What The Badge Means

[iOWNme]

What The Badge Means


Those who do the bidding of a supposed “authority” usually go out of their way to make it clear that they are doing so. When a soldier dons his military attire, marches in formation, or gets into a military vehicle; when a cop puts on his uniform and gets into the car marked “POLICE”; when a plain clothes “government” agent – whether from the FBI, IRS, U.S. Marshals, or any other agency – shows his “badge” or announces his “official” title, he is making a very specific statement, which can be summed up as follows:

“I am not acting as a thinking, responsible, independent human being, and should not be treated as such. I am not personally responsible for my actions, because I am not acting from my own free will or my own judgment of right and wrong. I am, instead, acting as the tool of something superhuman, something with the right to rule you and control you. As such, I can do things that you can’t. I have rights that you don’t. You must do as I say, submit to my commands, and treat me as your superior, because I am not a mere human being. I have risen above that. Through my unquestioning obedience and loyalty to my masters, I have become a piece of the superhuman entity called ‘authority.’ As a result, the rules of human morality do not apply to me, and my actions should not be judged by the usual standards of human behavior.”

This bizarre, mystical, cult-like belief is held by every “law enforcer” in the world. It is horribly dangerous for anyone to IMAGINE himself to have an exemption from the basic rules of right and wrong, yet that is exactly what every agent of “government” imagines. Despite the fact that soldiers and “law enforcers” usually display their “official” uniforms with great pride, what they are actually doing is publicly displaying the fact that they are delusional, have a completely warped and demented view of reality, and have betrayed the very thing that made them human: their free will and the personal responsibility that goes along with it. Every person who claims to act on behalf of “authority” is demonstrating that he has accepted an utterly ridiculous lie: that his position, his badge, his office dramatically changes what behaviors are moral and what behaviors are immoral. The idea is patently insane, but is rarely recognized as such because even the victims of the enforcers share in this delusion. TMDS

[palani]

even the victims of the enforcers share in this delusion

The 'victims' call themselves 'citizens' or 'subjects'. They don't share the delusion ... they enable it.

[Hitch]

A large part of law enforcement is actually law interpretation. Especially with regards to the constitution and the "gray area". If what the OP posted is true, there is a big contradiction on how actual LE officers are trained. Days upon days of ethics, both in the classroom, scenario testing, and once sworn in analyzed and criticized in the field.

That is fact. This article is very one sided.

[Ponce]

And they don't even have to get in a telephone booth to become someone else..........

V

[BrewTech]

A large part of law enforcement is actually law interpretation. Especially with regards to the constitution and the "gray area". If what the OP posted is true, there is a big contradiction on how actual LE officers are trained. Days upon days of ethics, both in the classroom, scenario testing, and once sworn in analyzed and criticized in the field.

That is fact. This article is very one sided.

Missing. The. Point.

Ethics training? Ethics as defined by who? Those acting immorally? LOL!

I have an idea! Let's let criminals investigate themselves, and decide whether they should be punished, according to their group's definition of right and wrong. Stupid idea? Of course it is... but that's what you're advocating when you allow the government (those with a monopoly on the use of force) to regulate itself, and decide on the fly what constitutes "ethical" behavior...

[iOWNme]

The 'victims' call themselves 'citizens' or 'subjects'. They don't share the delusion ... they enable it.

On the surface, this does seem to be the case.

But upon further inspection, when we dig a bit deeper, we can see a much different picture.

Individuals have been raised from birth into Statism. This means that they have been told since they can remember, that obedience to 'authority' is a virtue. Under this umbrella of Statism they also get taught that they are 'in charge' and that being a 'citizen' means that you are the boss of the 'Government'. Now obviously this is insane, irrational and contradictory.......But yet almost EVERYONE believes it.

So when you say they 'enable it', you are partially correct. But the reason they 'enable it' is because they are victims of mind control, and they IMAGINE that being a 'citizen' is what makes them free.

[iOWNme]

A large part of law enforcement is actually law interpretation.

Im trying to figure out how to respond to this without sounding like an asshole or insulting you. Do you think right or wrong can be altered depending on what a 'cop' 'interprets'?


Especially with regards to the constitution and the "gray area". If what the OP posted is true, there is a big contradiction on how actual LE officers are trained. Days upon days of ethics, both in the classroom, scenario testing, and once sworn in analyzed and criticized in the field.

Im trying to figure out how to respond to this without sounding like an asshole or insulting you.

If i violently dominated you against your will, while claiming it was for your own good, would you call me 'ethical'?


That is fact. This article is very one sided.


Can you pick just one single sentence here, or even a paragraph, and articulate to me what is 'one sided' about it?

[BrewTech]

Im trying to figure out how to respond to this without sounding like an asshole or insulting you. Do you think right or wrong can be altered depending on what a 'cop' 'interprets'?



Im trying to figure out how to respond to this without sounding like an asshole or insulting you.

If i violently dominated you against your will, while claiming it was for your own good, would you call me 'ethical'?




Can you pick just one single sentence here, or even a paragraph, and articulate to me what is 'one sided' about it?

Cops won't violently dominate an individual with the claim it is for good of that individual, but for the good of "society", AKA the Collective.

The "Collective" doesn't exist. It's an abstraction that can't actually be defined. It's imagined. Therefore, the "authority" claimed to enforce rules for the "Collective" is also imagined.

[Hitch]

Im trying to figure out how to respond to this without sounding like an asshole or insulting you. Do you think right or wrong can be altered depending on what a 'cop' 'interprets'?



Im trying to figure out how to respond to this without sounding like an asshole or insulting you.

If i violently dominated you against your will, while claiming it was for your own good, would you call me 'ethical'?





You actually are insulting my intelligence by assuming I'll attempt to answer your loaded questions. My question to you is this, do you believe your interpretation of right and wrong applies to everyone else?

By one sided, I mean not everything is so black and white. Not every encounter is violently dominating anyone.

I will give an example of a first hand situation I encountered as an explanation of how this big picture seems to be conveniently ignored. You respond to a call about a drunk man annoying some diners at an outside eatery. You arrive on scene, and are expected to handle this situation. The drunk man is a bit loud, reeks of alcohol, and you can tell the diners are annoyed. Who is right? Who is wrong? The drunk man thinks he has a right to be there and that he's not bothering anyone. The diners want to eat in peace and enjoy their meal. The man is on a public sidewalk, so he's technically breaking the law by being drunk in public.

According to the letter of the law, according to your beliefs, all cops would arrest this man for being drunk in public.

According to the spirit of the law however, the "right" thing to do, is to resolve the situation to the best ability to satisfy everyone's beliefs in what is "right". BTW, we managed to do that. We offered to give the drunk dude a ride back to his home, and he accepted.

