"I" vs the Collective (Politics of personality narrative)

[Gdjjr]

The greater good is accomplished with "I"ndividual Effort. It can't be legislated or mandated by a political Party, or religious Group.
By definition, a Party, or Group, has rules that have to be adhered to. If an Individual doesn't go along he/she is ostracized and/or driven away/out of the Party, or group. The larger the whichever, Party or Group, the less important the Individual.
In a smaller venue, i.e. a team, even the Individual effort is necessary and often recognized and appreciated and most importantly, respected- the exact opposite of the larger groups, Party's and religious sects.
An Individual is free to choose his alliances, but in the larger setting he is not free to dissent from/with the more equal of the Group, which is usually made up of a team of like, or similar, minded Individuals who set the rules of behavior/demands. Both, especially rules, are for one reason and one reason only: To restrict and give and lend credence to punishing for breaking the rules. The Greater Good is determined from afar, not concerned with the Individual's circumstance, or thoughts- only his action if disruptive to the Group Think, the Collective.

You may be asking, or saying to yourself, where does this kind of thinking come from? Up front I'll say, I'm self educated. I stopped my formal education in the 9th grade (somewhere around 1963 IMS). I did learn how to read though and I have good reading comprehension, naturally. What I read that formed my conclusion(s) is the Declaration of Independence. I assert it's the most profound writing I've ever read- the phrase, "we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights Endowed by the Creator. among these are the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- a few years ago I heard (for the umpteenth time) a caller to a talk radio program; "what can we do?"- I'd heard it directed to every host on every show I listened to. It got me to thinking "what can we do"- it dawned on me, when the host replied; just keep doing what you're doing or something similar depending on the host- one thing led to another. At the time I was an over the road truck driver which offers a lot of time for thinking-

To make a long story short, I thought about the Declaration and how profound a document it is- it expressed the way I'd always been- an advocate for the Individual- I just never thought about it until then (these thoughts came about in the 2005-2006(?) era- respecting an Individual's rights are a life philosophy and I try hard to live by it-

I concluded there is but one Truth- truth is constant, it was true yesterday, it's true today and it will be true tomorrow- all else is knowledge which evolves. The one Truth "I" rely on is: all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights-
Therefore ANY restricting of rights is disrespectful to the Individual- rules and by definition, Laws, are meant to restrict and punish, usually to the many for the actions of the few- to me that is immoral which is disrespectful to humanity- to sell the immorality with bullshit bumper sticker slogans is unconscionable- it takes a special kind of evil to to do that- or one (or many) simply poorly educated. Any education not founded on truth is built on shifting sand- it will evolve and disintegrate right underneath your feet- Politics and religion depend on the lack of Truth to deceive those who don't have the time or don't want to take the time to see for themselves the inevitable- when havoc is created, chaos ensues then catastrophe is inevitable-
The rate of descent (R or D) is immaterial- hitting a brick wall at 99mph is no better than hitting it at 100mph-

May as well join in, huh? That way the ones in the back of the group have the impact absorbed by the ones in front- guess who's in back? Yeah, the rule/law writers.

 

[Moonglow]

You are very well educated in the use of run-on sentences and a hodgepodge of thinking points which are like fleas and jump to conclusions and jump off point of the sentence structure....
I have a few questions for you rugged individuals who are a force of one.....
1. Is this thread about politics, education, individualism, propaganda, auto accidents, rights afforded by consent, or the denial of divine right monarchies because of all men being created equal?
2.The truth is subjective to the user because of their perception of what truth is..Is this correct or incorrect?

 

[OldLady]

The greater good is accomplished with "I"ndividual Effort. It can't be legislated or mandated by a political Party, or religious Group.
By definition, a Party, or Group, has rules that have to be adhered to. If an Individual doesn't go along he/she is ostracized and/or driven away/out of the Party, or group. The larger the whichever, Party or Group, the less important the Individual.
In a smaller venue, i.e. a team, even the Individual effort is necessary and often recognized and appreciated and most importantly, respected- the exact opposite of the larger groups, Party's and religious sects.
An Individual is free to choose his alliances, but in the larger setting he is not free to dissent from/with the more equal of the Group, which is usually made up of a team of like, or similar, minded Individuals who set the rules of behavior/demands. Both, especially rules, are for one reason and one reason only: To restrict and give and lend credence to punishing for breaking the rules. The Greater Good is determined from afar, not concerned with the Individual's circumstance, or thoughts- only his action if disruptive to the Group Think, the Collective.

You may be asking, or saying to yourself, where does this kind of thinking come from? Up front I'll say, I'm self educated. I stopped my formal education in the 9th grade (somewhere around 1963 IMS). I did learn how to read though and I have good reading comprehension, naturally. What I read that formed my conclusion(s) is the Declaration of Independence. I assert it's the most profound writing I've ever read- the phrase, "we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights Endowed by the Creator. among these are the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- a few years ago I heard (for the umpteenth time) a caller to a talk radio program; "what can we do?"- I'd heard it directed to every host on every show I listened to. It got me to thinking "what can we do"- it dawned on me, when the host replied; just keep doing what you're doing or something similar depending on the host- one thing led to another. At the time I was an over the road truck driver which offers a lot of time for thinking-

To make a long story short, I thought about the Declaration and how profound a document it is- it expressed the way I'd always been- an advocate for the Individual- I just never thought about it until then (these thoughts came about in the 2005-2006(?) era- respecting an Individual's rights are a life philosophy and I try hard to live by it-

I concluded there is but one Truth- truth is constant, it was true yesterday, it's true today and it will be true tomorrow- all else is knowledge which evolves. The one Truth "I" rely on is: all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights-
Therefore ANY restricting of rights is disrespectful to the Individual- rules and by definition, Laws, are meant to restrict and punish, usually to the many for the actions of the few- to me that is immoral which is disrespectful to humanity- to sell the immorality with bullshit bumper sticker slogans is unconscionable- it takes a special kind of evil to to do that- or one (or many) simply poorly educated. Any education not founded on truth is built on shifting sand- it will evolve and disintegrate right underneath your feet- Politics and religion depend on the lack of Truth to deceive those who don't have the time or don't want to take the time to see for themselves the inevitable- when havoc is created, chaos ensues then catastrophe is inevitable-
The rate of descent (R or D) is immaterial- hitting a brick wall at 99mph is no better than hitting it at 100mph-

May as well join in, huh? That way the ones in the back of the group have the impact absorbed by the ones in front- guess who's in back? Yeah, the rule/law writers.

Americans are Individualists, alright. You've taken the idea to its ultimate extreme, though. We cannot form and sustain societies without taking into account what is best for the society as a whole, as well. As the society prospers, so does the individual within it.
Interesting stuff. Our founders weren't anarchists, which is almost where you've gotten to.

 

[task0778]

"Laws, are meant to restrict and punish, usually to the many for the actions of the few"

Actually, more than a few these days, too many wrong-doers out there. But aren't laws also instituted to protect our individual rights from being trampled on? We have to have laws to restrict and punish, otherwise wrong-doers have no restraint, no? Which results in individual or individuals losing their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness or being diminished. Society requires laws and enforcement organizations to maximize our safety and security as individuals and as a group.

 

[Gdjjr]

You are very well educated in the use of run-on sentences and a hodgepodge of thinking points which are like fleas and jump to conclusions and jump off point of the sentence structure....
I have a few questions for you rugged individuals who are a force of one.....
1. Is this thread about politics, education, individualism, propaganda, auto accidents, rights afforded by consent, or the denial of divine right monarchies because of all men being created equal?
2.The truth is subjective to the user because of their perception of what truth is..Is this correct or incorrect?

It effects and affects ALL- it is a Political, BTW and even says so in what you refer to as hodge podge which speaks more to your lack of reading comprehension than anything else- and you publicly insult your own intelligence ignoring the facts as presented- can I suggest you learn to comprehend what you read- oh, and thanks for validating another point I've made elsewhere about the education system.

 

[Gdjjr]

The greater good is accomplished with "I"ndividual Effort. It can't be legislated or mandated by a political Party, or religious Group.
By definition, a Party, or Group, has rules that have to be adhered to. If an Individual doesn't go along he/she is ostracized and/or driven away/out of the Party, or group. The larger the whichever, Party or Group, the less important the Individual.
In a smaller venue, i.e. a team, even the Individual effort is necessary and often recognized and appreciated and most importantly, respected- the exact opposite of the larger groups, Party's and religious sects.
An Individual is free to choose his alliances, but in the larger setting he is not free to dissent from/with the more equal of the Group, which is usually made up of a team of like, or similar, minded Individuals who set the rules of behavior/demands. Both, especially rules, are for one reason and one reason only: To restrict and give and lend credence to punishing for breaking the rules. The Greater Good is determined from afar, not concerned with the Individual's circumstance, or thoughts- only his action if disruptive to the Group Think, the Collective.

You may be asking, or saying to yourself, where does this kind of thinking come from? Up front I'll say, I'm self educated. I stopped my formal education in the 9th grade (somewhere around 1963 IMS). I did learn how to read though and I have good reading comprehension, naturally. What I read that formed my conclusion(s) is the Declaration of Independence. I assert it's the most profound writing I've ever read- the phrase, "we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights Endowed by the Creator. among these are the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- a few years ago I heard (for the umpteenth time) a caller to a talk radio program; "what can we do?"- I'd heard it directed to every host on every show I listened to. It got me to thinking "what can we do"- it dawned on me, when the host replied; just keep doing what you're doing or something similar depending on the host- one thing led to another. At the time I was an over the road truck driver which offers a lot of time for thinking-

To make a long story short, I thought about the Declaration and how profound a document it is- it expressed the way I'd always been- an advocate for the Individual- I just never thought about it until then (these thoughts came about in the 2005-2006(?) era- respecting an Individual's rights are a life philosophy and I try hard to live by it-

I concluded there is but one Truth- truth is constant, it was true yesterday, it's true today and it will be true tomorrow- all else is knowledge which evolves. The one Truth "I" rely on is: all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights-
Therefore ANY restricting of rights is disrespectful to the Individual- rules and by definition, Laws, are meant to restrict and punish, usually to the many for the actions of the few- to me that is immoral which is disrespectful to humanity- to sell the immorality with bullshit bumper sticker slogans is unconscionable- it takes a special kind of evil to to do that- or one (or many) simply poorly educated. Any education not founded on truth is built on shifting sand- it will evolve and disintegrate right underneath your feet- Politics and religion depend on the lack of Truth to deceive those who don't have the time or don't want to take the time to see for themselves the inevitable- when havoc is created, chaos ensues then catastrophe is inevitable-
The rate of descent (R or D) is immaterial- hitting a brick wall at 99mph is no better than hitting it at 100mph-

May as well join in, huh? That way the ones in the back of the group have the impact absorbed by the ones in front- guess who's in back? Yeah, the rule/law writers.

