

ADD: "cherishing free will" is a meaningless turn of phrase.

[mick silver]

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/mba/lowres/retail-fishing-fishes-fishermen-bait-hooks-mban1992l.jpg

[singular_me]

again, you seem to be making much efforts to avoild following my train of thoughts, you just go **blindly** balistic after which you precieve "different".



You are 100% in charge of your state of mind and it is only influenced by the influences you allow, the PTBs have 0% resposibility for what you keep in your brain.

much like what I am saying here:

Removing one's consent is the best way to get rid of the situation. the global elites represent 2% of population perhaps or less, so WHO is really in charge? The sheeple have the power to stop this insanity, if they want to, wake up.

Taking reponsibility is at the core of any non-coercive collaboration/premise
http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?76409-The-Obviousness-of-Anarchy-The-Question&p=697319&viewfull=1#post697319

[Carl]

again, you seem to be making much efforts to avoild following my train of thoughts, you just go **blindly** balistic after which you precieve "different".
"**blindly** balistic" good one...

I don't perceive what you're saying as "different", it's childishly simplistic; you want your way, and there are around 7 billion differing ways on the planet.

[singular_me]

talking to yourself ??? : )


.... you want your way, and there are around 7 billion differing ways on the planet.

[Horn]

My prediction is that this thread will evolve to into the example of base level necessity for the state of forum moderators.

What of the mentally deficient and passionately hungry who attack others due to their will, goldie?

How do we separate those from the rest of the flock without the rule of jury and public opinion judgement?

[mick silver]

why horn did you do that

[Horn]

why horn did you do that

You know that's next don't you,

Anyone in U.S. taking even alka-selzer for the occasional indigestion anxiety medicine will be rendered a threat and lose 2nd amendment rights.

There has to be a healthy balance here.

[Carl]

talking to yourself ??? : ) And ****ZOOM**** right over your head.

You "charish free will".

"Free will" is a product of your mind and is expressed as your opinion.

and

http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.608050400052381665&w=286&h=181&c=7&rs=1&pid=1.7

[singular_me]

do you grasp the conséquences of the *Mirror Effects* when resorting to flaming someone? One ends up shooting oneself in the foot.


http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.608050400052381665&w=286&h=181&c=7&rs=1&pid=1.7

Thats why it is very important to remain in control over ones' emtions at all times :)

[hoarder]

your side of the fence is understandable, I value much of what you are saying - but the main problem is that everything in the universe is exponential... the good and the ugly, so if we choose violence as a response, we just set into motion a vortex that can only be stopped at the expense of everybody. The choice is ours.Who chooses violence? Why not choose truth? If you see the world in "Good vs.Ugly" or "good vs, evil", then you're not seeking the truth.

[Horn]

Thats why it is very important to remain in control over ones' emtions at all times :)

You forgot the O in emotions, I can tell your getting touchy, so back away from the keyboard and turn on msm t.v.

the mirror is that you willed the ghost of Carl into existence thru your insurrectionist persuasion tactics... :)

[Carl]

do you grasp the conséquences of the *Mirror Effects* when resorting to flaming someone? One ends up shooting oneself in the foot.

Thats why it is very important to remain in control over ones' emtions at all times :) How obtuse.

I understand, you've just had your entire belief structure, a reliance on an individualistic state of mind as your life guiding principle, revealed as the meaningless babble that it is and you're feeling a bit defensive, I don't blame you...it's ok.

[EE_]

Stand your ground miss singular!

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view5/3647863/slap-o.gif

[7th trump]

The Myth of Consent


In the modern world, slavery is almost universally condemned. But the relationship of a perceived “authority” to his subject is very much the relationship of a slave master (owner) to a slave (property). Not wanting to admit that, and not wanting to condone what amounts to slavery, those who believe in “authority” are trained to memorize and repeat blatantly inaccurate rhetoric designed to hide the true nature of the situation. One example of this is the phrase “consent" of the governed.

There are two basic ways in which people can interact: by mutual agreement, or by one person using threats or violence to force his will upon another. The first can be labeled “consent”– both sides willingly and voluntarily agreeing to what is to be done. The second can be labeled “governing” – one person controlling another. Since these two – consent and governing – are opposites, the concept of “consent of the governed” is a contradiction. If there is mutual consent, it is not “government”; if there is governing, there is no consent. Some will claim that a majority; or the people as a whole, have given their consent to be ruled, even if many individuals have not. But such an argument turns the concept of consent on its head. No one, individually or as a group, can give consent for something to be done to someone else.


That is simply not what “consent” means. It defies logic to say, “I give my consent for you to be robbed.” Yet that is the basis of the cult of “democracy”: the notion that a majority can give consent on behalf of a minority, That is not “consent of the governed”; it is forcible control of the governed, with the “consent” of a third party.

Even if someone were silly enough to actually tell someone else, “I agree to let youforcibly control me,” the moment the controller must force the “controllee” to do something, there is obviously no longer “consent.” Prior to that moment, there is no“governing” – only voluntary cooperation. Expressing the concept more precisely exposes its inherent schizophrenia: “I agree to let you force things upon me, whether I agree to them or not.”

But in reality, no one ever agrees to let those in “government” do whatever they want. So, in order to fabricate “consent” where there is none, believers in “authority” add another, even more bizarre, step to the mythology: the notion of “implied consent.” The claim is that, by merely living in a town, or a state, or a country, one is “agreeing” to abide by whatever rules happen to be issued by the people who claim to have the right to rule that town, state, or country. The idea is that if someone does not like the rules, he is free to leave the town, state, or country altogether, and if he chooses not to leave, that constitutes giving his consent to be controlled by the rulers of that jurisdiction.

Though it is constantly parroted as gospel, the idea defies common sense. It makes no more sense than a carjacker stopping a driver on a Sunday and telling him, “By driving a car in this neighborhood on Sunday, you are agreeing to give me your car.” One person obviously cannot decide what counts as someone else “agreeing” to something. An agreement is when two or more people communicate a mutual willingness to enter into some arrangement. Simply being born somewhere is not agreeing to anything, nor is living in one’s own house when some king or politician has declared it to be within the realm he rules. It is one thing for someone to say, “If you want to ride in my car, you may not smoke,” or “You can come into my house only if you take your shoes off.” It is quite another to try to tell other people what they can do on their own property. Whoever has the right to make the rules for a particular place is, by definition, the owner of that place. That is the basis of the idea of private property: that there can be an “owner” who has the exclusive right to decide what is done with and on that property. The owner of a house has the right to keep others out of it and, by extension, the right to tell visitors what they can and cannot do as long as they are in the house.