[Hitch]

Cops won't violently dominate an individual with the claim it is for good of that individual, but for the good of "society", AKA the Collective.

The "Collective" doesn't exist. It's an abstraction that can't actually be defined. It's imagined. Therefore, the "authority" claimed to enforce rules for the "Collective" is also imagined.

It actually is defined, it's called the constitution, by which LE is sworn to uphold.

[BrewTech]

It actually is defined, it's called the constitution, by which LE is sworn to uphold.

The "Collective" is the constitution? Uh, ok.

"Interpretation" (a word you like to throw around a lot) of this "Constitution" is done by those with a monopoly on the use of force. It is whatever they say it is, and if you disagree enough, the interpreters will kill you.

I have no doubt they swear to uphold it. When you get to reinterpret at will, a stupid piece of paper that 98% of your victims have neither read nor understand, what's not to like?

Personally, I don't give a shit what the "constitution" says. It was written to restrain government, and it failed, so it's not relevant anymore.

But then, the folks that wrote it actually thought that writing some words down and signing it would keep the psychopaths at bay. That was rather naive.

[Hitch]

"Interpretation" (a word you like to throw around a lot) of this "Constitution" is done by those with a monopoly on the use of force. It is whatever they say it is, and if you disagree enough, the interpreters will kill you.

I have no doubt they swear to uphold it. When you get to reinterpret at will, a stupid piece of paper that 98% of your victims have neither read nor understand, what's not to like?


I don't disagree with what you are saying. However, this very point is exactly why ethics was hammered into us in academy, and after being sworn in. To prevent the very thing you seem to think applies to all cops. PS, nice little 'your victims' jab. :)

[BrewTech]

I don't disagree with what you are saying. However, this very point is exactly why ethics was hammered into us in academy, and after being sworn in. To prevent the very thing you seem to think applies to all cops. PS, nice little 'your victims' jab. :)

Could I get a copy of the course guide for this "ethics training"?

Just because you say they teach "ethics" doesn't mean anything without actually seeing the material. I know you still have some books or handouts or the like lying around... you should post them.

[EE_]

Right and wrong
Who decides what is right and what is wrong? Who is the judge?
Is it because it's something you don't like, or it's unpleasant to you. Does that make it wrong?

Assuming there is no God and government does not exist? Who decides?

For me, if I don't like the way you look, I think it's perfectly fine to kill you.
I could say you are my enemy and it's fine to kill you.
Why is it wrong to force my will on you? Who decided this is wrong?

Where did ethics come from?

[BrewTech]

Right and wrong
Who decides what is right and what is wrong? Who is the judge?
Is it because it's something you don't like, or it's unpleasant to you. Does that make it wrong?

Assuming there is no God and government does not exist? Who decides?

For me, if I don't like the way you look, I think it's perfectly fine to kill you.
I could say you are my enemy and it's fine to kill you.
Why is it wrong to force my will on you? Who decided this is wrong?

Human morality is not aftermarket equipment, EE. It comes standard. However sometimes it doesn't get installed properly at the factory, or maybe not at all. Those defective units end up organizing into a group, and they call themselves "government".

[EE_]

Human morality is not aftermarket equipment, EE. It comes standard. However sometimes it doesn't get installed properly at the factory, or maybe not at all. Those defective units end up organizing into a group, and they call themselves "government".

We have a world full of people that feel it's fine to kill others.
We have a world full of people that feel it's fine to cheat others.
We have a world full of people that feel it's fine to force their will on others.
Most of these people don't call themselves government. What makes them wrong.

[BrewTech]

We have a world full of people that feel it's fine to kill others.
We have a world full of people that feel it's fine to cheat others.
We have a world full of people that feel it's fine to force their will on others.
Most of these people don't call themselves government. What makes them wrong.

Reread what you wrote for technical accuracy, and resubmit please. Then I will address the issue.

Hint: Hysterical and overblown assertions; logical fallacies.

[Hitch]

Could I get a copy of the course guide for this "ethics training"?

Just because you say they teach "ethics" doesn't mean anything without actually seeing the material. I know you still have some books or handouts or the like lying around... you should post them.

I've got it all still, boxes of material. From written tests I've passed, scenario tests, faux police reports. There was a lot of classroom time taught, and I'm pretty sure I still have my notes from that as well. It stuffed way back in storage. I've been meaning to reorganize it all, and if I can I'll post some material if folks are interested.

[EE_]

Reread what you wrote for technical accuracy, and resubmit please. Then I will address the issue.

Hint: Hysterical and overblown assertions.

All you need to do is pick a reason that sounds reasonable to you and all these things are right to you.

Where did this code of right and wrong come from? Where did this code of ethics come from?

[Hitch]

You know what's kinda crazy Brew. I even have photocopies of all my real police reports. Homicides, robberies, rapes, any crime you can think of. I haven't looked at them since quitting. That's what all the cops did back then, make copies, so if you needed to. All that stuff has personal information, being real reports.

Over the years, my views on LE have changed a lot. As happens in life, learning and growing as a person. This thread has me thinking of one quiet evening, opening a bottle of single malt, and sit back,and read those reports. Have a "who I was then" vs "who I am now" moment.

Then again, maybe I don't want to do that! haha.

[iOWNme]

You actually are insulting my intelligence by assuming I'll attempt to answer your loaded questions. My question to you is this, do you believe your interpretation of right and wrong applies to everyone else?

I find it absolutely fascinating that when i drill down to the actual PRINCIPLE of what you were saying, you view this as a 'loaded question'. Amazing from a psychological perspective. Let me try and help you out: The 'loaded' part is where you ran into a contradiction inside your own head that didnt match what is inside your own head.

Now Im going to answer your question: No I do not. That would be an insane position. (Thats what 'Government' is) I know that my moral code only applies to me.


By one sided, I mean not everything is so black and white. Not every encounter is violently dominating anyone.

Again, when it comes to morality, it is absolutely black and white. It is right or wrong, moral or immoral, good or bad, truth or lie. These things exist, and can be easily proven with logic and reason. Now when it comes to practicality, yes i agree you see the world as 'grey'. I however do not IMAGINE that any of the above can be altered because of WHO is in a given situation. Yes, we can agree there are extreme situations where these can be morally debated, but they can only be debated on the complexity of the situation, not WHO is in the situation. And that is what the lie of 'Government' tries to do: Alter morality by WHO is involved, not by WHAT is involved. If you actually understand what i am saying here, then i know you agree. If you find yourself disagreeing with what i just said, i can 99.9% guarantee that you dont understand what i am saying.


I will give an example of a first hand situation I encountered as an explanation of how this big picture seems to be conveniently ignored. You respond to a call about a drunk man annoying some diners at an outside eatery.