Americans are Individualists, alright. You've taken the idea to its ultimate extreme, though. We cannot form and sustain societies without taking into account what is best for the society as a whole, as well. As the society prospers, so does the individual within it.
Interesting stuff. Our founders weren't anarchists, which is almost where you've gotten to.

The problem you indicate is based on an inaccurate "interpretation" when you misinterpret what I said- re: nowhere did I say Americans are individualists- I said, quite plainly, the Individual effort is what counts, not a Party or a religion or a group.
No matter what the effort, without the Individual effort it will not succeed- Party, religion, or group- the story remembered, written about and praised or cussed, had songs written about will be about the Individual- the Party, religious belief and group label is just a supporting cast to the Individual.

I just received this in my email acct from the Future of Freedom Foundation, whose articles I read often-

All political theories assume, of course, that most individuals are very ignorant. Those who plead for liberty differ from the rest in that they include themselves among the ignorant as well as the wisest- F.A. Hayek from The Constitution of Liberty 1960-


What is best for a society is highly subjective- subjective, by definition, is a narrow road and not where Liberty resides, which is a broad spectrum- all laws and rules are meant to restrict liberty- the punishment phase often as not includes all of society for the actions of a few- how that is best for a society is beyond me. Maybe one of the erudite here can explain it.
Mostly Laws and rules are to extract, (through the threat of force), wealth to make the few feel god about what they've allegedly fixed that affects the many- that wealth extraction is by those who only consume wealth, meaning they produce none- they also bastardize words to be contrary to original meaning. They act with impunity because of the ignorance of the many whose education is determined by the few through federal mandates and wealth extortion for the states not abiding by the latest and greatest fix to fix what the other side did or didn't do- it's a shit show-no other way to put it.

What is best for this society is included in the altruistic efforts of the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution, as written, not interpreted,- interpreting is fractured through the lens of subjective human altruism- Liberty of the citizens was the endeavor- not empowerment through a fractured, subjective lens of the Individual making the claim, which the group has to adhere to or be turned out- a document can be altruistic- a human excercises altruism- if the document is adhered to it establishes an altruistic endeavor- it's when it's interpreted, intentionally or not, it becomes an endeavor in altrusim, which is fractured through the prism of the human desire-

Our founders were anarchist- they took up arms against a tyrannical gov't- they were the epitome of anarchist- in fact, Jefferson is noted as saying as much with his thought on refreshing the tree of liberty-

Extract from Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith

Paris Nov. 13. 1787.
the people can not be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong [. . .] will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure.

I believe I prefer Jefferson's thoughts to any of the empty suit clowns who have been since him.

 

[jwoodie]

Is this thread about politics, education, individualism, propaganda, auto accidents, rights afforded by consent, or the denial of divine right monarchies because of all men being created equal?

That's why it is in General Discussion.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Gdjjr sorry for posting this as it strays from your point...


Barack Obama refers to himself a record-breaking 392 times in Berlin speech

 

[jwoodie]

What is best for a society is highly subjective- subjective, by definition, is a narrow road and not where Liberty resides, which is a broad spectrum- all laws and rules are meant to restrict liberty- the punishment phase often as not includes all of society for the actions of a few- how that is best for a society is beyond me.

I just attended a Halloween festival at my grandchildren's elementary school. The children wore all kinds of funny costumes and had a great time. It is too bad that so many of these activities have been shut down by obeisance to the demands of vocal minorities. How is that best for society?

 

[TNHarley]

The greater good is accomplished with "I"ndividual Effort. It can't be legislated or mandated by a political Party, or religious Group.
By definition, a Party, or Group, has rules that have to be adhered to. If an Individual doesn't go along he/she is ostracized and/or driven away/out of the Party, or group. The larger the whichever, Party or Group, the less important the Individual.
In a smaller venue, i.e. a team, even the Individual effort is necessary and often recognized and appreciated and most importantly, respected- the exact opposite of the larger groups, Party's and religious sects.
An Individual is free to choose his alliances, but in the larger setting he is not free to dissent from/with the more equal of the Group, which is usually made up of a team of like, or similar, minded Individuals who set the rules of behavior/demands. Both, especially rules, are for one reason and one reason only: To restrict and give and lend credence to punishing for breaking the rules. The Greater Good is determined from afar, not concerned with the Individual's circumstance, or thoughts- only his action if disruptive to the Group Think, the Collective.

You may be asking, or saying to yourself, where does this kind of thinking come from? Up front I'll say, I'm self educated. I stopped my formal education in the 9th grade (somewhere around 1963 IMS). I did learn how to read though and I have good reading comprehension, naturally. What I read that formed my conclusion(s) is the Declaration of Independence. I assert it's the most profound writing I've ever read- the phrase, "we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights Endowed by the Creator. among these are the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- a few years ago I heard (for the umpteenth time) a caller to a talk radio program; "what can we do?"- I'd heard it directed to every host on every show I listened to. It got me to thinking "what can we do"- it dawned on me, when the host replied; just keep doing what you're doing or something similar depending on the host- one thing led to another. At the time I was an over the road truck driver which offers a lot of time for thinking-

To make a long story short, I thought about the Declaration and how profound a document it is- it expressed the way I'd always been- an advocate for the Individual- I just never thought about it until then (these thoughts came about in the 2005-2006(?) era- respecting an Individual's rights are a life philosophy and I try hard to live by it-

I concluded there is but one Truth- truth is constant, it was true yesterday, it's true today and it will be true tomorrow- all else is knowledge which evolves. The one Truth "I" rely on is: all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights-
Therefore ANY restricting of rights is disrespectful to the Individual- rules and by definition, Laws, are meant to restrict and punish, usually to the many for the actions of the few- to me that is immoral which is disrespectful to humanity- to sell the immorality with bullshit bumper sticker slogans is unconscionable- it takes a special kind of evil to to do that- or one (or many) simply poorly educated. Any education not founded on truth is built on shifting sand- it will evolve and disintegrate right underneath your feet- Politics and religion depend on the lack of Truth to deceive those who don't have the time or don't want to take the time to see for themselves the inevitable- when havoc is created, chaos ensues then catastrophe is inevitable-
The rate of descent (R or D) is immaterial- hitting a brick wall at 99mph is no better than hitting it at 100mph-

May as well join in, huh? That way the ones in the back of the group have the impact absorbed by the ones in front- guess who's in back? Yeah, the rule/law writers.

Americans are Individualists, alright. You've taken the idea to its ultimate extreme, though. We cannot form and sustain societies without taking into account what is best for the society as a whole, as well. As the society prospers, so does the individual within it.
Interesting stuff. Our founders weren't anarchists, which is almost where you've gotten to.

society is important but individual liberty is more important. People are more happy and successful when they can be themselves. As long as they dont impede on others, of course.

 

[task0778]

The greater good is accomplished with "I"ndividual Effort. It can't be legislated or mandated by a political Party, or religious Group.
By definition, a Party, or Group, has rules that have to be adhered to. If an Individual doesn't go along he/she is ostracized and/or driven away/out of the Party, or group. The larger the whichever, Party or Group, the less important the Individual.
In a smaller venue, i.e. a team, even the Individual effort is necessary and often recognized and appreciated and most importantly, respected- the exact opposite of the larger groups, Party's and religious sects.
An Individual is free to choose his alliances, but in the larger setting he is not free to dissent from/with the more equal of the Group, which is usually made up of a team of like, or similar, minded Individuals who set the rules of behavior/demands. Both, especially rules, are for one reason and one reason only: To restrict and give and lend credence to punishing for breaking the rules. The Greater Good is determined from afar, not concerned with the Individual's circumstance, or thoughts- only his action if disruptive to the Group Think, the Collective.

You may be asking, or saying to yourself, where does this kind of thinking come from? Up front I'll say, I'm self educated. I stopped my formal education in the 9th grade (somewhere around 1963 IMS). I did learn how to read though and I have good reading comprehension, naturally. What I read that formed my conclusion(s) is the Declaration of Independence. I assert it's the most profound writing I've ever read- the phrase, "we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights Endowed by the Creator. among these are the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- a few years ago I heard (for the umpteenth time) a caller to a talk radio program; "what can we do?"- I'd heard it directed to every host on every show I listened to. It got me to thinking "what can we do"- it dawned on me, when the host replied; just keep doing what you're doing or something similar depending on the host- one thing led to another. At the time I was an over the road truck driver which offers a lot of time for thinking-

To make a long story short, I thought about the Declaration and how profound a document it is- it expressed the way I'd always been- an advocate for the Individual- I just never thought about it until then (these thoughts came about in the 2005-2006(?) era- respecting an Individual's rights are a life philosophy and I try hard to live by it-

I concluded there is but one Truth- truth is constant, it was true yesterday, it's true today and it will be true tomorrow- all else is knowledge which evolves. The one Truth "I" rely on is: all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights-
Therefore ANY restricting of rights is disrespectful to the Individual- rules and by definition, Laws, are meant to restrict and punish, usually to the many for the actions of the few- to me that is immoral which is disrespectful to humanity- to sell the immorality with bullshit bumper sticker slogans is unconscionable- it takes a special kind of evil to to do that- or one (or many) simply poorly educated. Any education not founded on truth is built on shifting sand- it will evolve and disintegrate right underneath your feet- Politics and religion depend on the lack of Truth to deceive those who don't have the time or don't want to take the time to see for themselves the inevitable- when havoc is created, chaos ensues then catastrophe is inevitable-
The rate of descent (R or D) is immaterial- hitting a brick wall at 99mph is no better than hitting it at 100mph-

May as well join in, huh? That way the ones in the back of the group have the impact absorbed by the ones in front- guess who's in back? Yeah, the rule/law writers.