And that sheds some light on the underlying assumption behind the idea of implied consent. To tell someone that his only valid choices are either to leave the “country” or to abide by whatever commands the politicians issue logically implies that everything in the“country” is the property of the politicians. If a person can spend year after year paying for his home, or even building it himself, and his choices are still to either obey the politicians or get out, that means that his house and the time and effort he invested in the house are the property of the politicians. And for one person’s time and effort to rightfully belong to another is the definition of slavery. That is exactly what the “implied consent” theory means: that every “country” is a huge slave plantation, and that everything and everyone there is the property of the politicians. And, of course, the master does not need the consent of his slave.

The believers in “government” never explain how it is that a few politicians could have acquired the right to unilaterally claim exclusive ownership of thousands of square miles of land, where other people were already living, as their territory, to rule and exploit as they see fit. It would be no different from a lunatic saying, “I hereby declare North America to be my rightful domain, so anyone living here has to do whatever I say, If you don’t like it, you can leave.”

There is also a practical problem with the “obey or get out” attitude, which is that getting out would only relocate the individual to some other giant slave plantation, a different “country.” The end result is that everyone on earth is a slave, with the only choice being which master to live under. This completely rules out actual freedom. More to the point, that is not what “consent” means.

The belief that politicians own everything is demonstrated even more dramatically in the concept of immigration “laws.” The idea that a human being needs permission from politicians to set foot anywhere in an entire country – the notion that it can be a “crime” for someone to step across an invisible line between one authoritarian jurisdiction into another – implies that the entire country is the property of the ruling class. If a citizen is not allowed to hire an “illegal alien,” is not allowed to trade with him, is not even allowed to invite an “illegal” into his own home, then that individual citizen owns nothing, and the politicians own everything.

Not only is the theory of “implied consent” logically flawed, but it also obviously does not describe reality. Any “government” that had the consent of its subjects would not need, and would not have, “law” enforcers. Enforcement happens only if someone does not consent to something. Anyone with their eyes open can see that “government,” on a regular basis, does things to a lot of people against their will. To be aware of the myriad of tax collectors, beat cops, inspectors and regulators, border guards, narcotics agents, prosecutors, judges, soldiers, and all the other mercenaries of the state, and to still claim that “government” does what it does with the consent of the “governed,” is utterly ridiculous. Each individual, if he is at all honest with himself, knows that those in power do not care whether he consents to abide by their “laws.” The politicians’ orders will be carried out, by brute force if necessary, with or without any individual’s consent.TMDS


Heres the theme song for the OP
Which voice are you Sui Juris?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjbPszSt5Pc

[singular_me]

ROFLOL - I have to admit to being dyslexic :) i go over every post at least 10 times... I may say things that are pleasant or opposing but insulting generally means "running out of arguments'


You forgot the O in emotions, I can tell your getting touchy, so back away from the keyboard and turn on msm t.v.

the mirror is that you willed the ghost of Carl into existence thru your insurrectionist persuasion tactics... :)

[singular_me]

you are extrapolating a bit, "ulgy" meant "evil" when I wrote it... I was also speaking in the broad sense when stipulating the exponentiality of everything (and I should have added entropy) Plz note that I use "we", I also include myself as I am not perfect.





Who chooses violence? Why not choose truth? If you see the world in "Good vs.Ugly" or "good vs, evil", then you're not seeking the truth.

[singular_me]

insults'd make anybody a bit defensive, the ace in the hole here is not doing the same. Go back to your very first post in this thread and take a deep look at the vocabulary you are using.

Would you be into hegelian dialectic? Insult (crisis), wait for the response (reaction), then push your thinking further (solution)?



How obtuse.

I understand, you've just had your entire belief structure, a reliance on an individualistic state of mind as your life guiding principle, revealed as the meaningless babble that it is and you're feeling a bit defensive, I don't blame you...it's ok.

[Horn]

ROFLOL - I have to admit to being dyslexic :) i go over every post at least 10 times... I may say things that are pleasant or opposing but insulting generally means "running out of arguments'

Be safe in the knowledge that Carl wants the exact same world that you do, deep in the folds of his inflated cerebrum.

Minus the slaves and slow horse commute it sounds to me alot not unlike the 18th century independent colonies. lol!

[hoarder]

you are extrapolating a bit, "ulgy" meant "evil" when I wrote it... I was also speaking in the broad sense when stipulating the exponentiality of everything (and I should have added entropy) Plz note that I use "we", I also include myself as I am not perfect.What does "good vs. evil" have to do with whether something is true or not? Why did you suggest my position was violent?

[Carl]

Be safe in the knowledge that Carl wants the exact same world that you do, deep in the folds of his inflated cerebrum.

Minus the slaves and slow horse commute it sounds to me alot not unlike the 18th century independent colonies. lol!
Personally, I've always wanted to live my life in LIBERTY, a state of being, an environment within which I and others could exercise their cherished will freely, as long as it doesn't infringe upon my life or property.

They want to be anarchist, fine by me but don't go telling me I have to believe as they believe in order to live my life as I see fit and in freedom.

Within the environment of liberty, it matters not what each individual chooses to believe.

[iOWNme]

Personally, I've always wanted to live my life in LIBERTY, a state of being, an environment within which I and others could exercise their cherished will freely, as long as it doesn't infringe upon my life or property.

They want to be anarchist, fine by me but don't go telling me I have to believe as they believe in order to live my life as I see fit and in freedom.

Within the environment of liberty, it matters not what each individual chooses to believe.


I just thanked your post Carl.

What you just described is Self Ownership, Voluntaryism and the Non Aggression Principle. Yet you seem to think my belief system (which now all of a sudden seems to match yours) is somehow 'irrational'?

Can you articulate to me what part about self ownership, voluntaryism and the non aggression principle is 'irrational'?