Right off the bat, can you honestly remove your belief in 'Government' for one single moment and allow yourself to consider what really happened:


Would YOU PERSONALLY feel morally right to show up armed to 'some diner' because you were anonymously called by a stranger who stated there is a 'drunk man annoying' some diners?

Now, maybe you are, thats why im asking. But for me, this would have to be some extreme situation, and i dont see 'annoying' falling under that category. If i got an anonymous call that someone was being assaulted, robbed, kidnapped, etc, i might choose to get involved, but i still would only have the right to use defensive force in whatever situation aroused. Nothing magical here. I wouldnt somehow acquire the right to use the initiation of force against innocents in order to solve the problem, and that is what people who IMAGINE 'Government' believe.



You arrive on scene, and are expected to handle this situation. The drunk man is a bit loud, reeks of alcohol, and you can tell the diners are annoyed. Who is right? Who is wrong?

Well, showing up with a gun doesnt make you right in this situation, in fact it only escalates it. In fact, i could easily argue that (being the aggressor) you really have no right to be there at all. If these people wanted to use a gun to force this guy to leave, why didnt they? Could it be because they recognize it would be inherently wrong for them to do this, but they IMAGINE that when 'Government' uses force (that no mortal man has the right to use), then they are the noble and virtuous 'citizens'? LOL Im sure you will disagree.



The drunk man thinks he has a right to be there and that he's not bothering anyone. The diners want to eat in peace and enjoy their meal. The man is on a public sidewalk, so he's technically breaking the law by being drunk in public.

Whatever the 'Law' says is irrelevant. What is relevant is morality. Im not even saying i disagree with you, but can you see where either of these two parties can ever get to a point where they have somehow 'acquired' the right to use the initiation of violence to force the other to leave? Sane rational people are going to have to figure out how to resolve situations without using the initiation of violence. There are a million options before resorting to violence, but calling the 'Government' is starting out with the initiation of violence. DUH!


According to the letter of the law, according to your beliefs, all cops would arrest this man for being drunk in public.

Is this a blatant dishonest post, or are you confused? You are correlating my 'beliefs' with 'the letter of the law'? LOL

There is no such thing as a 'Cop'. Ive literally told you this a thousand times. And yet you still continue to give examples using 'cops' that dont exist. This is why we disagree. I know that a 'Cop' is just a human. He acquires no 'special rights' that i dont have, because if he did where would he have gotten them from?


According to the spirit of the law however, the "right" thing to do, is to resolve the situation to the best ability to satisfy everyone's beliefs in what is "right". BTW, we managed to do that. We offered to give the drunk dude a ride back to his home, and he accepted.

The 'spirit' of the 'Law'? (Yes 'Government' is a religion) LOL Again, im not trying to be rude, but you as an individual have no right to decide/enforce what everyone 'believes' is right. You only have the right to do that for yourself. Your badge, your oath, your uniform, your car, legislation, law, judges, politicians, branches of government or constitutions cannot EVER alter right and wrong. No matter how much people IMAGINE they can.

No matter where, who, what, when, or why, 'Law' has no power to alter right or wrong:

Man either creates 'Law' that matches morality: "Murder is wrong" - In this case, murder is wrong regardless of what the 'Law' says. If the 'Law' happens to agree with morality, then it is logically redundant and irrelevant. (meaning it has no effect on reality, it doesnt change anything)

Or man creates 'Law' that does not match morality: "Driving without a seat belt is wrong" - In this case, driving without a set belt is not morally wrong regardless of what the 'Law' says. If the 'Law' happens to go against morality, then it is logically to be resisted and disobeyed. (meaning if the 'Law' tries to 'legislate' something good into something bad)


In either situation, the 'Law' never creates a moral obligation to obey it. And if your obligation to obey the 'Law' isnt a moral one, what do you suppose is left over?

[BrewTech]

All you need to do is pick a reason that sounds reasonable to you and all these things are right to you.

Where did this code of right and wrong come from? Where did this code of ethics come from?

The Original Equipment Manufacturer.

[EE_]

My point is there are no set standards for morality, ethics or right or wrong.
Arguing semantics is like arguing with a liberal.
These things have always changed throughout history.

[EE_]

The Original Equipment Manufacturer.
God?

[Hitch]

Good God, Sui, I don't even know where to start. Your post is littered with so many false assumptions and contradictions of anything I've posted, I'm not even going to attempt a reply..

See, your problem that you've had with me in this thread, and others in other threads, is your posting style. Instead of having a civil disagreement, it is you on the attack, you twisting words around, you assuming the worst in the other poster, the thread gets derailed. I'm losing interest in this discussion.

[BrewTech]

God?

Maybe...

[BrewTech]

My point is there are no set standards for morality, ethics or right or wrong.
Arguing semantics is like arguing with a liberal.
These things have always changed throughout history.

Vehemently disagree with this.

[EE_]

Good God, Sui, I don't even know where to start. Your post is littered with so many false assumptions and contradictions of anything I've posted, I'm not even going to attempt a reply..

See, your problem that you've had with me in this thread, and others in other threads, is your posting style. Instead of having a civil disagreement, it is you on the attack, you twisting words around, you assuming the worst in the other poster, the thread gets derailed. I'm losing interest in this discussion.

Sui sees everything in black and white. This in itself is contradictory.

[Hitch]

Sui sees everything in black and white. This in itself is contradictory.

He's trying to force me to believe his ideals are reality. Reality is based upon facts. It's just not working and getting to the point of being annoying.

[EE_]

Vehemently disagree with this.

I thought we took God out of the picture?

What was considered moral, ethical during early slavery in the US?...I say early because I believe slavery still exists today.

[BrewTech]

I thought we took God out of the picture?

What was considered moral, ethical during early slavery in the US?...I say early because I believe slavery still exists today.

It does still exist... it's called "usury" and/or "fractional reserve banking". And it's not moral, although it is considered by most to be perfectly OK.

Same with slavery in the 19th century U.S. But just because it was considered moral, doesn't mean it was.

[Hypertiger]

The 1789 Constitution is like a program.

Computers follow programs blindly to the logical conclusion...computers are perfect slaves...that do what the master demands they do...as long as the master supplies the slave with a program to follow.

It takes a second to imagine legislation or a program...It takes a minute to write a program or legislation for a slave to follow...It takes an eternity to debug a program or legislation.

The problem with people is they have free will...They can choose to follow a program or not...Truth can not be physically annihilated or mind controlled.

People have no power to make or break LAW.

All that people have the power to make and break are rules and to claim that rules are LAW.

But if a rule attempts to break LAW

LAW will break the rule.

I'm sorry...You all can swear or promise to follow a program all you wish...It is impossible for a person or that which is breakable to make an unbreakable promise.