Americans are Individualists, alright. You've taken the idea to its ultimate extreme, though. We cannot form and sustain societies without taking into account what is best for the society as a whole, as well. As the society prospers, so does the individual within it.
Interesting stuff. Our founders weren't anarchists, which is almost where you've gotten to.

The problem you indicate is based on an inaccurate "interpretation" when you misinterpret what I said- re: nowhere did I say Americans are individualists- I said, quite plainly, the Individual effort is what counts, not a Party or a religion or a group.
No matter what the effort, without the Individual effort it will not succeed- Party, religion, or group- the story remembered, written about and praised or cussed, had songs written about will be about the Individual- the Party, religious belief and group label is just a supporting cast to the Individual.

I just received this in my email acct from the Future of Freedom Foundation, whose articles I read often-

All political theories assume, of course, that most individuals are very ignorant. Those who plead for liberty differ from the rest in that they include themselves among the ignorant as well as the wisest- F.A. Hayek from The Constitution of Liberty 1960-


What is best for a society is highly subjective- subjective, by definition, is a narrow road and not where Liberty resides, which is a broad spectrum- all laws and rules are meant to restrict liberty- the punishment phase often as not includes all of society for the actions of a few- how that is best for a society is beyond me. Maybe one of the erudite here can explain it.
Mostly Laws and rules are to extract, (through the threat of force), wealth to make the few feel god about what they've allegedly fixed that affects the many- that wealth extraction is by those who only consume wealth, meaning they produce none- they also bastardize words to be contrary to original meaning. They act with impunity because of the ignorance of the many whose education is determined by the few through federal mandates and wealth extortion for the states not abiding by the latest and greatest fix to fix what the other side did or didn't do- it's a shit show-no other way to put it.

What is best for this society is included in the altruistic efforts of the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution, as written, not interpreted,- interpreting is fractured through the lens of subjective human altruism- Liberty of the citizens was the endeavor- not empowerment through a fractured, subjective lens of the Individual making the claim, which the group has to adhere to or be turned out- a document can be altruistic- a human excercises altruism- if the document is adhered to it establishes an altruistic endeavor- it's when it's interpreted, intentionally or not, it becomes an endeavor in altrusim, which is fractured through the prism of the human desire-

Our founders were anarchist- they took up arms against a tyrannical gov't- they were the epitome of anarchist- in fact, Jefferson is noted as saying as much with his thought on refreshing the tree of liberty-

Extract from Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith

Paris Nov. 13. 1787.
the people can not be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong [. . .] will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure.

I believe I prefer Jefferson's thoughts to any of the empty suit clowns who have been since him.

First, let's talk about anarchy, what it is and isn't. Anarchy is the absence of gov't and the rule of law. Without an effective gov't, a state exists in which there is no societal organization and control; in other words, chaos. The founders were rebels, but that is NOT the same as being anarchists. Read what Jefferson had to say in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

That is not anarchy.

Do you have a response to my post, #4? You asked how restricting liberty could be in the best interests of society, do I need to expand on what I said?

As for this:

"Mostly Laws and rules are to extract, (through the threat of force), wealth"


I'd have to disagree. Some laws and rules (not that many) do extract wealth in order to pay for certain gov't functions at every level that are necessary for the health, safety, security, and well-being of every citizen. True, some gov't functions might be less necessary than others, but lumping them all together is wrong IMHO. And the "threat of force" might overstate a little bit what actually is the threat of legal action. We cannot have some people deciding to obey this law but not that one; this is a democratically elected republic, and our representatives at every level of gov't have been given the power to legislate laws and regulations to protect our individual rights. It ain't perfect, but I don't know of a better solution. And I'll say one thing more: Anarchy is sure as hell not a viable option.

 

[Gdjjr]

The greater good is accomplished with "I"ndividual Effort. It can't be legislated or mandated by a political Party, or religious Group.
By definition, a Party, or Group, has rules that have to be adhered to. If an Individual doesn't go along he/she is ostracized and/or driven away/out of the Party, or group. The larger the whichever, Party or Group, the less important the Individual.
In a smaller venue, i.e. a team, even the Individual effort is necessary and often recognized and appreciated and most importantly, respected- the exact opposite of the larger groups, Party's and religious sects.
An Individual is free to choose his alliances, but in the larger setting he is not free to dissent from/with the more equal of the Group, which is usually made up of a team of like, or similar, minded Individuals who set the rules of behavior/demands. Both, especially rules, are for one reason and one reason only: To restrict and give and lend credence to punishing for breaking the rules. The Greater Good is determined from afar, not concerned with the Individual's circumstance, or thoughts- only his action if disruptive to the Group Think, the Collective.

You may be asking, or saying to yourself, where does this kind of thinking come from? Up front I'll say, I'm self educated. I stopped my formal education in the 9th grade (somewhere around 1963 IMS). I did learn how to read though and I have good reading comprehension, naturally. What I read that formed my conclusion(s) is the Declaration of Independence. I assert it's the most profound writing I've ever read- the phrase, "we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights Endowed by the Creator. among these are the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- a few years ago I heard (for the umpteenth time) a caller to a talk radio program; "what can we do?"- I'd heard it directed to every host on every show I listened to. It got me to thinking "what can we do"- it dawned on me, when the host replied; just keep doing what you're doing or something similar depending on the host- one thing led to another. At the time I was an over the road truck driver which offers a lot of time for thinking-

To make a long story short, I thought about the Declaration and how profound a document it is- it expressed the way I'd always been- an advocate for the Individual- I just never thought about it until then (these thoughts came about in the 2005-2006(?) era- respecting an Individual's rights are a life philosophy and I try hard to live by it-

I concluded there is but one Truth- truth is constant, it was true yesterday, it's true today and it will be true tomorrow- all else is knowledge which evolves. The one Truth "I" rely on is: all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights-
Therefore ANY restricting of rights is disrespectful to the Individual- rules and by definition, Laws, are meant to restrict and punish, usually to the many for the actions of the few- to me that is immoral which is disrespectful to humanity- to sell the immorality with bullshit bumper sticker slogans is unconscionable- it takes a special kind of evil to to do that- or one (or many) simply poorly educated. Any education not founded on truth is built on shifting sand- it will evolve and disintegrate right underneath your feet- Politics and religion depend on the lack of Truth to deceive those who don't have the time or don't want to take the time to see for themselves the inevitable- when havoc is created, chaos ensues then catastrophe is inevitable-
The rate of descent (R or D) is immaterial- hitting a brick wall at 99mph is no better than hitting it at 100mph-

May as well join in, huh? That way the ones in the back of the group have the impact absorbed by the ones in front- guess who's in back? Yeah, the rule/law writers.

Americans are Individualists, alright. You've taken the idea to its ultimate extreme, though. We cannot form and sustain societies without taking into account what is best for the society as a whole, as well. As the society prospers, so does the individual within it.
Interesting stuff. Our founders weren't anarchists, which is almost where you've gotten to.

The problem you indicate is based on an inaccurate "interpretation" when you misinterpret what I said- re: nowhere did I say Americans are individualists- I said, quite plainly, the Individual effort is what counts, not a Party or a religion or a group.
No matter what the effort, without the Individual effort it will not succeed- Party, religion, or group- the story remembered, written about and praised or cussed, had songs written about will be about the Individual- the Party, religious belief and group label is just a supporting cast to the Individual.

I just received this in my email acct from the Future of Freedom Foundation, whose articles I read often-

All political theories assume, of course, that most individuals are very ignorant. Those who plead for liberty differ from the rest in that they include themselves among the ignorant as well as the wisest- F.A. Hayek from The Constitution of Liberty 1960-


What is best for a society is highly subjective- subjective, by definition, is a narrow road and not where Liberty resides, which is a broad spectrum- all laws and rules are meant to restrict liberty- the punishment phase often as not includes all of society for the actions of a few- how that is best for a society is beyond me. Maybe one of the erudite here can explain it.
Mostly Laws and rules are to extract, (through the threat of force), wealth to make the few feel god about what they've allegedly fixed that affects the many- that wealth extraction is by those who only consume wealth, meaning they produce none- they also bastardize words to be contrary to original meaning. They act with impunity because of the ignorance of the many whose education is determined by the few through federal mandates and wealth extortion for the states not abiding by the latest and greatest fix to fix what the other side did or didn't do- it's a shit show-no other way to put it.

What is best for this society is included in the altruistic efforts of the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution, as written, not interpreted,- interpreting is fractured through the lens of subjective human altruism- Liberty of the citizens was the endeavor- not empowerment through a fractured, subjective lens of the Individual making the claim, which the group has to adhere to or be turned out- a document can be altruistic- a human excercises altruism- if the document is adhered to it establishes an altruistic endeavor- it's when it's interpreted, intentionally or not, it becomes an endeavor in altrusim, which is fractured through the prism of the human desire-

Our founders were anarchist- they took up arms against a tyrannical gov't- they were the epitome of anarchist- in fact, Jefferson is noted as saying as much with his thought on refreshing the tree of liberty-

Extract from Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith

Paris Nov. 13. 1787.
the people can not be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong [. . .] will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure.

I believe I prefer Jefferson's thoughts to any of the empty suit clowns who have been since him.

First, let's talk about anarchy, what it is and isn't. Anarchy is the absence of gov't and the rule of law. Without an effective gov't, a state exists in which there is no societal organization and control; in other words, chaos. The founders were rebels, but that is NOT the same as being anarchists. Read what Jefferson had to say in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

That is not anarchy.

Do you have a response to my post, #4? You asked how restricting liberty could be in the best interests of society, do I need to expand on what I said?

As for this:

"Mostly Laws and rules are to extract, (through the threat of force), wealth"


I'd have to disagree. Some laws and rules (not that many) do extract wealth in order to pay for certain gov't functions at every level that are necessary for the health, safety, security, and well-being of every citizen. True, some gov't functions might be less necessary than others, but lumping them all together is wrong IMHO. And the "threat of force" might overstate a little bit what actually is the threat of legal action. We cannot have some people deciding to obey this law but not that one; this is a democratically elected republic, and our representatives at every level of gov't have been given the power to legislate laws and regulations to protect our individual rights. It ain't perfect, but I don't know of a better solution. And I'll say one thing more: Anarchy is sure as hell not a viable option.