And in the same way, you are allowed to elect other men to 'represent' you however you wish. But those men have no right to tell me how to live my life, because logically they are 'representing' you and you dont have the right to tell me how to live my life. Which makes your 'agreement' with them non binding on me in anyway, which means that all you have done is created a voluntary based organization which is totally compatible with 'Anarchy'. (I know you hate that word). If they do not have a Monopoly over a certain geographic area then they are not a 'Government', they are a group of individuals voluntarily interacting.

Again, why is this 'irrational'?

[Horn]

Within the environment of liberty, it matters not what each individual chooses to believe.

Seeing hows we're men of laws and not men of men, Carl.

What imaginary laws do you suggest for implementing buffers towards an overreaching governance other than the constituted separation of powers agreement (reigned anarchy) that appears to have failed through a corruption of neglect?

[Carl]

Seeing hows we're men of laws and not men of men, Carl.

What imaginary laws do you suggest for implementing buffers towards an overreaching governance other than the constituted separation of powers agreement (reigned anarchy) that appears to have failed through a corruption of neglect?

Well, I do see a starting point for unraveling the tangled web of our now prominent centralized police state and that point is by convincing state's legislators to take back their state's lawful right to representation via their senate as guaranteed in Article 5 of the Constitution.

This action would handily destroy the "two party system" that was imposed upon us by the 17th non-amendment, rendering "Democrat" and "Republican" into meaningless labels.

This would also cut, by more than half, the corporate influence over legislation garnered via campaign contributions. Over time, that largess now received by politicians will diminish to a trickle as they corps discover that bribing half a congress doesn't work that well.

The people, after losing what they had come to believe to be "their senate" would be all over their remaining house representatives like white on rice, affording them few chances to get away with the sh!t they freely pull today.

The States would regain their individual identities as would the individuals living in each state.

blah...blah...blah...yada...yada...yada...

Hey, a fellow can dream can't he....

[Carl]

.....Can you articulate to me what part about self ownership, voluntaryism and the non aggression principle is 'irrational'?
The irrational part is believing that everyone everywhere would hold to your interpretation of what they should be doing with their lives.

[iOWNme]

The irrational part is believing that everyone everywhere would hold to your interpretation of what they should be doing with their lives.


Ive never once advocated for that. There is not a single post i have ever made where i said that everyone should do what i want them to do. That would be an inherent contradiction to the non aggression principle. I advocate that each individual use their own free will and conscience to decide what is right and what is wrong, instead of a central 'authority' dictating how people should live their lives. And if everyone is only morally obligated to follow their own conscience and free will that logically rules out all external 'authority' from having any sort of legitimacy whatsoever.

[Carl]

.....I advocate that each individual use their own free will and conscience to decide what is right and what is wrong......

Oh, a make sh!t up as they go lifestyle, where people live in constant fear of what others may deem to be right or wrong at any given moment and where force and violence determines which person's "law" holds sway...

The mid east and africa must look like the promised lands to you.....

[iOWNme]

You see this is where i see contradictions Carl. At first, you stated this:


Personally, I've always wanted to live my life in LIBERTY, a state of being, an environment within which I and others could exercise their cherished will freely, as long as it doesn't infringe upon my life or property.

They want to be anarchist, fine by me but don't go telling me I have to believe as they believe in order to live my life as I see fit and in freedom.




Then you said this:


Oh, a make sh!t up as they go lifestyle, where people live in constant fear of what others may deem to be right or wrong at any given moment and where force and violence determines which person's "law" holds sway...



So WHO is going to be the person who decides how YOU should live your life Carl? Because you seem to to think that if YOU are left to figure out the world on your own and if YOU are left to run your own life that "The make up shit as you go lifestyle" would create fear panic and chaos. You are literally arguing that YOU shouldnt be left to run your own life and that YOU are the one that YOU should be afraid of. And i know for a fact that you dont believe that.

This is an inherent contradiction in statism. Nobody who advocates for 'Government' is really saying that they think someone elese can run their life better than they can. They are saying that they can run their own life just fine, but they are afraid of other people running their own lives. And you cant have one without the other.

[singular_me]

thank you Carl, but excuse me as I also have to stress that what you're saying below does espouse voluntaryism (I will let alone the word anarchy for now) . Have a great evening. :)


Personally, I've always wanted to live my life in LIBERTY, a state of being, an environment within which I and others could exercise their cherished will freely, as long as it doesn't infringe upon my life or property.

They want to be anarchist, fine by me but don't go telling me I have to believe as they believe in order to live my life as I see fit and in freedom.

Within the environment of liberty, it matters not what each individual chooses to believe.

[Jewboo]

People should start paying attention to the way they talk. Being too aggressive is also a form of censorship, as it shuts down minds or make people go into" fear of speaking out mode".



http://static2.beanscdn.co.uk/modules/ems-v2/article/images/WM_-_kidnap_2.png.png
Goldi playing the Damsel In Distress card


Question for Goldi:

In your perfect Anarchy World who would protect the helpless wimmin with no government 911 Police to call?

:)

[Horn]

The States would regain their individual identities as would the individuals living in each state.

blah...blah...blah...yada...yada...yada...

Hey, a fellow can dream can't he....

Look we are all playing in unison our revolutionary guitars.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSedE5sU3uc

[MNeagle]

In a perfect world wimmin wouldn't be helpless...

[singular_me]

because you thanked Carl many times since he jumped into this thread - and since he claimed the virtue of "hierarchical political power' I came to this conclusion, which now appears to be wrong. Sorry.

Good vs Evil, true or not? only the level of external and/or internal coercion will influence the answer in both cases, but I'd rather leave it that for the time being, .


What does "good vs. evil" have to do with whether something is true or not? Why did you suggest my position was violent?

[Carl]

You see this is where i see contradictions Carl....
The reason you perceive contradictions is due to your chosen perspective. You assume to believe that everyone everywhere would choose to follow the same beliefs on how they should live their lives as you would choose for yourself. I assume that these universal beliefs you've espoused will be transmitted throughout the individualist population of governments of one by what, osmoses??

Your biased, contextually devoid and inflammatory rhetoric aside, the problem I have with you is that you are irrational, you have no logical basis for your beliefs, you simply assume that your beliefs are universal and that all we need to do is remove government from the equation and everybody will act according. Someone will always rise to enforce rules, whether or not you agree with them.