To believe that a person or group of people or mortals or that which is breakable can make an unbreakable promise is a sign that you are ignorant of Truth or LAW which is unbreakable...Rules which are lies believed to be Truth or LAW are breakable.

“I am not acting as a thinking, responsible, independent human being, and should not be treated as such. I am not personally responsible for my actions, because I am not acting from my own free will or my own judgment of right and wrong. I am, instead, acting as the tool of something superhuman, something with the right to rule you and control you."

Not superhuman...sorry...there is no superman or superwoman that can force me to supply their demands for yield if I refuse to be mind controlled by them into supplying what they want.

You all slave to supply the master with real power which the master uses to create fake power or the servant owned by the master you all slave for.

Money.

That is what has the right to rule and control you.

You all rent the servant to use and abuse how you see fit from the master and the cost to pay the rent demanded from the master or lie you believe is Truth or false GOD is hidden in the prices of everything.

Money is a tool like a whip...But a whip is a negative reinforcement tool while money is a positive reinforcement tool.

The progression of the absolute capitalist or tyrant is...

persuasion force annihilation.

please supply the demand for what is wanted or else be annihilated.

when liberal persuasion fails conservative annihilation prevails.

Might makes right.

Or NO means YES.

A tool invented by superior life forms or masters to manipulate inferior life forms or slaves into doing the bidding of the superior life forms or masters.

The masters of money or the servant at the top of the absolute capitalist hierarchy rule the slaves of money or the servant at the bottom of the absolute capitalist hierarchy.

And like science is a derivative of what is called religion or superstition

Credit is a derivative of money.

Which when you look back as far as possible in the historical record of money...Was a food substitute...fake power sustained by real power or food.

Remove the food and money transforms from a powerful lie believed to be Truth into a powerless lie believed to be Truth...Or from worth something into virtually worthless or nothing.

Since that is what lies are...Nothings that want to become somethings.

Death that wants to become Life.

Cold that wants to become Hot

Absolute 0 that wants to become absolute 1

Something/absolute 1 or Truth needs to supply power to the demand for power by the paradox of nothing/absolute 0 or a lie that wants to become Truth and never die.

As long as the lie or variable is supplied with the power required to sustain it's existence as Truth or constant.

It will appear to be or believed to be Truth or constant.

Like a light that is on...forces you to believe that the light is Truth...The illumination it provides is a powerful lie believed to be Truth...but it is fake power...not real power.

Light bulbs are the demand for power...Not the supply of power.

Light bulbs take more power than they give or are masters while power plants give more power than they take and are slaves.

According to how you were all socially engineered to follow the program you all are following or the game you all are playing...You all think masters are the supply of power and slaves are the demand for power.

You think the top brick of the pyramid is the supply of power that all the millions of bricks at the bottom of the pyramid are the demand of power from the top for to support them at the bottom.

Unfortunately the top or master brick of the hierarchy is the demand for power or support and the millions of slave bricks at the bottom of the hierarchy are the supply for power or support...to sustain the position of the top or master brick.

The most worshipful masters at the top of the pyramid scheme or lie believed to be Truth or servant of the master rule the vulgar and profane slaves at the bottom of the pyramid scheme or lie believed to be Truth or servant of the master

But of course power plants or slaves take more power than they give from something in order to supply the demand of the master for more power than they give to the slaves considered to be nothing or powerless in order for the master to appear to be something or powerful as opposed to nothing which is powerless but wants to be something powerful.

A lot of slaves or nothings need to supply power to the demand for power by the wannbe masters or nothings that want to become somethings in order for the nothings or wannbe masters to appear to be somethings or masters.

When a light bulb is not powered...It is a 0 or nothing that is dead which constantly wants to become 1 or something that is alive.

And when you supply the demand of the nothing that wants to become something with what nothing wants...It magically transforms from a powerless absolute 0 or negative lie believed to be Truth into a powerful absolute 1 or positive lie believed to be Truth.

[Serpo]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/images/dprk-generals.jpg

[Hypertiger]

Currently in the USA 3% of the population are net producers of food = fractional reserve of reality.

The other 97% of the population are the net consumers of food that tax the 3% to sustain their continued existence of the 97% = created out of thin air fantasy.

The fractional reserve of reality or constant is the supply of power to the demand for power by the created out of thin air fantasy or variable to sustain the continued existence of the variable or fantasy as reality or constant.

Yield rates in the USA and the world have been dropping for 33 years now.

Why?

Because the net consumers of power or game players for a living have been imploding or exponentially decaying the net producers of power or workers for a living down towards the absolute 0 point to power the exponential growth or explosion of the net consumers of power or game players up to the absolute 1 point the past 33 years.

Taking more power than you give which is absolute or negative capitalism is the same as chopping down trees faster than they regrow to sustain the cherished delusion you are on the right path to eternal life.

Or causing exponential decay or death to supply power to the demand for power by the exponential growth or life effect.

Another word for this is plunder.

"When plunder (Taking more power than you give or absolute capitalism) becomes a way of life for a group of men (worshipful absolute capitalist masters) living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a (Rule) legal system that authorizes it and a moral code (Religion) that glorifies it."--Frederic Bastiat...the LAW.

“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Do you know the secret to manipulating farmers into slaving to produce 1000's of times more than they require to sustain their continued existence to power the continued existence of the non farmers in the absolute capitalist hierarchical food powered make work enterprise or what you, an employee of the enterprise, have been programed/trained by the master or owner of the enterprise you are an employee of to call civilization?

The thing you were created out of thin air and exist within and depend upon to sustain your continued existence for as long as possible.

I do...Because I'm not ignorant of Truth.

[Libertytree]

Currently in the USA 3% of the population are net producers of food = fractional reserve of reality.

The other 97% of the population are the net consumers of food that tax the 3% to sustain their continued existence of the 97% = created out of thin air fantasy.

The fractional reserve of reality or constant is the supply of power to the demand for power by the created out of thin air fantasy or variable to sustain the continued existence of the variable or fantasy as reality or constant.

Yield rates in the USA and the world have been dropping for 33 years now.

Why?

Because the net consumers of power or game players for a living have been imploding or exponentially decaying the net producers of power or workers for a living down towards the absolute 0 point to power the exponential growth or explosion of the net consumers of power or game players up to the absolute 1 point the past 33 years.

Taking more power than you give which is absolute or negative capitalism is the same as chopping down trees faster than they regrow to sustain the cherished delusion you are on the right path to eternal life.

Or causing exponential decay or death to supply power to the demand for power by the exponential growth or life effect.

Another word for this is plunder.

"When plunder (Taking more power than you give or absolute capitalism) becomes a way of life for a group of men (worshipful absolute capitalist masters) living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a (Rule) legal system that authorizes it and a moral code (Religion) that glorifies it."--Frederic Bastiat...the LAW.

