One more question for the forum anarchists.
there is a small group within your stateless,lawless society that wants to form a state within the stateless society. Are they free to do so without cohesion?
NW VIEW wrote: I was thinking about the thousands of posts upon these forums. There have been hundreds of people who have jumped in and then out, for many reasons. Someone will come along, thinking outside the box, and may be viewed as a nut job. Some are stuck in differing ruts and will never escape. So, what is the value of posting over these years? Well, there is a great value. It helps the individual focus upon what they really believe and why they believe. Some of the posters on DOTS are really difficult to understand and how they came to their positions on several topics. It takes time to sort out all the information given by many active posters. One may think "wow, that person is from another planet". Did you ever try to figure out "why" you are trying to educate the blind masses? What is it that you are actually passionate about? I had to ask myself the same questions. Mr. Fix and I have stated many times that we do not know of anyone who has been enlightened and changed their position. I pondered, "what would make me feel like I had actually accomplished something.?" I thought of starting a new forum like: "Things necessary to see the full restoration of the early Church". Yep, I decided that that was my passion. I see the robbery by the antichrist priestcraft and the damage they have done and the steeple houses are basically quiet. Well, if I started that forum, I may be the only one posting and it will take true tribulations to make a change. What is your real passion? Jim
I was thinking about the thousands of posts upon these forums. There have been hundreds of people who have jumped in and then out, for many reasons. Someone will come along, thinking outside the box, and may be viewed as a nut job. Some are stuck in differing ruts and will never escape. So, what is the value of posting over these years?
Well, there is a great value. It helps the individual focus upon what they really believe and why they believe. Some of the posters on DOTS are really difficult to understand and how they came to their positions on several topics. It takes time to sort out all the information given by many active posters. One may think "wow, that person is from another planet".
Did you ever try to figure out "why" you are trying to educate the blind masses? What is it that you are actually passionate about? I had to ask myself the same questions. Mr. Fix and I have stated many times that we do not know of anyone who has been enlightened and changed their position.
I pondered, "what would make me feel like I had actually accomplished something.?" I thought of starting a new forum like: "Things necessary to see the full restoration of the early Church". Yep, I decided that that was my passion. I see the robbery by the antichrist priestcraft and the damage they have done and the steeple houses are basically quiet. Well, if I started that forum, I may be the only one posting and it will take true tribulations to make a change.
What is your real passion? Jim
I answered the question a few posts back addressed to Ag1969 regarding some of the benefits of participating and the benefits of thinking through-these issues and the benefit of putting them into writing,.
i also noted that individuals who have not changed mind in light of well designed arguments do not follow through to the end, often take offense at counter arguments that they do not have the internal resources to argue/debate. Differences and hard questions is where the learning can happen.
If I remember correctly it was adiscussion on anarchy with Fix that made her leave and star her own blog surrounded by people who did not threaten her viewpoint. Obviously we have multiple DOTs. You tell me why individuals might freak out when their believe systems are challenged and why people wouldn't want to stand in their truth if they are indeed the holders of truth?
Obviously we have multiple DOTs. You tell me why individuals might freak out when their believe systems are challenged and why people wouldn't want to stand in their truth if they are indeed the holders of truth?"
As you know, there are a thousand answers to that and you know, I see pictures in my mind. So, I must give you the actual picture, wanting to be honest, and leave the interpretation to you:
We were on a holy land tour about 40+ years ago. We were having lunch in an Arab cafe. Their staff grabbed my wife and about five other women, dressed them in harem costumes and brought them out into the eating area. (You know GL, my wife was just stunning, like always).
An old man, on the tour, at the next table, looked at me and said: "Is that your wife?" I said yep. He said "You do not have what it takes to keep a woman like her".
Well, this is our 50 year anniversary and that old man, thinking he had all relationships figured out, had the inner insight to prepare me for the future. He thought he was a "holder of the truth". He missed the basic issue, he did not know the inner life of Linda but I did. Jim
Tonights topic is the research on authority and how you can get a person to electrocute the shit out of people simply because an authority figure tells them to do it. Fact stranger than fiction.
Tonights topic is the research on authority and how you can get a person to electrocute the shit out of people simply because an authority figure tells them to do it. Fact stranger than fiction.
One of the principles of advertising is that Endorsement can influence uptake up to 15 percent because people feel obligated to authority
Here's the Science:
Here's the Science:
Any you ever hear of f Stanley Milgram’s infamous 1974 study into authority (you know, the one where the person in the white coat asked the participant to electrocute people ). Here's the kicker--- THEY DID IT.
Another study looked into the effect of authority on sales, here’s how it happened:
A receptionist was asked to share the credentials of the person they were forwarding the call to, for example; “I’m putting you through to Mr. Smith, who has 12 years of experience.” This led to a 20 percent increase in appointments and, most importantly, a 15 percent increase in signed contracts.