Governments are a necessity for any civilized societal organization, there is no getting away from them. The best people can achieve is to devise one that is the least intrusive.

[Carl]

thank you Carl, but excuse me as I also have to stress that what you're saying below does espouse voluntaryism (I will let alone the word anarchy for now) . Have a great evening. :) And you would be wrong, any perceived similarities notwithstanding.

[singular_me]

Ohh I get it: it was a mere moment of weakness on your end, for a moment you allowed your heart to speak out... as a matter of fact, regardless of the themes discussed, when debates last long enough and people get tired of fighting, similarities in thinking begin to surface... why? because we all want live in peace and free :)


And you would be wrong, any perceived similarities notwithstanding.

[Carl]

Ohh I get it: it was a mere moment of weakness on your end, for a moment you allowed your heart to speak out... as a matter of fact, regardless of the themes discussed, when debates last long enough and people get tired of fighting, similarities in thinking begin to surface... why? because we all want live in peace and free :)How can there be similarities of thought when you're just regurgitating what you've been taught?

Cogito Ergo Sum.

Can you claim the same?

[BrewTech]

do tell us brew i would like to hear what you would do if the cops come to your home ?

I have a story, but I do insist you tell us first about yours, since you're the one asking.

Mine is pretty cool (although I lost) so it will be well worth your investment.

[BrewTech]

You see this is where i see contradictions Carl. At first, you stated this:






Then you said this:





So WHO is going to be the person who decides how YOU should live your life Carl? Because you seem to to think that if YOU are left to figure out the world on your own and if YOU are left to run your own life that "The make up shit as you go lifestyle" would create fear panic and chaos. You are literally arguing that YOU shouldnt be left to run your own life and that YOU are the one that YOU should be afraid of. And i know for a fact that you dont believe that.

This is an inherent contradiction in statism. Nobody who advocates for 'Government' is really saying that they think someone elese can run their life better than they can. They are saying that they can run their own life just fine, but they are afraid of other people running their own lives. And you cant have one without the other.

LET IT BE KNOWN THAT ON MARCH 16th, 2014 THE USER KNOWN AS "Carl" WAS OWNED BY THE USER KNOWN AS "iOWNme".

He should change his user name to "iOWNcarl" !

What I think is that iOWNme has finally attempted (and is succeeding) to break through the fourth wall of this forum, and the trolls and shills are falling all over themselves to prevent it from happening!

LOL!

iOWNme also owns you dicks!

HA!

[singular_me]

all I meant is what I exactly wrote, lets try this instead:
all debates lead to the ocean... regardless of whether participants find a resolution or not, they all will end up saying, in their own words, that all they want to live in peace and free.

You just DID this, several posts earlier: #188

Personally, I've always wanted to live my life in LIBERTY, a state of being, an environment within which I and others could exercise their cherished will freely, as long as it doesn't infringe upon my life or property.....Within the environment of liberty, it matters not what each individual chooses to believe.

and as soon as I welcomed your acknowledgement, you turned the spin back on. Would you have a love and hate affair with Freedom ??? It truly seems like it though. Or perhaps, had you stopped regurgitating your "hierarchical political power' mantra for a few minutes, and succumbed to a statist contradiction... while typing the above ???



How can there be similarities of thought when you're just regurgitating what you've been taught?

Cogito Ergo Sum.

Can you claim the same?

[Carl]

all I meant is what I exactly wrote, lets try this instead:
all debates lead to the ocean... regardless of whether participants find a resolution or not, they all will end up saying, in their own words, that all they want to live in peace and free.

You just DID this, several posts earlier:
and when I welcomed your acknowledgement, you turned the spin back on. Would you have a love and hate affair with Freedom ??? It truly seems like it though. Or perhaps, had you stopped regurgitating your "hierarchical political power' mantra for a few minutes, while typing the above ??? Wow.

The problem is that you're attempting to hi-jack my personal philosophy as bing a part of, or simular to, your dogma thus ligitimizing that crap you cling to.

That makes you a fraud and a thief.

You want to exchange thoughts and Ideas, then come up with some that are your own.

[mick silver]

carl be there leader they need one , cant you see that

[Santa]

What if individuals are as disposable as hair? :o

[singular_me]

sorry pal, I am not a fraud, you just *exposed* your inner contractions and I caught them. They just back fired... ps: I do not believe in copyrights, knowledge is Universal.

Ever heard of 'rapport' in NLP? which is defined by adopting the language of a client to reach out his unconscious?


Wow.

The problem is that you're attempting to hi-jack my personal philosophy as bing a part of, or simular to, your dogma thus ligitimizing that crap you cling to.

That makes you a fraud and a thief.

You want to exchange thoughts and Ideas, then come up with some that are your own.

[BrewTech]

What if individuals are as disposable as hair? :o

or any cell in the body... is that what you're getting at?

[Jewboo]

ps: I do not believe in copyrights, knowledge is Universal.




http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?27268-Singularity-Awareness&p=226656&viewfull=1#post226656


:rolleyes: Just ask that Michael Derring guy...lol.

[BrewTech]

carl be there leader they need one , cant you see that

Please expand on your statement. For once I'd like to see an ORIGINAL post from you that is more than a sentence, and written in proper, literate English.

Sorry, no copy/paste accepted!

Go!

[mick silver]

carl be there leader they need one , cant you see that.. gangs alway have leaders

[mick silver]

i will ask one more time , brew i am not being a smart ass here i would like to learn . i have ask others ???????????
so brewtech tell me how you would deal with the guys in fancy costumes .? i hear a few asking but i never hear there answer i want to learn how to deal with them. because i am not laughing school me

[singular_me]

this link has nothing to do with the debate here, Book... I am not even talking of it... additionally I stated days ago, that I am doubting and rethinking my stance toward it, YOU know it, because you posted in that thread too. You are just attempting to derail this thread because Carl's contradictions were exposed , so yeah, lets make Goldy look bad. Too bad because I enjoyed our short lived truce.

additionally, that site has been shut down

ps: if you want to debate copyrights, start a new thread and I will surely not miss it.

edit: to come up with such an old link (2010), you must be obsessed with me... in some way, it is scary.


http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?27268-Singularity-Awareness&p=226656&viewfull=1#post226656


:rolleyes: Just ask that Michael Derring guy...lol.