“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Do you know the secret to manipulating farmers into slaving to produce 1000's of times more than they require to sustain their continued existence to power the continued existence of the non farmers in the absolute capitalist hierarchical food powered make work enterprise or what you, an employee of the enterprise, have been programed/trained by the master or owner of the enterprise you are an employee of to call civilization?

The thing you were created out of thin air and exist within and depend upon to sustain your continued existence for as long as possible.

I do...Because I'm not ignorant of Truth.

SSDD.

Ban me.

[Libertytree]

Let's step into practicality/reality for a moment and try and sort this out.

No police? Do we NEED police? Do we WANT police? Are WE the police? Should it be set up in a tribal way like the indians? Hire private security?

[SWRichmond]

You actually are insulting my intelligence by assuming I'll attempt to answer your loaded questions. My question to you is this, do you believe your interpretation of right and wrong applies to everyone else?

By one sided, I mean not everything is so black and white. Not every encounter is violently dominating anyone.

I will give an example of a first hand situation I encountered as an explanation of how this big picture seems to be conveniently ignored. You respond to a call about a drunk man annoying some diners at an outside eatery. You arrive on scene, and are expected to handle this situation. The drunk man is a bit loud, reeks of alcohol, and you can tell the diners are annoyed. Who is right? Who is wrong? The drunk man thinks he has a right to be there and that he's not bothering anyone. The diners want to eat in peace and enjoy their meal. The man is on a public sidewalk, so he's technically breaking the law by being drunk in public.

According to the letter of the law, according to your beliefs, all cops would arrest this man for being drunk in public.

According to the spirit of the law however, the "right" thing to do, is to resolve the situation to the best ability to satisfy everyone's beliefs in what is "right". BTW, we managed to do that. We offered to give the drunk dude a ride back to his home, and he accepted.

There is no human nor legal right to "not be annoyed", but I am certain there are a lot of people who would call the police and expect them to "do something" if they were being "annoyed".

[Hitch]

No police? Do we NEED police? Do we WANT police? Are WE the police? Should it be set up in a tribal way like the indians? Hire private security?

Many years ago, when my aunt was around 18, blue eyed blonde, she was home alone during the day. She stepped out of the bathroom wearing nothing but a towel to find herself face to face with a 250 lb black convicted rapist. That's right when the police rushed into the home and arrested the intruder. They got there just in time.

The point of that story? See, it was a neighbor that saw the guy trying to open doors as he went down the street. The neighbor called the police and reported it as the guy entered the home. The point is, not everyone wants to be a hero. Plenty of folks on this forum, instead of calling the police, would have grabbed a gun and gone to the rescue themselves. Which is fine. But that neighbor didn't want to do that, or wasn't prepared, so he saved the day by calling the police.

You may not NEED the police, but a lot of people do. The fact is, most of society is not self sufficient or prepared to handle things themselves. That is just a fact.

Change the culture of society to prevent the need and dependency on police? That really is the question.

[BrewTech]

when my aunt was around 18, blue eyed blonde, she was home alone during the day. She stepped out of the bathroom wearing nothing but a towel to find herself face to face with a 250 lb black convicted racist.

Well, I don't think racism is a crime in and of itself yet (especially for blacks), but don't worry... I'm sure that day is near. LOL

Oh, and by the way, I don't think that people (especially in CA) are necessarily unwilling to "save the day" themselves... it's that they are prohibited by "law" from protecting themselves and their own property, by use of defensive force, of course.

So, I agree that your last statement indicates a solution, but it's not ok with government, so...

[Hitch]

Well, I don't think racism is a crime in and of itself yet (especially for blacks), but don't worry... I'm sure that day is near. LOL

You know, back in my police days, it wasn't racist at all to describe a suspect by what race he is. It was common terminology, and needed, in order to identify the suspect.

I wonder what the cops do today. We are so politically correct, you may be right, if so...I guess I am a racist in the eyes of society.

[EE_]

Many years ago, when my aunt was around 18, blue eyed blonde, she was home alone during the day. She stepped out of the bathroom wearing nothing but a towel to find herself face to face with a 250 lb black convicted racist. That's right when the police rushed into the home and arrested the intruder. They got there just in time.

The point of that story? See, it was a neighbor that saw the guy trying to open doors as he went down the street. The neighbor called the police and reported it as the guy entered the home. The point is, not everyone wants to be a hero. Plenty of folks on this forum, instead of calling the police, would have grabbed a gun and gone to the rescue themselves. Which is fine. But that neighbor didn't want to do that, or wasn't prepared, so he saved the day by calling the police.

You may not NEED the police, but a lot of people do. The fact is, most of society is not self sufficient or prepared to handle things themselves. That is just a fact.

Change the culture of society to prevent the need and dependency on police? That really is the question.

Of course we need cops, just not the militarized thugs we have today.

Now, do we have any pictures of the blonde, blue eyed 18 yr old, stepping out of the bathroom wearing nothing but a towel?

She's lucky the 250 lb black guy was only a convicted racist...it could have been worse. :p

[BrewTech]

You know, back in my police days, it wasn't racist at all to describe a suspect by what race he is. It was common terminology, and needed, in order to identify the suspect.

I wonder what the cops do today. We are so politically correct, you may be right, if so...I guess I am a racist in the eyes of society.

Dude...reread your post. The part I quoted was what you typed. I'm assuming you meant "rapist".

[Hitch]

Dude...reread your post. The part I quoted was what you typed. I'm assuming you meant "rapist".

Wow! Thanks Brew, I just changed that to rapist, which is what I intended to post. LOL.

Thanks buddy!!

[BrewTech]

Wow! Thanks Brew, I just changed that to rapist, which is what I intended to post. LOL.

Thanks buddy!!

Well, thankfully I quoted the original, because some typos are hilarious... this one being no exception! :)

[Hypertiger]

The police = butlers that wear black that do the dirty work of the masters that wear white that do not want to get their hands dirty disposing of the waste by product of the lifestyles of the wannbe rich an famous masters.

Do butlers need to exist?

Or can you all clean up the waste by product or negative consequences of your free will choice to be devout worshipers of the just think/embrace positive (fantasy/lie believed to be Truth) ignore/reject negative (reality/Truth) religion?

The rich masters at the top of the absolute capitalist hierarchical food powered make work enterprise are the cause.

the poor slaves at the bottom of the absolute capitalist hierarchical food powered make work enterprise are the effect or consequence.

The purpose of the police and military or servant is to serve and protect the cause or master from the consequence or slaves.

The cause or master wants to the police or servant of the master to exist.

The consequence does not want the police to exist apparently.

Then who or what is going to enforce the rules claimed to be LAW of the game all are playing for fun and profit?

The masters taught you all how to read, write, do math and how to think...So you can slave for or serve the master or lie believed to be Truth better.