To start with, the founders took up arms against a tyrannical gov't, THEN implemented a new one.
Secondly, this Country, due to laws, has become a comply or die society- and laws, most of them are to extract wealth from a producer of wealth, be they citations issued to citizens or fines imposed on corporations- either way, the non-producer extracted, under the color of law, wealth from a producer of wealth.
It's not an exaggeration to those who have died at the hands of uniformed and badged thugs with guns. It's a cold, hard fact.
Cops (used to mean Citizens On Patrol) and were called Peace Officers. They are now called Law enFORCEment officers- the SC has ruled, correctly IMO, their job is not to protect and serve- they are to enFORCE the law. Killing under the color of law is still killing- restricting is still restricting- no crime should be afforded unless another is harmed- selling bullshit laws to allegedly protect others from harm is just that- bullshit to punish the many, with wealth extraction, for the sins of the few who did commit a harm.
This Country is nowhere near what it was intended- it constituted a fed gov't with rules to "restrict" its authority over citizens, not empower a class separate from others to be regarded as gods, or special. There are so many laws on the books they can't be counted and it's estimated everyone breaks at least 3/day- that is tyrannical, which the founders took up arms against, THEN implemented a gov't to help prevent it happening here. BUT mandates have usurped the power granted, due in no small part, to the mandated education guidelines forced, through extortion, to be adhered to- and an education system favored by Industrialist who visited Nazi Germany and liked the disciplined, authoritarian style- that style is ensconced, ingrained, adhered to and followed into society and brought to bear with comply or die mentality of uniformed, badged thugs with guns and further demonstrated in our foreign policy- that, sir, is tyrannical. And that, sir is what the founders took up arms against, which Jefferson was talking about in the extraction of the letter I posted- to even argue it speaks to the collectivist, authoritarian belief ingrained since childhood- Liberty cannot abide there when the opposite is ingrained, and this Country's founding philosophy is about, Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness- not acquiescing to empty suited clowns whose claim to fame is the ill perceived authority an power over others who invoke tyranny and call it tranquility.

 

[task0778]

The greater good is accomplished with "I"ndividual Effort. It can't be legislated or mandated by a political Party, or religious Group.
By definition, a Party, or Group, has rules that have to be adhered to. If an Individual doesn't go along he/she is ostracized and/or driven away/out of the Party, or group. The larger the whichever, Party or Group, the less important the Individual.
In a smaller venue, i.e. a team, even the Individual effort is necessary and often recognized and appreciated and most importantly, respected- the exact opposite of the larger groups, Party's and religious sects.
An Individual is free to choose his alliances, but in the larger setting he is not free to dissent from/with the more equal of the Group, which is usually made up of a team of like, or similar, minded Individuals who set the rules of behavior/demands. Both, especially rules, are for one reason and one reason only: To restrict and give and lend credence to punishing for breaking the rules. The Greater Good is determined from afar, not concerned with the Individual's circumstance, or thoughts- only his action if disruptive to the Group Think, the Collective.

You may be asking, or saying to yourself, where does this kind of thinking come from? Up front I'll say, I'm self educated. I stopped my formal education in the 9th grade (somewhere around 1963 IMS). I did learn how to read though and I have good reading comprehension, naturally. What I read that formed my conclusion(s) is the Declaration of Independence. I assert it's the most profound writing I've ever read- the phrase, "we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights Endowed by the Creator. among these are the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- a few years ago I heard (for the umpteenth time) a caller to a talk radio program; "what can we do?"- I'd heard it directed to every host on every show I listened to. It got me to thinking "what can we do"- it dawned on me, when the host replied; just keep doing what you're doing or something similar depending on the host- one thing led to another. At the time I was an over the road truck driver which offers a lot of time for thinking-

To make a long story short, I thought about the Declaration and how profound a document it is- it expressed the way I'd always been- an advocate for the Individual- I just never thought about it until then (these thoughts came about in the 2005-2006(?) era- respecting an Individual's rights are a life philosophy and I try hard to live by it-

I concluded there is but one Truth- truth is constant, it was true yesterday, it's true today and it will be true tomorrow- all else is knowledge which evolves. The one Truth "I" rely on is: all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights-
Therefore ANY restricting of rights is disrespectful to the Individual- rules and by definition, Laws, are meant to restrict and punish, usually to the many for the actions of the few- to me that is immoral which is disrespectful to humanity- to sell the immorality with bullshit bumper sticker slogans is unconscionable- it takes a special kind of evil to to do that- or one (or many) simply poorly educated. Any education not founded on truth is built on shifting sand- it will evolve and disintegrate right underneath your feet- Politics and religion depend on the lack of Truth to deceive those who don't have the time or don't want to take the time to see for themselves the inevitable- when havoc is created, chaos ensues then catastrophe is inevitable-
The rate of descent (R or D) is immaterial- hitting a brick wall at 99mph is no better than hitting it at 100mph-

May as well join in, huh? That way the ones in the back of the group have the impact absorbed by the ones in front- guess who's in back? Yeah, the rule/law writers.

Americans are Individualists, alright. You've taken the idea to its ultimate extreme, though. We cannot form and sustain societies without taking into account what is best for the society as a whole, as well. As the society prospers, so does the individual within it.
Interesting stuff. Our founders weren't anarchists, which is almost where you've gotten to.

The problem you indicate is based on an inaccurate "interpretation" when you misinterpret what I said- re: nowhere did I say Americans are individualists- I said, quite plainly, the Individual effort is what counts, not a Party or a religion or a group.
No matter what the effort, without the Individual effort it will not succeed- Party, religion, or group- the story remembered, written about and praised or cussed, had songs written about will be about the Individual- the Party, religious belief and group label is just a supporting cast to the Individual.

I just received this in my email acct from the Future of Freedom Foundation, whose articles I read often-

All political theories assume, of course, that most individuals are very ignorant. Those who plead for liberty differ from the rest in that they include themselves among the ignorant as well as the wisest- F.A. Hayek from The Constitution of Liberty 1960-


What is best for a society is highly subjective- subjective, by definition, is a narrow road and not where Liberty resides, which is a broad spectrum- all laws and rules are meant to restrict liberty- the punishment phase often as not includes all of society for the actions of a few- how that is best for a society is beyond me. Maybe one of the erudite here can explain it.
Mostly Laws and rules are to extract, (through the threat of force), wealth to make the few feel god about what they've allegedly fixed that affects the many- that wealth extraction is by those who only consume wealth, meaning they produce none- they also bastardize words to be contrary to original meaning. They act with impunity because of the ignorance of the many whose education is determined by the few through federal mandates and wealth extortion for the states not abiding by the latest and greatest fix to fix what the other side did or didn't do- it's a shit show-no other way to put it.

What is best for this society is included in the altruistic efforts of the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution, as written, not interpreted,- interpreting is fractured through the lens of subjective human altruism- Liberty of the citizens was the endeavor- not empowerment through a fractured, subjective lens of the Individual making the claim, which the group has to adhere to or be turned out- a document can be altruistic- a human excercises altruism- if the document is adhered to it establishes an altruistic endeavor- it's when it's interpreted, intentionally or not, it becomes an endeavor in altrusim, which is fractured through the prism of the human desire-

Our founders were anarchist- they took up arms against a tyrannical gov't- they were the epitome of anarchist- in fact, Jefferson is noted as saying as much with his thought on refreshing the tree of liberty-

Extract from Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith

Paris Nov. 13. 1787.
the people can not be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong [. . .] will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure.

I believe I prefer Jefferson's thoughts to any of the empty suit clowns who have been since him.

First, let's talk about anarchy, what it is and isn't. Anarchy is the absence of gov't and the rule of law. Without an effective gov't, a state exists in which there is no societal organization and control; in other words, chaos. The founders were rebels, but that is NOT the same as being anarchists. Read what Jefferson had to say in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

That is not anarchy.

Do you have a response to my post, #4? You asked how restricting liberty could be in the best interests of society, do I need to expand on what I said?

As for this:

"Mostly Laws and rules are to extract, (through the threat of force), wealth"


I'd have to disagree. Some laws and rules (not that many) do extract wealth in order to pay for certain gov't functions at every level that are necessary for the health, safety, security, and well-being of every citizen. True, some gov't functions might be less necessary than others, but lumping them all together is wrong IMHO. And the "threat of force" might overstate a little bit what actually is the threat of legal action. We cannot have some people deciding to obey this law but not that one; this is a democratically elected republic, and our representatives at every level of gov't have been given the power to legislate laws and regulations to protect our individual rights. It ain't perfect, but I don't know of a better solution. And I'll say one thing more: Anarchy is sure as hell not a viable option.

To start with, the founders took up arms against a tyrannical gov't, THEN implemented a new one.
Secondly, this Country, due to laws, has become a comply or die society- and laws, most of them are to extract wealth from a producer of wealth, be they citations issued to citizens or fines imposed on corporations- either way, the non-producer extracted, under the color of law, wealth from a producer of wealth.
It's not an exaggeration to those who have died at the hands of uniformed and badged thugs with guns. It's a cold, hard fact.
Cops (used to mean Citizens On Patrol) and were called Peace Officers. They are now called Law enFORCEment officers- the SC has ruled, correctly IMO, their job is not to protect and serve- they are to enFORCE the law. Killing under the color of law is still killing- restricting is still restricting- no crime should be afforded unless another is harmed- selling bullshit laws to allegedly protect others from harm is just that- bullshit to punish the many, with wealth extraction, for the sins of the few who did commit a harm.
This Country is nowhere near what it was intended- it constituted a fed gov't with rules to "restrict" its authority over citizens, not empower a class separate from others to be regarded as gods, or special. There are so many laws on the books they can't be counted and it's estimated everyone breaks at least 3/day- that is tyrannical, which the founders took up arms against, THEN implemented a gov't to help prevent it happening here. BUT mandates have usurped the power granted, due in no small part, to the mandated education guidelines forced, through extortion, to be adhered to- and an education system favored by Industrialist who visited Nazi Germany and liked the disciplined, authoritarian style- that style is ensconced, ingrained, adhered to and followed into society and brought to bear with comply or die mentality of uniformed, badged thugs with guns and further demonstrated in our foreign policy- that, sir, is tyrannical. And that, sir is what the founders took up arms against, which Jefferson was talking about in the extraction of the letter I posted- to even argue it speaks to the collectivist, authoritarian belief ingrained since childhood- Liberty cannot abide there when the opposite is ingrained, and this Country's founding philosophy is about, Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness- not acquiescing to empty suited clowns whose claim to fame is the ill perceived authority an power over others who invoke tyranny and call it tranquility.