[mick silver]

brew i do not know what i would do , but most here would be the same loss at what to do ...But if the guys with fancy costumes and "authority" stopped by with the same demands, I doubt you would consider it a LMAO matter.
he ask but why does he not say what he would do
You insisted that iOWNme address the assertions posed by hoarder, yet all you do is deflect when iOWNme requests the same of you. He is asking you to compare apples to apples, but you (and others on this board) seem either unwilling or unable to do so.

You respond to his posts as if he is threatening to literally come to your house to take your stuff, which is of course ridiculous, as I can be confident that he has no desire to do so.

[mick silver]

what would brew do ......... You insisted that iOWNme address the assertions posed by hoarder, yet all you do is deflect when iOWNme requests the same of you. He is asking you to compare apples to apples, but you (and others on this board) seem either unwilling or unable to do so. ............... he's not taking nothing from me are my place that what i would do . i laugh because iwon knows what i would do and he knows this

[BrewTech]

i will ask one more time , brew i am not being a smart ass here i would like to learn . i have ask others

They came recently and kidnapped me for a "crime" they knew I didn't commit, but they did it anyway. They held me for ransom , and when it got paid they let me go. Haven't heard from them since, and I don't suspect I will. Never saw a courtroom. Had I resisted in that situation they would have killed me. Didn't much feel like dying that day, so I cooperated.

If there is a next time, it might end differently, or it might not.

You see, what I would do or have done really doesn't make a difference... the fact that any of us CAN be kidnapped and held for ransom, or even killed, by other human beings essentially no different from ourselves at any given time for any reason is what matters...

Why is that? Why can they do it and not the rest of us?

More importantly, is that OK?

[mick silver]

would brew let me take his stuff then kick him out of his home ?

[Carl]

sorry pal, I am not a fraud, you just *exposed* your inner contractions and I caught them. They just back fired... ps: I do not believe in copyrights, knowledge is Universal. It's your lie, tell it as you please.


Ever heard of 'rapport' in NLP? which is defined by adopting the language of a client to reach out his unconscious? Well lookie here, it seems we do have something in common, I'm a si-fi, fanticy fiction fan too....

[mick silver]

i hate to hear that brew .

[singular_me]

Well lookie here, it seems we do have something in common, I'm a si-fi, fanticy fiction fan too....

glad to hear this, but trust me NLP really works... just ask to whatever hierarchical politic power :)

[Carl]

....because Carl's contradictions were exposed
Excuse me for butting in here but, what contradictions are you referring to?????

[singular_me]

Excuse me for butting in here but, what contradictions are you referring to?????
my own posting which you already responded to


sorry pal, I am not a fraud, you just *exposed* your inner contractions and I caught them. They just back fired... ps: I do not believe in copyrights, knowledge is Universal.

It's your lie, tell it as you please.

[Carl]

my own posting which you already responded to No, you stated that I had "inner contractions" whatever that supposed to mean, there is absolutely nothing in that post that points out any "contradictions" found in my writings.

You write the words but provide no proof...

[mick silver]

brew you an twisted need to leave the places your at .me and t talk about this citys will be no place to live , take my word on that . hell the writing all over the net if one looks

[Jewboo]

...additionally I stated days ago, that I am doubting and rethinking my stance toward it, YOU know it, because you posted in that thread too.





http://www.stakeholdergroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/group-hug.jpg


Know that we remain here to help and support you as you reconsider your perspective.


:) we really do care about your enlightenment Goldi

[mick silver]

did they give a reason for what they did ... They came recently and kidnapped me for a "crime" they knew I didn't commit, but they did it anyway. They held me for ransom , and when it got paid they let me go. Haven't heard from them since, and I don't suspect I will. Never saw a courtroom. Had I resisted in that situation they would have killed me. Didn't much feel like dying that day, so I cooperated.

If there is a next time, it might end differently, or it might not.

You see, what I would do or have done really doesn't make a difference... the fact that any of us CAN be kidnapped and held for ransom, or even killed, by other human beings essentially no different from ourselves at any given time for any reason is what matters...

Why is that? Why can they do it and not the rest of us?

More importantly, is that OK?

[singular_me]

You write the words but provide no proof...

it is possible that you didnt see my small edit because as soon as the page loaded I could see that you had answered.


all I meant is what I exactly wrote, lets try this instead:
all debates lead to the ocean... regardless of whether participants find a resolution or not, they all will end up saying, in their own words, that all they want to live in peace and free.

You just DID this, several posts earlier: #188
Personally, I've always wanted to live my life in LIBERTY, a state of being, an environment within which I and others could exercise their cherished will freely, as long as it doesn't infringe upon my life or property.....Within the environment of liberty, it matters not what each individual chooses to believe.

and as soon as I welcomed your acknowledgement, you turned the spin back on. Would you have a love and hate affair with Freedom It truly seems like it though. Or perhaps, had you stopped regurgitating your "hierarchical political power' mantra for a few minutes, and succumbed to a statist contradiction... while typing the above




No, you stated that I had "inner contractions" whatever that supposed to mean, there is absolutely nothing in that post that points out any "contradictions" found in my writings.

whatever contractions are always rooted in the inner self, hence inner contradictions, same meaning.

[singular_me]

Book, when arguing begins to sound vain to you, your strategy is to attempt to shoot the messenger.



[/CENTER]
Know that we remain here to help and support you as you reconsider your perspective.


:) we really do care about your enlightenment Goldi

[Carl]

it is possible that you didnt see my small edit because as soon as the page loaded I could see that you had answered.

whatever contractions are always rooted in the inner self. OK, you're becoming tedious. There is no contradiction belonging to me in that post. Your OPINION of what I stated does not make one for me. My USE of the word "hierarchical" was borrowed from YOU, I changed it from your use "hierarchical authority" to "hierarchical political power" as it is a better descriptive of the subject matter as it pertains to the failure of all utopianist delusions. I can see how that would piss you off though...

[singular_me]

you should start paying attention to the dual meaning of words and sentences... I could say this to you too. :)

Though I am glad that you admitted to cherishing Freedom as much as I, too bad that the lunch stops here as you are a statist and that I am not. The core issue is that the state will never enable Freedom, which is hard to refute considering the planet's appalling track records. So yes, there will remain a philosophical contraction forever in that view.