It's how you are able to play the Internet game I have been watching you all play for the past few decades.

I created Hypertiger in 1988 to help build the electronic digital computerized version of the absolute capitalist hierarchical food powered make work enterprise...or what you all have been trained/programed to call civilization.

There is zero difference at a basic operating level between what you all claim is civilization now and any of what is claimed to be civilization that has ever existed anywhere else on Earth.

The knowledgeable masters at the top of the hierarchy or lie promoted as Truth rule the ignorant slaves at the bottom of the hierarchy believed to be Truth.

If you refuse to believe the lie is Truth...You are ultimately suffering from a mental problem and require medicine...lead pills called bullets...injected into your head...with a bullet launcher...to cure you of that mental problem.

The progression of the absolute capitalist or tyrant is...

persuasion force annihilation.

Please believe the lie I'm telling you is Truth or else be annihilated.

when liberal persuasion fails conservative annihilation prevails.

That is the problem with liberal master minds and me...I'm impervious to mind control.

But conservative slave minds or the police...they are trained to blow my head off if I refuse to be mind controlled by them.

The liberal matrix agents in white are protected by the conservative matrix agents in black

It's against the liberal or gradual absolute capitalist religion to do dirty work.

It is not against the conservative or violent absolute capitalist religion to do dirty work.

So the liberal master mind controls the conservative slave minds into doing the dirty work.

You all will need someone to do the dirty work you all do not want to do but want done or it will not be done.

Can't live with them...Can't live without them.

[iOWNme]

Good God, Sui, I don't even know where to start. Your post is littered with so many false assumptions and contradictions of anything I've posted, I'm not even going to attempt a reply..

See, your problem that you've had with me in this thread, and others in other threads, is your posting style. Instead of having a civil disagreement, it is you on the attack, you twisting words around, you assuming the worst in the other poster, the thread gets derailed. I'm losing interest in this discussion.

Whatever you do, dont address the principles of what i said. It is much easier to fallback on your biased beliefs than have to actually re-examine what you've been told and see if it matches YOUR own morals.

Im not saying you should throw away what you believe and follow what i believe. Im telling you that your own belief system doesnt match your own belief system.

[iOWNme]

Let's step into practicality/reality for a moment and try and sort this out.

No police? Do we NEED police? Do we WANT police? Are WE the police? Should it be set up in a tribal way like the indians? Hire private security?

Do we NEED Santa Clause?

I dont care how badly 'Police' are NEEDED. If they dont exist, how are we going to use them?

The OP describes EXACTLY what 'Authority' truly is = A group of men claiming to be exempted from morality. And since no mortal man can be exempted from morality, there are no 'Police'. Wishing them into existence does nothing to solve the problem.

[iOWNme]

Sui sees everything in black and white. This in itself is contradictory.

Can you articulate to me a scenario where something morally bad can be turned into something morally good?

[iOWNme]

My point is there are no set standards for morality, ethics or right or wrong.


Of course we need cops, just not the militarized thugs we have today.


What will these 'Cops' be doing? LOL

See, you claim i have contradicted myself, although you cannot rebut a single point i make, and have never been able to articulate to me where i have two contradictory ideas in my head at the same time. (Because you cant)

Then i actually point out your contradictions and ask you to decide if these two things clash in your brain. You then quickly change the subject and run away.


Here is the best part: I started an entire thread to see if anyone from GSUS who advocates for 'Government' can even explain what 'Government' even is. Not one single person could do it.So we have members here advocating for something they cant even define.I did this hoping that some would see that any explanation of what 'Government' is results in contradictions. Because trying to drill down to what 'Government' is uncovers the immoral and unethical initiation of violence that is ALL 'Governments'. And even if we both disagree on every single point, as humans we both inherently understand that the initiation of violence is immoral. When i run into this thought in my brain, i choose morality over practicality. When you run into this thought in your brain, you choose practicality over morality. And that is the biggest contradiction of them all: The willingness to subvert morality in order to preserve morality.

[Hitch]

Im telling you that your own belief system doesnt match your own belief system.

Isn't it a little early in the day to be smoking crack? I suppose the blue jeans I am wearing right now, are not blue either. Basically, that is what you are saying. Of course my belief system matches my belief system! It's my belief system. To suggest otherwise, makes no sense at all.

[EE_]

Can you articulate to me a scenario where something morally bad can be turned into something morally good?

First you have to clearly define "morally/morality". Might as well clearly define good and bad too, and for who?

While you're thinking of an answer, here's one for you...

Can you articulate to me how your useless information can actually be useful?

Preaching useless information as useful is a contradiction.
Do you see how you IMAGINE you are doing something good, when you are actually doing nothing? More contradiction.

Can you see how you IMAGINE fantasy is reality?
Do you see how this contradiction of two things clash in your brain?

[EE_]

Isn't it a little early in the day to be smoking crack? I suppose the blue jeans I am wearing right now, are not blue either. Basically, that is what you are saying. Of course my belief system matches my belief system! It's my belief system. To suggest otherwise, makes no sense at all.

iOWNme believing he's making sense when he is not making sense is a contradiction in his brain.

[EE_]

Do we NEED Santa Clause?

I dont care how badly 'Police' are NEEDED. If they dont exist, how are we going to use them?

The OP describes EXACTLY what 'Authority' truly is = A group of men claiming to be exempted from morality. And since no mortal man can be exempted from morality, there are no 'Police'. Wishing them into existence does nothing to solve the problem.

Do you see how a group of men claiming to be exempted from morality actually are exempt, when you say they aren't? Contradiction.

Do you see how you believe no mortal man can be exempted from morality, there are no 'Police', but they are and they do exist is a contradiction in your brain?

Do you see when you say "Wishing them into existence does nothing to solve the problem" and yet you don't define the problem or how to correct it, is a contradiction between your ears?

[iOWNme]

First off, AGAIN, you cannot even attempt to answer the questions i asked you, instead your brain went into overload thinking of the ways you could try and make me look silly....LOL

Now, i will answer every single question you asked me. (Im not sure why anymore....LOL)



First you have to clearly define "morally/morality". Might as well clearly define good and bad too, and for who?

Initiation of violence = immoral.
Defensive violence = Moral.

Was that difficult? Ive spent two years on these PRINCIPLES, and you claim we still havent defined morality. This tells me you dont even think about what i post, you just parrot back mindless nonsense. If you actually understood my position, your rebutalls would be based off of something entirely different.



Can you articulate to me how your useless information can actually be useful?

So Voluntaryism (the thing you personally follow and use every single day of your life) has a label of 'useless' in your mind? Who do you think taught you to go against your own beliefs? I think it is very useful to show people that their belief system doesnt match their belief system.