"To start with, the founders took up arms against a tyrannical gov't, THEN implemented a new one." That does not make them anarchists. Anarchists do not implement a new gov't.

"this Country, due to laws, has become a comply or die society" With respect, this is nonsense. Nobody dies in this country from non-compliance unless convicted of murder.

"most of them are to extract wealth from a producer of wealth" I posit to you that there are a large number of people who pay taxes or fines that are NOT producers of wealth. Everybody eats, no? So they go to the grocery and buy food, and in that process pay sales taxes whether they are a wealth producer or not. Further, I dispute the idea that most laws "are to extract wealth from a producer of wealth" - not true. The police issue citations or fines to those who break the law, non-producers have to pay just the same as producers do. Most laws are there to protect us and our rights rather than to extract wealth.

"It's not an exaggeration to those who have died at the hands of uniformed and badged thugs with guns." This is really out there. Thugs huh? Nice, people that protect you and your family and your property are all thugs? And everybody who breaks the law is shot on sight? BULLSHIT. Certainly there are some bad apples that shouldn't be in a police uniform, same as those in the military. But that shouldn't be used to paint all of them with the same crap.

Out of idle curiosity, what alternative system do you propose? Anarchy? No police at all?

 

[Gdjjr]

The greater good is accomplished with "I"ndividual Effort. It can't be legislated or mandated by a political Party, or religious Group.
By definition, a Party, or Group, has rules that have to be adhered to. If an Individual doesn't go along he/she is ostracized and/or driven away/out of the Party, or group. The larger the whichever, Party or Group, the less important the Individual.
In a smaller venue, i.e. a team, even the Individual effort is necessary and often recognized and appreciated and most importantly, respected- the exact opposite of the larger groups, Party's and religious sects.
An Individual is free to choose his alliances, but in the larger setting he is not free to dissent from/with the more equal of the Group, which is usually made up of a team of like, or similar, minded Individuals who set the rules of behavior/demands. Both, especially rules, are for one reason and one reason only: To restrict and give and lend credence to punishing for breaking the rules. The Greater Good is determined from afar, not concerned with the Individual's circumstance, or thoughts- only his action if disruptive to the Group Think, the Collective.

You may be asking, or saying to yourself, where does this kind of thinking come from? Up front I'll say, I'm self educated. I stopped my formal education in the 9th grade (somewhere around 1963 IMS). I did learn how to read though and I have good reading comprehension, naturally. What I read that formed my conclusion(s) is the Declaration of Independence. I assert it's the most profound writing I've ever read- the phrase, "we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights Endowed by the Creator. among these are the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- a few years ago I heard (for the umpteenth time) a caller to a talk radio program; "what can we do?"- I'd heard it directed to every host on every show I listened to. It got me to thinking "what can we do"- it dawned on me, when the host replied; just keep doing what you're doing or something similar depending on the host- one thing led to another. At the time I was an over the road truck driver which offers a lot of time for thinking-

To make a long story short, I thought about the Declaration and how profound a document it is- it expressed the way I'd always been- an advocate for the Individual- I just never thought about it until then (these thoughts came about in the 2005-2006(?) era- respecting an Individual's rights are a life philosophy and I try hard to live by it-

I concluded there is but one Truth- truth is constant, it was true yesterday, it's true today and it will be true tomorrow- all else is knowledge which evolves. The one Truth "I" rely on is: all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights-
Therefore ANY restricting of rights is disrespectful to the Individual- rules and by definition, Laws, are meant to restrict and punish, usually to the many for the actions of the few- to me that is immoral which is disrespectful to humanity- to sell the immorality with bullshit bumper sticker slogans is unconscionable- it takes a special kind of evil to to do that- or one (or many) simply poorly educated. Any education not founded on truth is built on shifting sand- it will evolve and disintegrate right underneath your feet- Politics and religion depend on the lack of Truth to deceive those who don't have the time or don't want to take the time to see for themselves the inevitable- when havoc is created, chaos ensues then catastrophe is inevitable-
The rate of descent (R or D) is immaterial- hitting a brick wall at 99mph is no better than hitting it at 100mph-

May as well join in, huh? That way the ones in the back of the group have the impact absorbed by the ones in front- guess who's in back? Yeah, the rule/law writers.

Americans are Individualists, alright. You've taken the idea to its ultimate extreme, though. We cannot form and sustain societies without taking into account what is best for the society as a whole, as well. As the society prospers, so does the individual within it.
Interesting stuff. Our founders weren't anarchists, which is almost where you've gotten to.

The problem you indicate is based on an inaccurate "interpretation" when you misinterpret what I said- re: nowhere did I say Americans are individualists- I said, quite plainly, the Individual effort is what counts, not a Party or a religion or a group.
No matter what the effort, without the Individual effort it will not succeed- Party, religion, or group- the story remembered, written about and praised or cussed, had songs written about will be about the Individual- the Party, religious belief and group label is just a supporting cast to the Individual.

I just received this in my email acct from the Future of Freedom Foundation, whose articles I read often-

All political theories assume, of course, that most individuals are very ignorant. Those who plead for liberty differ from the rest in that they include themselves among the ignorant as well as the wisest- F.A. Hayek from The Constitution of Liberty 1960-


What is best for a society is highly subjective- subjective, by definition, is a narrow road and not where Liberty resides, which is a broad spectrum- all laws and rules are meant to restrict liberty- the punishment phase often as not includes all of society for the actions of a few- how that is best for a society is beyond me. Maybe one of the erudite here can explain it.
Mostly Laws and rules are to extract, (through the threat of force), wealth to make the few feel god about what they've allegedly fixed that affects the many- that wealth extraction is by those who only consume wealth, meaning they produce none- they also bastardize words to be contrary to original meaning. They act with impunity because of the ignorance of the many whose education is determined by the few through federal mandates and wealth extortion for the states not abiding by the latest and greatest fix to fix what the other side did or didn't do- it's a shit show-no other way to put it.

What is best for this society is included in the altruistic efforts of the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution, as written, not interpreted,- interpreting is fractured through the lens of subjective human altruism- Liberty of the citizens was the endeavor- not empowerment through a fractured, subjective lens of the Individual making the claim, which the group has to adhere to or be turned out- a document can be altruistic- a human excercises altruism- if the document is adhered to it establishes an altruistic endeavor- it's when it's interpreted, intentionally or not, it becomes an endeavor in altrusim, which is fractured through the prism of the human desire-

Our founders were anarchist- they took up arms against a tyrannical gov't- they were the epitome of anarchist- in fact, Jefferson is noted as saying as much with his thought on refreshing the tree of liberty-

Extract from Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith

Paris Nov. 13. 1787.
the people can not be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong [. . .] will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure.

I believe I prefer Jefferson's thoughts to any of the empty suit clowns who have been since him.

First, let's talk about anarchy, what it is and isn't. Anarchy is the absence of gov't and the rule of law. Without an effective gov't, a state exists in which there is no societal organization and control; in other words, chaos. The founders were rebels, but that is NOT the same as being anarchists. Read what Jefferson had to say in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

That is not anarchy.

Do you have a response to my post, #4? You asked how restricting liberty could be in the best interests of society, do I need to expand on what I said?

As for this:

"Mostly Laws and rules are to extract, (through the threat of force), wealth"


I'd have to disagree. Some laws and rules (not that many) do extract wealth in order to pay for certain gov't functions at every level that are necessary for the health, safety, security, and well-being of every citizen. True, some gov't functions might be less necessary than others, but lumping them all together is wrong IMHO. And the "threat of force" might overstate a little bit what actually is the threat of legal action. We cannot have some people deciding to obey this law but not that one; this is a democratically elected republic, and our representatives at every level of gov't have been given the power to legislate laws and regulations to protect our individual rights. It ain't perfect, but I don't know of a better solution. And I'll say one thing more: Anarchy is sure as hell not a viable option.

To start with, the founders took up arms against a tyrannical gov't, THEN implemented a new one.
Secondly, this Country, due to laws, has become a comply or die society- and laws, most of them are to extract wealth from a producer of wealth, be they citations issued to citizens or fines imposed on corporations- either way, the non-producer extracted, under the color of law, wealth from a producer of wealth.
It's not an exaggeration to those who have died at the hands of uniformed and badged thugs with guns. It's a cold, hard fact.
Cops (used to mean Citizens On Patrol) and were called Peace Officers. They are now called Law enFORCEment officers- the SC has ruled, correctly IMO, their job is not to protect and serve- they are to enFORCE the law. Killing under the color of law is still killing- restricting is still restricting- no crime should be afforded unless another is harmed- selling bullshit laws to allegedly protect others from harm is just that- bullshit to punish the many, with wealth extraction, for the sins of the few who did commit a harm.
This Country is nowhere near what it was intended- it constituted a fed gov't with rules to "restrict" its authority over citizens, not empower a class separate from others to be regarded as gods, or special. There are so many laws on the books they can't be counted and it's estimated everyone breaks at least 3/day- that is tyrannical, which the founders took up arms against, THEN implemented a gov't to help prevent it happening here. BUT mandates have usurped the power granted, due in no small part, to the mandated education guidelines forced, through extortion, to be adhered to- and an education system favored by Industrialist who visited Nazi Germany and liked the disciplined, authoritarian style- that style is ensconced, ingrained, adhered to and followed into society and brought to bear with comply or die mentality of uniformed, badged thugs with guns and further demonstrated in our foreign policy- that, sir, is tyrannical. And that, sir is what the founders took up arms against, which Jefferson was talking about in the extraction of the letter I posted- to even argue it speaks to the collectivist, authoritarian belief ingrained since childhood- Liberty cannot abide there when the opposite is ingrained, and this Country's founding philosophy is about, Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness- not acquiescing to empty suited clowns whose claim to fame is the ill perceived authority an power over others who invoke tyranny and call it tranquility.

"To start with, the founders took up arms against a tyrannical gov't, THEN implemented a new one." That does not make them anarchists. Anarchists do not implement a new gov't.