Mankind can only save itself by trying the unthinkable. Freedom lies in the unknown. Freedom from the known is very challenging but thats the only way OUT. This works at every level, even in our daily lives.


OK, you're becoming tedious. There is no contradiction belonging to me in that post. Your OPINION of what I stated does not make one for me. .

[Horn]

There is no contradiction belonging to me in that post.

I didn't see any contradictions either. It was originated within the framework of laws, either being challenged or upheld, and their resultant effect on individuals. Basically it is the root of all these threads, either you consent to written law or not.

Who or what is the method of enforcement is neither here nor there. As Ares mentioned a few threads ago, a python script and robo-cop could be produced to do it.

The crux is the written law, are we men of laws, or men of men (or in other words producing dictators for ourselves)?

[Carl]

Seven Billion Governments Of One, what could possibly go wrong.....

That's the problem with ideologues, they don't think, they just believe.



"ghost of Carl", I was beginning to think nobody noticed that I've been gone...

[iOWNme]

The reason you perceive contradictions is due to your chosen perspective. You assume to believe that everyone everywhere would choose to follow the same beliefs on how they should live their lives as you would choose for yourself. I assume that these universal beliefs you've espoused will be transmitted throughout the individualist population of governments of one by what, osmoses??

You are a dishonset person. I never said that and you know it. I said that each individual has their own conscience and free will and should those things to determine how to live their lives. YOU agreed to that when you posted this:



Personally, I've always wanted to live my life in LIBERTY, a state of being, an environment within which I and others could exercise their cherished will freely, as long as it doesn't infringe upon my life or property.

They want to be anarchist, fine by me but don't go telling me I have to believe as they believe in order to live my life as I see fit and in freedom.


So YOU think YOU should be the one to run and control your own life, using your own free will and conscience. Yet YOU think others should have to live by some outside external 'authority'. And im the one with contradictions? A common theme with Statists is that they can run their own life just fine, but that everyone else should be ruled by others. It is an insane irrational self contradictory cult belief system that is not based on rationality logic reason or evidence.



Your biased, contextually devoid and inflammatory rhetoric aside, the problem I have with you is that you are irrational, you have no logical basis for your beliefs, you simply assume that your beliefs are universal and that all we need to do is remove government from the equation and everybody will act according. Someone will always rise to enforce rules, whether or not you agree with them.

Now i am biased because i treat everyone the exact same. LOL I am biased because i recognize that all men are created equal, all mean are the same species, and when it comes to Rights all men have equal ones. Where is the biased opinion Carl? Then you bring up logic and rationality? The entire belief system of 'Government' is a contradiction soup of dry water and square chicken eggs. I pointed out several contradictions and irrational thoughts in your logic which you conveniently ignored and deflected into another area. I dont not think my beliefs are universal. Stop being dishonest. I think human morality is universal, and giving a certain group of criminals the moral right to violate those moral principles is insane and irrational.

WHO is going to enforce these rules on YOU Carl?


Governments are a necessity for any civilized societal organization, there is no getting away from them. The best people can achieve is to devise one that is the least intrusive.

“Government” is neither a scientific concept nor a rational sociological construct; nor is it a logical, practical method of human organization and cooperation. The belief in “government” is not based on reason; it is based on faith, In truth, the belief in “government” is a religion, made up of a set of dogmatic teachings, irrational doctrines which fly in the face of both evidence and logic, and which are methodically memorized and repeated by the faithful. Like other religions, the gospel of “government” describes a superhuman, supernatural entity, above mere mortals, which issues commandments to the peasantry, for whom unquestioning obedience is a moral imperative, Disobeying to the commandments (“breaking the law”) is viewed as a sin, and the faithful delight in the punishment of the infidels and sinners (“criminals”), while at the same time taking great pride in their own loyalty and humble subservience to their god (as “law-abiding taxpayers”). And while the mortals may humbly beg their lord for favors, and for permission to do certain things, it is considered blasphemous and outrageous for one of the lowly peasants to imagine himself to be fit to decide which of the “government” god’s “laws” he should follow and which it is okay for him to ignore. Their mantra is, “You can work to try to change the law, but as long as it’s the law, we all have to follow it!” - TMDS

[iOWNme]

LET IT BE KNOWN THAT ON MARCH 16th, 2014 THE USER KNOWN AS "Carl" WAS OWNED BY THE USER KNOWN AS "iOWNme".

He should change his user name to "iOWNcarl" !

What I think is that iOWNme has finally attempted (and is succeeding) to break through the fourth wall of this forum, and the trolls and shills are falling all over themselves to prevent it from happening!

LOL!

iOWNme also owns you dicks!

HA!


I am a modern day heretic to their religion and God.

[iOWNme]

You see this is where i see contradictions Carl. At first, you stated this:



Originally Posted by Carl Personally, I've always wanted to live my life in LIBERTY, a state of being, an environment within which I and others could exercise their cherished will freely, as long as it doesn't infringe upon my life or property.

They want to be anarchist, fine by me but don't go telling me I have to believe as they believe in order to live my life as I see fit and in freedom.




Then you said this:

http://gold-silver.us/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Carl
Oh, a make sh!t up as they go lifestyle, where people live in constant fear of what others may deem to be right or wrong at any given moment and where force and violence determines which person's "law" holds sway...








So WHO is going to be the person who decides how YOU should live your life Carl? Because you seem to to think that if YOU are left to figure out the world on your own and if YOU are left to run your own life that "The make up shit as you go lifestyle" would create fear panic and chaos. You are literally arguing that YOU shouldnt be left to run your own life and that YOU are the one that YOU should be afraid of. And i know for a fact that you dont believe that.

This is an inherent contradiction in statism. Nobody who advocates for 'Government' is really saying that they think someone elese can run their life better than they can. They are saying that they can run their own life just fine, but they are afraid of other people running their own lives. And you cant have one without the other.


Instead of name calling Carl can you address what i posted here? If you can be honest with yourself.....

[singular_me]

okay, fine but those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it... My stance is not dictated by ideologies but the acceptance of what it is: 6000 years of government failure, meaning that we have to come up with something better.

When laws are contradicting themselves hence contain loopholes, people get conflicted (feel that their live is in an impasse, what masses are going through and will accept hegelian suggestions) or twist them to their advantage (lawmakers).