Preaching useless information as useful is a contradiction.
Do you see how you IMAGINE you are doing something good, when you are actually doing nothing? More contradiction.

Yes, i do IMAGINE that 'preaching' Voluntaryism and the NAP is a 'good' thing. You are correct.


Can you see how you IMAGINE fantasy is reality?
Do you see how this contradiction of two things clash in your brain?

I think its funny how you can only repeat back to me what i ahve said to you. Are you rubber and Im glue? LOL Is this really the level of intellect you have?

There ids not a single contradiction in Voluntaryism, because all Voluntaryism states ios that all human interaction should be Voluntary. To argue against this is to argue for a NON-VOLUNTARY method of transactions between individuals. Can you articulate to me a scenario where YOU PERSONALLY would feel morally justified in allowing another man to FORCE you to act?

Or we could just debate this live (Youtube, Skype, etc), and i bet we can drill down to the contradictions in about 5 minutes. Do you DARE to take me up on this?

[iOWNme]

iOWNme believing he's making sense when he is not making sense is a contradiction in his brain.


You STILL dont even understand what we are even talking about. LOL


If I think one thing, and YOU think the opposite, how is this a contradiction in my head?

WOW.

[iOWNme]

Do you see how a group of men claiming to be exempted from morality actually are exempt, when you say they aren't? Contradiction.

SO you IMAGINE they are exempt from morality? Do you IMAGINE Santa Clause is real as well?

So you IMAGINE that when someone becomes 'Government' they become 'exempt' from Morality? WHO do you think could have taught you such a lie? Could it be those in 'Government' you dont want you to resist them?

Example: If 'Government' comes to take your baby or steal your family's land , and you know that you are innocent, you are telling me that you would allow them to take anything from you they want, because after all, they are 'exempt' from morality, right?

Is there anything 'Government' cant do according to morality?



Do you see how you believe no mortal man can be exempted from morality, there are no 'Police', but they are and they do exist is a contradiction in your brain?

Becasue a man committs acts of aggression does make those acts moral because of WHO he is. Do you understand this?



Do you see when you say "Wishing them into existence does nothing to solve the problem" and yet you don't define the problem or how to correct it, is a contradiction between your ears?

I clearly laid out the definition of what 'Police' are (the initiation of violence), and then using that definition came to the conclusion that there can be no such legitimate thing. Yes, there are gangs of violent thugs, Im just not sure why you insist on calling them 'Government'.

I dont define the problem? LOL Ive only defined it for years with thousands of posts. LOL This tells me AGAIN, that its not that you disagree, its that you dont understand the principles being discussed. If you did understand them, but just disagreed, your entire argument would be based off of an entirely different position. Instead of saying 'There are no morals' (Communistic ideology), you would say "i agree with you in principle, but im not sure how this would work in practice". And that is a totally logical and ration discussion to have. But to try and claim there are no morals, and then claim we need 'Government' is a contradiction of GIGANTIC proportions.

You have never once said anything even close to this.

The problem is YOU IMAGINE 'Government' to have a single shred of legitimacy. The problem is not in Washington, it is between your ears.

[EE_]

Okay, let's get at it!


First off, AGAIN, you cannot even attempt to answer the questions i asked you, instead your brain went into overload thinking of the ways you could try and make me look silly....LOL

It's not hard to make you look silly...you are silly!


Now, i will answer every single question you asked me. (Im not sure why anymore....LOL)


Initiation of violence = immoral.

Where did you get this definition from, your Funk & Wagnalls? Do you think this definition covers immoral?
This is a contradiction.

So you are saying the millions of people in the world, (governments, etc.) that initiate violence as standard practice, if put on a stand, would agree that what they are doing is immoral? I don't think they would. So what makes you right over them?


Defensive violence = Moral.

Do you think this covers all that is moral? Contradiction again.


Was that difficult? Ive spent two years on these PRINCIPLES, and you claim we still havent defined morality. This tells me you dont even think about what i post, you just parrot back mindless nonsense. If you actually understood my position, your rebutalls would be based off of something entirely different.

Do you not see who really sounds like a parrot? I ask hard questions you really can't answer. Pauly want a cracker?


So Voluntaryism (the thing you personally follow and use every single day of your life) has a label of 'useless' in your mind? Who do you think taught you to go against your own beliefs? I think it is very useful to show people that their belief system doesnt match their belief system.

If you really believe what you say is useful, please tell us it's use?




Yes, i do IMAGINE that 'preaching' Voluntaryism and the NAP is a 'good' thing. You are correct.

Good for you, good for me, or good for society? Please be more specific.




I think its funny how you can only repeat back to me what i ahve said to you. Are you rubber and Im glue? LOL Is this really the level of intellect you have?

There ids not a single contradiction in Voluntaryism, because all Voluntaryism states ios that all human interaction should be Voluntary. To argue against this is to argue for a NON-VOLUNTARY method of transactions between individuals. Can you articulate to me a scenario where YOU PERSONALLY would feel morally justified in allowing another man to FORCE you to act?

Voluntaryism is a belief system. Does everyone believe in this system? Or do others have different beliefs?


Or we could just debate this live (Youtube, Skype, etc), and i bet we can drill down to the contradictions in about 5 minutes. Do you DARE to take me up on this?

I would be up for that. I'll let you know when I'm ready. Can others listen in while you get your ass handed to you?


Can you articulate to me a scenario where YOU PERSONALLY would feel morally justified in allowing another man to FORCE you to act?

By allowing another man to force me to act, I'd take it as (example)
Say you iOWNme tell someone you are going to force me to do something I don't want to do...and I hear about it.
I will act on this information to crush you and your plans to force me, even though you have done nothing but made a threat to someone else.
In a sense I have allowed you to FORCE me to act and I feel justified.

[EE_]

SO you IMAGINE they are exempt from morality? Do you IMAGINE Santa Clause is real as well?

I don't imagine shit! THEY believe they are exempt from this so called thing "morality" and their superiors back them.


So you IMAGINE that when someone becomes 'Government' they become 'exempt' from Morality? WHO do you think could have taught you such a lie? Could it be those in 'Government' you dont want you to resist them?

If I know it is a lie, all that was taught is that they lie...nothing more.


Example: If 'Government' comes to take your baby or steal your family's land , and you know that you are innocent, you are telling me that you would allow them to take anything from you they want, because after all, they are 'exempt' from morality, right?

Yes I would allow them because they have more soldiers and guns...not because they believe/and are exempt from so called "morality". My battle would not end there if they did this to me.


Is there anything 'Government' cant do according to morality?

Is this a contradiction? Your definition of government and morality don't go together.





Becasue a man committs acts of aggression does make those acts moral because of WHO he is. Do you understand this?