"this Country, due to laws, has become a comply or die society" With respect, this is nonsense. Nobody dies in this country from non-compliance unless convicted of murder.

"most of them are to extract wealth from a producer of wealth" I posit to you that there are a large number of people who pay taxes or fines that are NOT producers of wealth. Everybody eats, no? So they go to the grocery and buy food, and in that process pay sales taxes whether they are a wealth producer or not. Further, I dispute the idea that most laws "are to extract wealth from a producer of wealth" - not true. The police issue citations or fines to those who break the law, non-producers have to pay just the same as producers do. Most laws are there to protect us and our rights rather than to extract wealth.

"It's not an exaggeration to those who have died at the hands of uniformed and badged thugs with guns." This is really out there. Thugs huh? Nice, people that protect you and your family and your property are all thugs? And everybody who breaks the law is shot on sight? BULLSHIT. Certainly there are some bad apples that shouldn't be in a police uniform, same as those in the military. But that shouldn't be used to paint all of them with the same crap.

Out of idle curiosity, what alternative system do you propose? Anarchy? No police at all?

There are multiple stories of the comply or die situations- and yes, when done under the color of law it's immoral- cops are not paid (or elected or appointed) to be judge, jury and executioner, though their actions don't illustrate that.
The SC says it's not LEO's job to protect me, or you. And I agree- they are their for after the fact- have you heard the saying "when seconds acount cops are only minutes away"? Their job is to investigate and determine a direction for prosecutors to take to gain a check in the "W" column for reelection purposes.
What law protects you? Name one and lets discuss it.

 

[whitehall]

Usually when you see somebody who gave up on political affiliation these days it's a (former) life long democrat who has learned to hate republicans but can't abide the current democrat clown car. The Founding Fathers gave us the opportunity to ban together and elect the candidate that best represents our values but unfortunately there are some people who think they can go it along without the Constitution.

 

[Gdjjr]

Usually when you see somebody who gave up on political affiliation these days it's a (former) life long democrat who has learned to hate republicans but can't abide the current democrat clown car. The Founding Fathers gave us the opportunity to ban together and elect the candidate that best represents our values but unfortunately there are some people who think they can go it along without the Constitution.

D and R dominate the political spectrum- no candidate, in my lifetime, has ever mentioned protecting civil liberty- Ron Paul tried and was drummed out- the Constitution was written as rules to prevent tyranny against citizens, and kinda the rest of the world by this Country- so, to your assertion about best representing our values, are we to assume we don't value liberty?

 

[task0778]

Americans are Individualists, alright. You've taken the idea to its ultimate extreme, though. We cannot form and sustain societies without taking into account what is best for the society as a whole, as well. As the society prospers, so does the individual within it.
Interesting stuff. Our founders weren't anarchists, which is almost where you've gotten to.

The problem you indicate is based on an inaccurate "interpretation" when you misinterpret what I said- re: nowhere did I say Americans are individualists- I said, quite plainly, the Individual effort is what counts, not a Party or a religion or a group.
No matter what the effort, without the Individual effort it will not succeed- Party, religion, or group- the story remembered, written about and praised or cussed, had songs written about will be about the Individual- the Party, religious belief and group label is just a supporting cast to the Individual.

I just received this in my email acct from the Future of Freedom Foundation, whose articles I read often-

All political theories assume, of course, that most individuals are very ignorant. Those who plead for liberty differ from the rest in that they include themselves among the ignorant as well as the wisest- F.A. Hayek from The Constitution of Liberty 1960-


What is best for a society is highly subjective- subjective, by definition, is a narrow road and not where Liberty resides, which is a broad spectrum- all laws and rules are meant to restrict liberty- the punishment phase often as not includes all of society for the actions of a few- how that is best for a society is beyond me. Maybe one of the erudite here can explain it.
Mostly Laws and rules are to extract, (through the threat of force), wealth to make the few feel god about what they've allegedly fixed that affects the many- that wealth extraction is by those who only consume wealth, meaning they produce none- they also bastardize words to be contrary to original meaning. They act with impunity because of the ignorance of the many whose education is determined by the few through federal mandates and wealth extortion for the states not abiding by the latest and greatest fix to fix what the other side did or didn't do- it's a shit show-no other way to put it.

What is best for this society is included in the altruistic efforts of the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution, as written, not interpreted,- interpreting is fractured through the lens of subjective human altruism- Liberty of the citizens was the endeavor- not empowerment through a fractured, subjective lens of the Individual making the claim, which the group has to adhere to or be turned out- a document can be altruistic- a human excercises altruism- if the document is adhered to it establishes an altruistic endeavor- it's when it's interpreted, intentionally or not, it becomes an endeavor in altrusim, which is fractured through the prism of the human desire-

Our founders were anarchist- they took up arms against a tyrannical gov't- they were the epitome of anarchist- in fact, Jefferson is noted as saying as much with his thought on refreshing the tree of liberty-

Extract from Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith

Paris Nov. 13. 1787.
the people can not be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong [. . .] will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure.

I believe I prefer Jefferson's thoughts to any of the empty suit clowns who have been since him.

First, let's talk about anarchy, what it is and isn't. Anarchy is the absence of gov't and the rule of law. Without an effective gov't, a state exists in which there is no societal organization and control; in other words, chaos. The founders were rebels, but that is NOT the same as being anarchists. Read what Jefferson had to say in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

That is not anarchy.

Do you have a response to my post, #4? You asked how restricting liberty could be in the best interests of society, do I need to expand on what I said?

As for this:

"Mostly Laws and rules are to extract, (through the threat of force), wealth"


I'd have to disagree. Some laws and rules (not that many) do extract wealth in order to pay for certain gov't functions at every level that are necessary for the health, safety, security, and well-being of every citizen. True, some gov't functions might be less necessary than others, but lumping them all together is wrong IMHO. And the "threat of force" might overstate a little bit what actually is the threat of legal action. We cannot have some people deciding to obey this law but not that one; this is a democratically elected republic, and our representatives at every level of gov't have been given the power to legislate laws and regulations to protect our individual rights. It ain't perfect, but I don't know of a better solution. And I'll say one thing more: Anarchy is sure as hell not a viable option.

To start with, the founders took up arms against a tyrannical gov't, THEN implemented a new one.
Secondly, this Country, due to laws, has become a comply or die society- and laws, most of them are to extract wealth from a producer of wealth, be they citations issued to citizens or fines imposed on corporations- either way, the non-producer extracted, under the color of law, wealth from a producer of wealth.
It's not an exaggeration to those who have died at the hands of uniformed and badged thugs with guns. It's a cold, hard fact.
Cops (used to mean Citizens On Patrol) and were called Peace Officers. They are now called Law enFORCEment officers- the SC has ruled, correctly IMO, their job is not to protect and serve- they are to enFORCE the law. Killing under the color of law is still killing- restricting is still restricting- no crime should be afforded unless another is harmed- selling bullshit laws to allegedly protect others from harm is just that- bullshit to punish the many, with wealth extraction, for the sins of the few who did commit a harm.
This Country is nowhere near what it was intended- it constituted a fed gov't with rules to "restrict" its authority over citizens, not empower a class separate from others to be regarded as gods, or special. There are so many laws on the books they can't be counted and it's estimated everyone breaks at least 3/day- that is tyrannical, which the founders took up arms against, THEN implemented a gov't to help prevent it happening here. BUT mandates have usurped the power granted, due in no small part, to the mandated education guidelines forced, through extortion, to be adhered to- and an education system favored by Industrialist who visited Nazi Germany and liked the disciplined, authoritarian style- that style is ensconced, ingrained, adhered to and followed into society and brought to bear with comply or die mentality of uniformed, badged thugs with guns and further demonstrated in our foreign policy- that, sir, is tyrannical. And that, sir is what the founders took up arms against, which Jefferson was talking about in the extraction of the letter I posted- to even argue it speaks to the collectivist, authoritarian belief ingrained since childhood- Liberty cannot abide there when the opposite is ingrained, and this Country's founding philosophy is about, Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness- not acquiescing to empty suited clowns whose claim to fame is the ill perceived authority an power over others who invoke tyranny and call it tranquility.

"To start with, the founders took up arms against a tyrannical gov't, THEN implemented a new one." That does not make them anarchists. Anarchists do not implement a new gov't.

"this Country, due to laws, has become a comply or die society" With respect, this is nonsense. Nobody dies in this country from non-compliance unless convicted of murder.

"most of them are to extract wealth from a producer of wealth" I posit to you that there are a large number of people who pay taxes or fines that are NOT producers of wealth. Everybody eats, no? So they go to the grocery and buy food, and in that process pay sales taxes whether they are a wealth producer or not. Further, I dispute the idea that most laws "are to extract wealth from a producer of wealth" - not true. The police issue citations or fines to those who break the law, non-producers have to pay just the same as producers do. Most laws are there to protect us and our rights rather than to extract wealth.

"It's not an exaggeration to those who have died at the hands of uniformed and badged thugs with guns." This is really out there. Thugs huh? Nice, people that protect you and your family and your property are all thugs? And everybody who breaks the law is shot on sight? BULLSHIT. Certainly there are some bad apples that shouldn't be in a police uniform, same as those in the military. But that shouldn't be used to paint all of them with the same crap.

Out of idle curiosity, what alternative system do you propose? Anarchy? No police at all?

There are multiple stories of the comply or die situations- and yes, when done under the color of law it's immoral- cops are not paid (or elected or appointed) to be judge, jury and executioner, though their actions don't illustrate that.
The SC says it's not LEO's job to protect me, or you. And I agree- they are their for after the fact- have you heard the saying "when seconds acount cops are only minutes away"? Their job is to investigate and determine a direction for prosecutors to take to gain a check in the "W" column for reelection purposes.
What law protects you? Name one and lets discuss it.

Murder. Rape. Assault. Robbery. There are laws against that, right? Am I not protected by those laws? What would be the result if no such law exists?

Let's take another one: speeding. The local law says you have to drive 30 mph on a given road, okay? What if there were no speeding laws? Am I not somewhat protected from some asshat that wants to fly down that road at 60 MPH, endangering me and everybody else?