This is a true blessing in disguise which allows the mind to evolve: perfection doesnt exist.

This means that whatever constitution is doomed to fail because every idea, concept, ideology will always be dotted by unpredictability (random factors), ignorance, and thus confronted with the incapacity to control the whole. It is assuming that one can draft a flawless constitution that is irrational, utopian, to start with. And when aware of it, perpetuating this very error could even be considered as a crime against humanity... the NWO folks have grasped that 6000 years ago.

This leaves us with the need to have a social structure that is the most flexible.

Only the dismantlement of our current educational system, and restarting it from scratch can change the ball game - and there may be lying the only real utopia...

but lets assume that eventually we could/will - then I'd think that if people were taught what Freedom really is from an very early age, the exponential factor will set in and they will demand more and more freedom to the point that they will get rid of any bit of coercion at some point down the road. That is foreseeable.

Freedom truly relies on an unbiased education to allow people to make up their own minds. If this is lacking, they will remain animals or robots that need to be controlled and they will beg for governments as they are fearful of each others. When paranoia rules, bad things happen.

CONCLUSION: which utopia is best, yours or mine ??? :)
The fact is that is it utopia that put us in this *global mega nefarious mess* and we will have to resort to utopia to fix it... we must accept to free ourselves from the known... overcoming 6000 years of cherished delusions or go extinct... one chooses?



Seven Billion Governments Of One, what could possibly go wrong.....

That's the problem with ideologues, they don't think, they just believe.

[Carl]

You are a dishonset person. I never said that and you know it. Read much?

"The reason you perceive contradictions is due to your chosen perspective. You assume to believe that everyone everywhere would choose to follow the same beliefs on how they should live their lives as you would choose for yourself. I assume that these universal beliefs you've espoused will be transmitted throughout the individualist population of governments of one by what, osmoses??"

Where in that paragraph did I say you said anything??



I said that each individual has their own conscience and free will and should those things to determine how to live their lives.

No, you didn't. You said, and I quote: "I advocate that each individual use their own free will and conscience to decide what is right and what is wrong"

That sir, constitutes a government of ONE.

So, you advocate for a world filled with 7 billion governments of one, each deciding what is right and what is wrong and as a consequence, each deciding the punishment for any infractions of their individual sense of right or wrong whether or not the person being judged for this perceived infraction of the other's concept of what constitutes rightness or wrongness, is even aware that a perceived infraction has occurred, could be summarily executed for that infraction, and the individual who perceived that he had been wronged, acting in the capacity of complainant, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner can rest assured in the knowledge that justice, as he perceives it, has been served.

Is this correct?



So YOU think YOU should be the one to run and control your own life, using your own free will and conscience. Yet YOU think others should have to live by some outside external 'authority' And im the one with contradictions? And again, READ MUCH? If you're going to continue making sh!t up for me, please try to at least make it appear a little plausible. Thank you.

Everyone should be free to run their lives as the please. The external 'authority' upholds a uniform non-partisan standard of laws applicable to all, as opposed to assuming to guess what others around you may feel about what constitutes rightness or wrongness, dependant upon time of day or mood..

It's how civilizations function.

The rest of your rant I'm going to ignore because it's just you being irrational and logically repugnant, again.

Oh and, this post addresses your muddled confusion over my position, please do try to comprehend.

[singular_me]

So, you advocate for a world filled with 7 billion governments of one, each deciding what is right and what is wrong and as a consequence, each deciding the punishment for any infractions of their individual sense of right or wrong whether or not the person being judged for this perceived infraction of the other's concept of what constitutes rightness or wrongness, is even aware that a perceived infraction has occurred, could be summarily executed for that infraction, and the individual who perceived that he had been wronged, acting in the capacity of complainant, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner can rest assured in the knowledge that justice, as he perceives it, has been served that day.

Everyone should be free to run their lives as the please. The external 'authority' upholds a uniform non-partisan standard of laws applicable to all

think again: APPLICABLE TO ALL.... yet you say that voluntaryism/anarchism IS communism in disguise. But lets get real: what causes the demise of any concept is its level of coercion within it. There is no model possible as long as this is not taken into consideration.

the fact is that if education continues to fail teaching non-coercive principles in elementary schools because the Universe is Holographic in nature, then your paradigm seems correct but will only lead to more shocks to the system until we eradicate ourselves from earth. This is nonetheless a philosophical (and spiritual) tragic flaw, which is, if sustained, genocidal. The NWO folks, the Masters of Chaos, know this that is why they are so much ahead... hence their plans to reduce populations before masses realize what is going on. And all this because masses couldnt be informed (disinfo) about non-coercive theories. So if you wish to perpetuate this MASSIVE hoax... (fill the blank)

moreover, there is a theory of everything that is applicable to the entire Universe and humans' behavior alike. As I stated earlier, one only has to study how every atom functions, as an independent cell collaborating with others. The Matrix/Whole exists and dismissing it in this internet age that interconnects us all, is completely irrational.

time to choose between communism (enforced collaboration) or freedom (voluntary collaboration)

Reality IS an utopia... indeed. Nothing can save us out there but an epiphany occurring within each human being!

PS/EDIT: well I have shared anything I could in this thread, I have my water waste and man-made depletion column to write... so dont take it personally if I dont answer immediately.

[Carl]

think again: APPLICABLE TO ALL.... yet you say that voluntaryism/anarchism IS communism in disguise. But lets get real: what causes the demise of any concept is its level of coercion within it. There is no model possible as long as this is not taken into consideration. I did not say "voluntaryism/anarchism IS communism in disguise".

A counter in a convenience store contains a level of coercion within it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

[Horn]

time to choose between communism (enforced collaboration) or freedom (voluntary collaboration)

Reality IS an utopia... indeed

The U.S. Constitution was left open ended for revision with predication of oppressive Government.

Man is civilized after all, and a primary tenant of civilization is written law it is an impossibility to separate. From setting up areas to toil in to protection of those gains from that toil towards civilization.

Written laws are core to civilization as are tenant to enforcement. Anarchy has no place for written law's enforcement.

Its really quite that simple. The only reason for fleeting anarchy is to setup a new monarchy. Its core principle of "men of men" will guarantee a monarch is the end product (after only a short pause of anarchy).