He thinks so. Yes I understand that he thinks so by his definition of "moral" Definitions very depending who you talk to.
We have a world full of men that believe it's not immoral to ejaculate in another man's rectum. I don't think it's moral!





I clearly laid out the definition of what 'Police' are (the initiation of violence), and then using that definition came to the conclusion that there can be no such legitimate thing. Yes, there are gangs of violent thugs, Im just not sure why you insist on calling them 'Government'.

Yes you laid out YOUR definition and came to YOUR conclusion. Theirs is different and they call themselves "government".



I dont define the problem? LOL Ive only defined it for years with thousands of posts. LOL This tells me AGAIN, that its not that you disagree, its that you dont understand the principles being discussed. If you did understand them, but just disagreed, your entire argument would be based off of an entirely different position. Instead of saying 'There are no morals' (Communistic ideology), you would say "i agree with you in principle, but im not sure how this would work in practice". And that is a totally logical and ration discussion to have. But to try and claim there are no morals, and then claim we need 'Government' is a contradiction of GIGANTIC proportions.


Define the problem again for me and this time give me a real viable solution to correct the problem. Do it in the same sentence/paragraph.



You have never once said anything even close to this.

The problem is YOU IMAGINE 'Government' to have a single shred of legitimacy. The problem is not in Washington, it is between your ears.

I told you I don't imagine shit, I deal with reality. Two different things.
You must think I'm one of the blind sheep that lap up your shit. That's the problem between your ears.

Now boys and girls, who knows what government is?
http://www.henkinghoffmanpta.org/images/Cultural_Arts/HE_images/Hedgehog%20%20Awe%20AM%201_1_1.JPG

[Hatha Sunahara]

I just want to chime in, edgewise, about morality.

My personal guide about morality is the Golden Rule: Do unto others what you would have them do unto you. (Or the obverse: Don't do to others what you would not have them do to you.)

I know this 'morality' only applies to sane, healthy people--and those who deviate from it are likely not sane or healthy. Or.....they work for the government.

I think Stanley Milgram addressed this issue of deviating from one's personal morality because 'authority' gives you permission to do it. This, I think is the root cause of murderous periods in history as in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, the rule of Mao Tse Tung in China, Pol Pot in Cambodia, and others, likely in America in the not too distant future.

Aside from my simplistic view of morality, I have an equally simplistic view of freedom. Freedom is the absence of external authority.


Hatha

[EE_]

Allow me to make one edit:


I just want to chime in, edgewise, about morality.

My personal guide about morality is the Golden Rule: Do unto others what you would have them do unto you. (Or the obverse: Don't do to others what you would not have them do to you.)

I know this 'morality' only applies to sane, healthy people--and those who deviate from it are likely not sane or healthy. Or.....they work for the government.

I think Stanley Milgram addressed this issue of deviating from one's personal morality because 'authority' gives you permission to do it. This, I think is the root cause of murderous periods in history as in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, the rule of Mao Tse Tung in China, Pol Pot in Cambodia, and others, likely in America in the not too distant future.

Aside from my simplistic view of morality, I have an equally simplistic view of freedom. Freedom is the absence of external authority.


Hatha

[iOWNme]

Okay, let's get at it!



It's not hard to make you look silly...you are silly!



Where did you get this definition from, your Funk & Wagnalls? Do you think this definition covers immoral?
This is a contradiction.

I got the definition from my own free will and conscience. And yes, when it comes to any interaction between any individuals, this absolutely covers every single possible scenario. I asked you to give me an example where something bad can be made into something good and you couldnt do it. Remember, it doesnt matter what i think, it matters what YOU think. Give me an example where YOU think something is bad, but in certain situations that very same thing can be good.

I like how you just say 'contradiction'. LOL Can you articulate to me what is contradictory in the above statement of mine? You are going to give me an example where the initiation of violence is not immoral. Ready go.


So you are saying the millions of people in the world, (governments, etc.) that initiate violence as standard practice, if put on a stand, would agree that what they are doing is immoral? I don't think they would. So what makes you right over them?

I am saying that they only IMAGINE the right to initiate violence when they are acting as 'Government', these exact same people do not believe in the initiation of violence in their everyday lives. So they are contradicting themselves, it has nothing to do with me. You still dont even grasp the concepts being discussed here.




Do you think this covers all that is moral? Contradiction again.

Yes, when it comes to any interaction between any individuals, this absolutely covers every single possible scenario. I asked you to give me an example where something bad can be made into something good and you couldnt do it.

Can you articulate to me what is contradictory in the above statement of mine? You are going to give me an example where the Voluntary interaction between individuals is immoral. Ready go.





Do you not see who really sounds like a parrot? I ask hard questions you really can't answer. Pauly want a cracker?

Ive answered every single question you have ever asked me. You ask 'hard' questions? LOL Your entire premise of every question you have is contradictory. Its no wonder you think my answers are 'silly'. LOL




If you really believe what you say is useful, please tell us it's use?

Do REALLY have to explain to you how individuals are better off using reason and logic (Voluntaryism) rather than using the initiation of violence (Non-Voluntaryism) to get along?

Are you actually saying that you think you are better off by not having a choice in certain situations?





Good for you, good for me, or good for society? Please be more specific.

Good for the individual. Unless you can give me an example, or show me an individual who says they are better off being forced to do something they dont want to, then you agree with me.






Voluntaryism is a belief system. Does everyone believe in this system? Or do others have different beliefs?

Others have different beliefs, of course. This does not disprove Voluntaryism. LOL Because when it comes to the principle of Voluntaryism, 100% of individuals agree.

Can you give me one single example in YOUR PERSONAL life where you used a non-voluntary method to get something from another individual without their consent and that YOU were the Good guy?




I would be up for that. I'll let you know when I'm ready. Can others listen in while you get your ass handed to you?

Of course! That is the whole point. LOL




By allowing another man to force me to act, I'd take it as (example)
Say you iOWNme tell someone you are going to force me to do something I don't want to do...and I hear about it.
I will act on this information to crush you and your plans to force me, even though you have done nothing but made a threat to someone else.
In a sense I have allowed you to FORCE me to act and I feel justified.

I consider a threat to someone an act of INITIATION. Because you didnt do anything to warrant such a threat. You have only proven the principles of Voluntaryism correct here. LOL

[Hatha Sunahara]

A thousand years ago, the same kind of people who wear badges today were absolved of moral responsibility by the authority of religion, and they believed they were doing 'the will of god'.

And it was about 70 years ago where those people who absolved large numbers of thugs from moral responsibility were put on trial, and the court rejected the defense of 'I was just following orders.' The real problem is when you have a choice between following orders and following your moral conscience, if you make the wrong choice you will end up with two meters of earth on top of you. It's best not to associate with or take orders from evil people. It's better to flee than to let them have control over you.


Hatha