Yeah, there are plenty of stories about comply or die. You got any stats for how many times somebody got killed for non-compliance vs not killed for non-compliance? Whose fault is it when the cop tells you to put your hands where he can see them and you don't do it? He's supposed to know you've only got a candy bar instead of a gun when you raise your hand and point at him? Are you trying to tell me that every police officer will shoot you every time he/she tells you to comply and you don't? Nonsense. And why the hell don't people comply when the officer tells them to put their hands up? He probably wants to go home to his wife and kids just like you do.

Tell me the case where the SCOTUS said it wasn't the LEO's job to protect us, I think that's crap.

And you didn't answer my question: what alternative system do you propose? You got a better way?

 

[Gdjjr]

The problem you indicate is based on an inaccurate "interpretation" when you misinterpret what I said- re: nowhere did I say Americans are individualists- I said, quite plainly, the Individual effort is what counts, not a Party or a religion or a group.
No matter what the effort, without the Individual effort it will not succeed- Party, religion, or group- the story remembered, written about and praised or cussed, had songs written about will be about the Individual- the Party, religious belief and group label is just a supporting cast to the Individual.

I just received this in my email acct from the Future of Freedom Foundation, whose articles I read often-

All political theories assume, of course, that most individuals are very ignorant. Those who plead for liberty differ from the rest in that they include themselves among the ignorant as well as the wisest- F.A. Hayek from The Constitution of Liberty 1960-


What is best for a society is highly subjective- subjective, by definition, is a narrow road and not where Liberty resides, which is a broad spectrum- all laws and rules are meant to restrict liberty- the punishment phase often as not includes all of society for the actions of a few- how that is best for a society is beyond me. Maybe one of the erudite here can explain it.
Mostly Laws and rules are to extract, (through the threat of force), wealth to make the few feel god about what they've allegedly fixed that affects the many- that wealth extraction is by those who only consume wealth, meaning they produce none- they also bastardize words to be contrary to original meaning. They act with impunity because of the ignorance of the many whose education is determined by the few through federal mandates and wealth extortion for the states not abiding by the latest and greatest fix to fix what the other side did or didn't do- it's a shit show-no other way to put it.

What is best for this society is included in the altruistic efforts of the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution, as written, not interpreted,- interpreting is fractured through the lens of subjective human altruism- Liberty of the citizens was the endeavor- not empowerment through a fractured, subjective lens of the Individual making the claim, which the group has to adhere to or be turned out- a document can be altruistic- a human excercises altruism- if the document is adhered to it establishes an altruistic endeavor- it's when it's interpreted, intentionally or not, it becomes an endeavor in altrusim, which is fractured through the prism of the human desire-

Our founders were anarchist- they took up arms against a tyrannical gov't- they were the epitome of anarchist- in fact, Jefferson is noted as saying as much with his thought on refreshing the tree of liberty-

Extract from Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith

Paris Nov. 13. 1787.
the people can not be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong [. . .] will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure.

I believe I prefer Jefferson's thoughts to any of the empty suit clowns who have been since him.

First, let's talk about anarchy, what it is and isn't. Anarchy is the absence of gov't and the rule of law. Without an effective gov't, a state exists in which there is no societal organization and control; in other words, chaos. The founders were rebels, but that is NOT the same as being anarchists. Read what Jefferson had to say in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

That is not anarchy.

Do you have a response to my post, #4? You asked how restricting liberty could be in the best interests of society, do I need to expand on what I said?

As for this:

"Mostly Laws and rules are to extract, (through the threat of force), wealth"


I'd have to disagree. Some laws and rules (not that many) do extract wealth in order to pay for certain gov't functions at every level that are necessary for the health, safety, security, and well-being of every citizen. True, some gov't functions might be less necessary than others, but lumping them all together is wrong IMHO. And the "threat of force" might overstate a little bit what actually is the threat of legal action. We cannot have some people deciding to obey this law but not that one; this is a democratically elected republic, and our representatives at every level of gov't have been given the power to legislate laws and regulations to protect our individual rights. It ain't perfect, but I don't know of a better solution. And I'll say one thing more: Anarchy is sure as hell not a viable option.

To start with, the founders took up arms against a tyrannical gov't, THEN implemented a new one.
Secondly, this Country, due to laws, has become a comply or die society- and laws, most of them are to extract wealth from a producer of wealth, be they citations issued to citizens or fines imposed on corporations- either way, the non-producer extracted, under the color of law, wealth from a producer of wealth.
It's not an exaggeration to those who have died at the hands of uniformed and badged thugs with guns. It's a cold, hard fact.
Cops (used to mean Citizens On Patrol) and were called Peace Officers. They are now called Law enFORCEment officers- the SC has ruled, correctly IMO, their job is not to protect and serve- they are to enFORCE the law. Killing under the color of law is still killing- restricting is still restricting- no crime should be afforded unless another is harmed- selling bullshit laws to allegedly protect others from harm is just that- bullshit to punish the many, with wealth extraction, for the sins of the few who did commit a harm.
This Country is nowhere near what it was intended- it constituted a fed gov't with rules to "restrict" its authority over citizens, not empower a class separate from others to be regarded as gods, or special. There are so many laws on the books they can't be counted and it's estimated everyone breaks at least 3/day- that is tyrannical, which the founders took up arms against, THEN implemented a gov't to help prevent it happening here. BUT mandates have usurped the power granted, due in no small part, to the mandated education guidelines forced, through extortion, to be adhered to- and an education system favored by Industrialist who visited Nazi Germany and liked the disciplined, authoritarian style- that style is ensconced, ingrained, adhered to and followed into society and brought to bear with comply or die mentality of uniformed, badged thugs with guns and further demonstrated in our foreign policy- that, sir, is tyrannical. And that, sir is what the founders took up arms against, which Jefferson was talking about in the extraction of the letter I posted- to even argue it speaks to the collectivist, authoritarian belief ingrained since childhood- Liberty cannot abide there when the opposite is ingrained, and this Country's founding philosophy is about, Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness- not acquiescing to empty suited clowns whose claim to fame is the ill perceived authority an power over others who invoke tyranny and call it tranquility.

"To start with, the founders took up arms against a tyrannical gov't, THEN implemented a new one." That does not make them anarchists. Anarchists do not implement a new gov't.

"this Country, due to laws, has become a comply or die society" With respect, this is nonsense. Nobody dies in this country from non-compliance unless convicted of murder.

"most of them are to extract wealth from a producer of wealth" I posit to you that there are a large number of people who pay taxes or fines that are NOT producers of wealth. Everybody eats, no? So they go to the grocery and buy food, and in that process pay sales taxes whether they are a wealth producer or not. Further, I dispute the idea that most laws "are to extract wealth from a producer of wealth" - not true. The police issue citations or fines to those who break the law, non-producers have to pay just the same as producers do. Most laws are there to protect us and our rights rather than to extract wealth.

"It's not an exaggeration to those who have died at the hands of uniformed and badged thugs with guns." This is really out there. Thugs huh? Nice, people that protect you and your family and your property are all thugs? And everybody who breaks the law is shot on sight? BULLSHIT. Certainly there are some bad apples that shouldn't be in a police uniform, same as those in the military. But that shouldn't be used to paint all of them with the same crap.

Out of idle curiosity, what alternative system do you propose? Anarchy? No police at all?

There are multiple stories of the comply or die situations- and yes, when done under the color of law it's immoral- cops are not paid (or elected or appointed) to be judge, jury and executioner, though their actions don't illustrate that.
The SC says it's not LEO's job to protect me, or you. And I agree- they are their for after the fact- have you heard the saying "when seconds acount cops are only minutes away"? Their job is to investigate and determine a direction for prosecutors to take to gain a check in the "W" column for reelection purposes.
What law protects you? Name one and lets discuss it.

Murder. Rape. Assault. Robbery. There are laws against that, right? Am I not protected by those laws? What would be the result if no such law exists?

Let's take another one: speeding. The local law says you have to drive 30 mph on a given road, okay? What if there were no speeding laws? Am I not somewhat protected from some asshat that wants to fly down that road at 60 MPH, endangering me and everybody else?

Yeah, there are plenty of stories about comply or die. You got any stats for how many times somebody got killed for non-compliance vs not killed for non-compliance? Whose fault is it when the cop tells you to put your hands where he can see them and you don't do it? He's supposed to know you've only got a candy bar instead of a gun when you raise your hand and point at him? Are you trying to tell me that every police officer will shoot you every time he/she tells you to comply and you don't? Nonsense. And why the hell don't people comply when the officer tells them to put their hands up? He probably wants to go home to his wife and kids just like you do.

Tell me the case where the SCOTUS said it wasn't the LEO's job to protect us, I think that's crap.

And you didn't answer my question: what alternative system do you propose? You got a better way?

I apologize for not getting back sooner. I forgot about this thread.

To your summary about laws: If no one person or property of another is harmed what crime is committed?
There are laws against the ones you pointed out in the first words of your summary. However, those crimes are still being committed. So, the laws against it didn't accomplish what was promised- prevention.
Laws are meant for punishment. Period. And they do, most of which are what if, or might, or could- they punish people who haven't caused harm to another person or property making criminals out of nearly everyone. The ones you cited in your first words do cause harm and should be punished. Speeding? Why? Running a Stop Sign, why? Running a Red Light, why? Driving without state approval, why? If any of those actions cause harm then the law must punish the law breaker who caused a harm.
Cops know what they're signing up for and the likelihood of them not coming home to their family is part of the job when you carry a gun with an authority to be a bully- the key to ensuring you get home is to work from home.

If you really want to know what SCOTUS said I'll tell you the same things I told my kids- look it up. You're more likely to remember it that way.

The "alternative system" would mean taking the FORCE out of being a Peace Officer- be a Peace Officer not a law enFORCEment officer- investigate and solve real criminal activity, not what if activity. Disallow the use of "I feared for my life" as a precursor to showing one's authority to kill people under the color of law. Stop the incessant anti-whatever campaigns designed to restrict liberty.
Mostly it requires Individual effort to perpetuate liberty and truth- and the truth is; Laws are meant to punish- not to restrict liberty.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Ah, yes. Coercion of man through the anti-moral precept of doing so-called good by force. There's a foolish illusion in modern society that the end can be separated from the means. It can't be separated, of course. Not when judged morally. It certainly goes against the very nature of man.