[singular_me]

your posting #93
Did you know that Marxism has the same delusional goal you've espoused? The only difference between a Marxist and a Anarchist is that the Marxist is smart enough to know that the populous must be trained to behave as the Anarchist believes they would behave of their own accord. If a few million die in the training process (communism), that is as it should be...



I did not say "voluntaryism/anarchism IS communism in disguise".

[singular_me]

did it help, Horn??

The founding fathers knew what the NWO knows, being freemasons themsleves, it is absolutely impossible to write a flawless constitution... they didnt leave it open but were aware of the "ignorance and randomness" factors - and hopeless in the face of this great evil.


The U.S. Constitution was left open ended for revision with predication of oppressive Government.
.

[Horn]

I will say that any working system of Anarchy is communistic as it flies in the face of a family structure as Santa mentioned, a long period of social indoctrination would need to be put in place so that graduates from a family monarchy structure would be programmed.

Its quite a natural law for the young to seek a leader who has corrective rights over their students. Anarchy has no place for punitive rights and would be complicated by any of those teaching relationships.

[Horn]

did it help, Horn??

You probably wouldn't be posting here freely if it wasn't for the temporary pause in monarchies march granted with separation of powers, and 1st amendment rights.

The internet would already be another T.V.

[Carl]

your posting #93
Did you know that Marxism has the same delusional goal you've espoused? The only difference between a Marxist and a Anarchist is that the Marxist is smart enough to know that the populous must be trained to behave as the Anarchist believes they would behave of their own accord. If a few million die in the training process (communism), that is as it should be...

And again, I did not say that "voluntaryism/anarchism IS communism in disguise".

Do not hold me responsible for what you choose to read into my comments.

[singular_me]

you are kinda disingenuous, if you write double-speak-sentences, you shouldnt be surprised when you are misinterpreted

Did you know that Marxism has the same delusional goal you've espoused?


And again, I did not say that "voluntaryism/anarchism IS communism in disguise".

Do not hold me responsible for what you choose to read into my comments.

[singular_me]

in this matrix, the NWO needs sites like this one to monitor and control the whole better.


You probably wouldn't be posting here freely if it wasn't for the temporary pause in monarchies march granted with separation of powers, and 1st amendment rights.

The internet would already be another T.V.

[Horn]

I am a modern day heretic to their religion and God.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcLEN2lBQDA

[singular_me]

I am sure that within a volontaryist system, many people would also still cherish family structures... but let's consider for a moment how primitive tribes handle family matters. Women help one another constantly when kids need to be watched or fed. Kids grow up having several mothers and aunties so to speak... they have a diversified education according to their own principles. Sure, we cannot compare them to us in the sense that they live so much closer to nature. But maybe it is not that bad for some kids to have an extended family after all.. ??? truth often is a thin line in the middle... however, considering all the deceptions out there, the huge downside of our modern mononucelous family is that it keeps neuroses within family members. The familial structure is destroyed from within and by outside forces. And before we can rebuilt it, it will have to fall apart completely.

lets not forget voluntary self-segregation which would help individuals protect their own values. It is forced integration that is responsible for emotional imbalances, once that aspect is out of the picture, people will/should be overall a lot friendlier and/or compassionate.

However to know if voluntaryism is workable, we just have to give it a try... we have NO data saying that it wouldn't, all data is corrupted by coercive factors, hence not reliable. Linear thinking is our enemy .


I will say that any working system of Anarchy is communistic as it flies in the face of a family structure as Santa mentioned, a long period of social indoctrination would need to be put in place so that graduates from a family monarchy structure would be programmed.

Its quite a natural law for the young to seek a leader who has corrective rights over their students. Anarchy has no place for punitive rights and would be complicated by any of those teaching relationships.

[Horn]

However to know if voluntaryism is workable, we just have to give it a try... we have NO data saying that it wouldn't, all data is corrupted by coercive factors, hence not reliable. Linear thinking is our enemy .

There is no data because it does not work.

Anything you've mentioned was tried a thousand times in primitive civilization, and failed miserably.

That's circular knowledge, look to your father for the answers.



Makhno and his movement repeatedly attempted to reorganize life in the Gulai-Polye region along anarchist-communist lines, however, the disruptions of the civil war precluded any long term social experiments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_experiment).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestor_Makhno

Your borders will always be infiltrated, and your plans laid to waste, or the inherent state of Anarchy.

If you even have borders, it is communicative to the void, and not between men.

[Jewboo]

I am sure that within a volontaryist system, many people would also still cherish family structures... but let's consider for a moment how primitive tribes handle family matters. Women help one another constantly when kids need to be watched or fed. Kids grow up having several mothers and aunties so to speak...




http://i.ytimg.com/vi/t3e41prVDv4/0.jpg
I be still waitin' for Goldi to come babysit mah 13 kids


:rolleyes: volunteer Auntie Goldi

[Carl]

you are kinda disingenuous, if you write double-talks sentences, you shouldnt be surprised when you are misinterpreted

Did you know that Marxism has the same delusional goal you've espoused? As I said: Do not hold me responsible for what you choose to read into my comments.

The only thing disingenuous here is your continued feeble attempts at covering your error by making it my fault.

Look it's very simple, if you want to live the idealized life of an anarchist/voluntarist the go start a kibbutz somewhere and have at it.

[singular_me]

the picture you show IS the result of coercion (legacy of slavery, fiat money impoverishment and the dumbing down of society) that is NO valuable data.






http://i.ytimg.com/vi/t3e41prVDv4/0.jpg
I be still waitin' for Goldi to come babysit mah 13 kids


:rolleyes: volunteer Auntie Goldi

[singular_me]

it didnt and never will because/when Knowledge was/remains in the hands of Elites.

Indeed, what were the elites learning in Mystery Schools of Alexandria??? (2000 years ago)

Before saying things like that, how about releasing Knowledge massively then watch for the changes... :)




There is no data because it does not work.

Anything you've mentioned was tried a thousand times in primitive civilization, and failed miserably.

That's circular knowledge, look to your father for the answers.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestor_Makhno

Your borders will always be infiltrated, and your plans laid to waste, or the inherent state of Anarchy.

If you even have borders, it is communicative to the void, and not between men.