 

[task0778]

First, let's talk about anarchy, what it is and isn't. Anarchy is the absence of gov't and the rule of law. Without an effective gov't, a state exists in which there is no societal organization and control; in other words, chaos. The founders were rebels, but that is NOT the same as being anarchists. Read what Jefferson had to say in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

That is not anarchy.

Do you have a response to my post, #4? You asked how restricting liberty could be in the best interests of society, do I need to expand on what I said?

As for this:

"Mostly Laws and rules are to extract, (through the threat of force), wealth"


I'd have to disagree. Some laws and rules (not that many) do extract wealth in order to pay for certain gov't functions at every level that are necessary for the health, safety, security, and well-being of every citizen. True, some gov't functions might be less necessary than others, but lumping them all together is wrong IMHO. And the "threat of force" might overstate a little bit what actually is the threat of legal action. We cannot have some people deciding to obey this law but not that one; this is a democratically elected republic, and our representatives at every level of gov't have been given the power to legislate laws and regulations to protect our individual rights. It ain't perfect, but I don't know of a better solution. And I'll say one thing more: Anarchy is sure as hell not a viable option.

To start with, the founders took up arms against a tyrannical gov't, THEN implemented a new one.
Secondly, this Country, due to laws, has become a comply or die society- and laws, most of them are to extract wealth from a producer of wealth, be they citations issued to citizens or fines imposed on corporations- either way, the non-producer extracted, under the color of law, wealth from a producer of wealth.
It's not an exaggeration to those who have died at the hands of uniformed and badged thugs with guns. It's a cold, hard fact.
Cops (used to mean Citizens On Patrol) and were called Peace Officers. They are now called Law enFORCEment officers- the SC has ruled, correctly IMO, their job is not to protect and serve- they are to enFORCE the law. Killing under the color of law is still killing- restricting is still restricting- no crime should be afforded unless another is harmed- selling bullshit laws to allegedly protect others from harm is just that- bullshit to punish the many, with wealth extraction, for the sins of the few who did commit a harm.
This Country is nowhere near what it was intended- it constituted a fed gov't with rules to "restrict" its authority over citizens, not empower a class separate from others to be regarded as gods, or special. There are so many laws on the books they can't be counted and it's estimated everyone breaks at least 3/day- that is tyrannical, which the founders took up arms against, THEN implemented a gov't to help prevent it happening here. BUT mandates have usurped the power granted, due in no small part, to the mandated education guidelines forced, through extortion, to be adhered to- and an education system favored by Industrialist who visited Nazi Germany and liked the disciplined, authoritarian style- that style is ensconced, ingrained, adhered to and followed into society and brought to bear with comply or die mentality of uniformed, badged thugs with guns and further demonstrated in our foreign policy- that, sir, is tyrannical. And that, sir is what the founders took up arms against, which Jefferson was talking about in the extraction of the letter I posted- to even argue it speaks to the collectivist, authoritarian belief ingrained since childhood- Liberty cannot abide there when the opposite is ingrained, and this Country's founding philosophy is about, Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness- not acquiescing to empty suited clowns whose claim to fame is the ill perceived authority an power over others who invoke tyranny and call it tranquility.

"To start with, the founders took up arms against a tyrannical gov't, THEN implemented a new one." That does not make them anarchists. Anarchists do not implement a new gov't.

"this Country, due to laws, has become a comply or die society" With respect, this is nonsense. Nobody dies in this country from non-compliance unless convicted of murder.

"most of them are to extract wealth from a producer of wealth" I posit to you that there are a large number of people who pay taxes or fines that are NOT producers of wealth. Everybody eats, no? So they go to the grocery and buy food, and in that process pay sales taxes whether they are a wealth producer or not. Further, I dispute the idea that most laws "are to extract wealth from a producer of wealth" - not true. The police issue citations or fines to those who break the law, non-producers have to pay just the same as producers do. Most laws are there to protect us and our rights rather than to extract wealth.

"It's not an exaggeration to those who have died at the hands of uniformed and badged thugs with guns." This is really out there. Thugs huh? Nice, people that protect you and your family and your property are all thugs? And everybody who breaks the law is shot on sight? BULLSHIT. Certainly there are some bad apples that shouldn't be in a police uniform, same as those in the military. But that shouldn't be used to paint all of them with the same crap.

Out of idle curiosity, what alternative system do you propose? Anarchy? No police at all?

There are multiple stories of the comply or die situations- and yes, when done under the color of law it's immoral- cops are not paid (or elected or appointed) to be judge, jury and executioner, though their actions don't illustrate that.
The SC says it's not LEO's job to protect me, or you. And I agree- they are their for after the fact- have you heard the saying "when seconds acount cops are only minutes away"? Their job is to investigate and determine a direction for prosecutors to take to gain a check in the "W" column for reelection purposes.
What law protects you? Name one and lets discuss it.

Murder. Rape. Assault. Robbery. There are laws against that, right? Am I not protected by those laws? What would be the result if no such law exists?

Let's take another one: speeding. The local law says you have to drive 30 mph on a given road, okay? What if there were no speeding laws? Am I not somewhat protected from some asshat that wants to fly down that road at 60 MPH, endangering me and everybody else?

Yeah, there are plenty of stories about comply or die. You got any stats for how many times somebody got killed for non-compliance vs not killed for non-compliance? Whose fault is it when the cop tells you to put your hands where he can see them and you don't do it? He's supposed to know you've only got a candy bar instead of a gun when you raise your hand and point at him? Are you trying to tell me that every police officer will shoot you every time he/she tells you to comply and you don't? Nonsense. And why the hell don't people comply when the officer tells them to put their hands up? He probably wants to go home to his wife and kids just like you do.

Tell me the case where the SCOTUS said it wasn't the LEO's job to protect us, I think that's crap.

And you didn't answer my question: what alternative system do you propose? You got a better way?

I apologize for not getting back sooner. I forgot about this thread.

To your summary about laws: If no one person or property of another is harmed what crime is committed?
There are laws against the ones you pointed out in the first words of your summary. However, those crimes are still being committed. So, the laws against it didn't accomplish what was promised- prevention.
Laws are meant for punishment. Period. And they do, most of which are what if, or might, or could- they punish people who haven't caused harm to another person or property making criminals out of nearly everyone. The ones you cited in your first words do cause harm and should be punished. Speeding? Why? Running a Stop Sign, why? Running a Red Light, why? Driving without state approval, why? If any of those actions cause harm then the law must punish the law breaker who caused a harm.
Cops know what they're signing up for and the likelihood of them not coming home to their family is part of the job when you carry a gun with an authority to be a bully- the key to ensuring you get home is to work from home.

If you really want to know what SCOTUS said I'll tell you the same things I told my kids- look it up. You're more likely to remember it that way.

The "alternative system" would mean taking the FORCE out of being a Peace Officer- be a Peace Officer not a law enFORCEment officer- investigate and solve real criminal activity, not what if activity. Disallow the use of "I feared for my life" as a precursor to showing one's authority to kill people under the color of law. Stop the incessant anti-whatever campaigns designed to restrict liberty.
Mostly it requires Individual effort to perpetuate liberty and truth- and the truth is; Laws are meant to punish- not to restrict liberty.

Okay, let's work through your reply. Your words in italics, mine aren't.

To your summary about laws: If no one person or property of another is harmed what crime is committed?

Sometimes laws are written to preclude harm to a person or property; I mentioned speeding, right? A cop pulls you over for speeding and gives you a citation. Nobody was harmed, but you were endangering others and so speeding laws are there as an attempt to prevent harm. Now - let's be honest, I admit there are so-called speed traps out there that could also be revenue generators. BUT - the producers of wealth are not singled out, whether it's a speed trap or not.

There are laws against the ones you pointed out in the first words of your summary. However, those crimes are still being committed. So, the laws against it didn't accomplish what was promised- prevention.

Who promised that the laws against murder, rape, assault, etc., would prevent any of these crimes from happening?

This is a pretty specious argument IMHO. There's no way to create laws that prevent murders, rapes, etc. But what you can at least try to do is deter unlawful conduct with stiff penalties, up to life imprisonment or even death. And I would posit that in many cases it is not the law itself that failed to prevent crimes, but law enforcement or the judicial system. Our current system is founded on the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty', with a significant emphasis on proof and the rights of the defendant, to the point where too often the guilty go free.


Laws are meant for punishment.

As stated above, punishment is basically about deterrence. You can't stop somebody from killing or raping somebody else, but you make the penalty so severe that they give it a second thought. Who knows how many crimes like these were NOT committed due to the punishment that could be imposed? Punishment is also about prevention in terms of preventing a murderer or rapist from committing another crime(s).


Cops know what they're signing up for and the likelihood of them not coming home to their family is part of the job when you carry a gun with an authority to be a bully

First, the last part of your sentence, which is total crap. No cop anywhere in this country is authorized to bully anybody. Not saying it doesn't happen, we have bad cops just like bad people exist in every other line of work. Now - a cop has the right to defend himself if he/she thinks they are in imminent danger. It's pretty stupid to ask them to wait until the civilian actually has a gun before you fire; would you do that? Knowing how people like you hate the police in some quarters? Not many people would join the police force if the laws say they have to wait until being fired at before they can defend themselves. Your lack of compassion for the police force is noted.


The "alternative system" would mean taking the FORCE out of being a Peace Officer- be a Peace Officer not a law enFORCEment officer- investigate and solve real criminal activity, not what if activity. Disallow the use of "I feared for my life" as a precursor to showing one's authority to kill people under the color of law. Stop the incessant anti-whatever campaigns designed to restrict liberty.

So, who the hell is going to enforce the law? Who's going to stop a terrorist or deranged nutbag from killing as many people as he's got bullets? If I gotta wait to be shot at before I can shoot back, then I sure as hell ain't going to be a cop. You really think any civilized society can do without law enforcement people that stops the bad guys?

There are some places in Europe where the cops just won't go, too dangerous even for them. You want that here? Probably got that already in Chicago and other places. Do you think that is a good thing, no cops ever coming into your neighborhood? Until later when they show up to investigate and figure out who did it?


Stop the incessant anti-whatever campaigns designed to restrict liberty.

Liberty in this country applies to everybody, even the bad guys have the same rights to liberty that you and I do. Which means liberty HAS to be restricted, otherwise some people are going to have their rights abused or taken by others.