Now back to electrocuting people because somebody with a white coat told you to do it.
The Milgram Experiment One of the most famous studies of obedience in psychology was carried out by Milgram (1963). Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University, conducted an experiment focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience. He examined justifications for acts of genocide offered by those accused at the World War II, Nuremberg War Criminal trials. Their defense often was based on "obedience" - that they were just following orders from their superiors. https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html
The Milgram Experiment
One of the most famous studies of obedience in psychology was carried out by Milgram (1963).
Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University, conducted an experiment focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience.
He examined justifications for acts of genocide offered by those accused at the World War II, Nuremberg War Criminal trials. Their defense often was based on "obedience" - that they were just following orders from their superiors.
And that is why "costumes" are so dangerous and transmit false information to all who view. Even the one who approached us with a clip board, speaks as one with knowledge and places us in an inferior position, even though he has no inner light or education, just a clip board. If I wear my white doctors coat, you might even let me give you a shot in the arm at the Safeway store. (I borrowed the coat from Dr. Jones).
Time for bed.
Either way you are either out West (home of the "Westies") or still in the city
Did you see anyone like this?
I have been paying attention to what you have written, and I am in the process of constructing a worthwhile response,
But due to time constraints, this will take a while, but I can at least Post some fragments of what I've got so far:
When in the course of human events it becomes necessary to take a stand against tyranny and the suppression of the human species, simply stating what has become so obvious to me without explaining the moral and philosophical underpinnings of an enslaved mindset, creates a scenario where those living in darkness, only feel motivated to hurl rocks at the only source of light, for all they really wish to do is maintain the familiar comfort of their darkness.
This will be an essay compiled in chapters, in an effort to debunk the notion that creating a society based on subservience to an authority figure is never virtuous, moral, or can ever lead to anything other than the destruction of a species who engages in it.
Since I know that I am challenging beliefs that have become so mainstreamed, and so unquestionable, that to many, it's like questioning the very air we breathe, because these beliefs are so pervasive and commonplace, that they are simply accepted as immutable truths which I proposed are nothing but malevolent lies handed down to us through the eons, initiated by a parasitical and completely self-serving priest class.
I will propose many questions in a rhetorical sense which the reader is invited to ask themselves, in an effort to expose some of the moral and philosophical inconsistencies within their own minds, in hopes that they may begin to entertain a new mindset that seriously questions lifelong beliefs, of unknown origins, although within the contents of this essay, I will offer some high-octane speculation as to how such malevolent and immoral ideological constructs could ever have been thrust upon a society, and have it actually take hold.
That would be a story of human history which you will not find in a history book. Since any reference material that would reflect my views has been carefully scrubbed from the historical record, and substituted with a carefully constructed fairy tale of dark occult origins to maintain this aberration in mainstream human thought, the need for such a narrative to fill this void becomes a necessity.
There is literally nothing new under the sun here, in fact many of the words that I write here have been offered as discussion points on multiple occasions before, and many have attempted to refute using writings of famous philosophers, Biblical quotes from an alleged divine and irrefutable source, and even statements offered up as commonsense based on a lifetime of propaganda.
Many people are aware of planetary injustices, and many great minds have proposed solutions which can never be implemented without unmasking the underlying cause of these injustices. The solutions we are always offered by authorities simply exacerbate the conditions.
This is a tale of good versus evil, and using history as a perspective, I am going to propose that many of those we have been taught are forces for good simply haven't been, as we have been fed a narrative to explain and excuse the very things that have corrupted our society.
Please remember, we have a history based on war,
And one of the spoils of victory, is you get to write the history books. The notion that the good guys always win is a fallacy, since in armed conflict, victory will virtually always be awarded to the most deviant and unscrupulous.
The compartmentalization of knowledge
Virtually every aspect of human society has been constructed in a hierarchical manner, whereby, the few at the top of this paradigm may be the only ones aware of the agenda and the true purpose of an organization. Knowledge isn't just withheld from lower levels, false narratives are often inserted so that the operatives will play their part with the purest of motives, but completely unaware of the overall plan designed to implement an agenda.
Secret societies that hold great knowledge are always highly compartmentalized and layered, and the highest levels of the structures are truly by invite only, and are often maintained by bloodlines, often for hundreds of generations. These organizations are always exposed to the public and the completely uninitiated as benevolent forces for good, while an agenda, often taking centuries to implement continues to unfold.
The agenda has always been human enslavement, but for obvious reasons, those who are used to actually implement this agenda are never told of this objective. They have been taught to simply follow the orders of those who rank higher in the hierarchy. Many of these people are our historical heroes, such as America's founding fathers, who played their part.
The founding of the United States,
And how it would have been done if human liberty was actually the objective.
Since human beings have always been trained to be subservient to the authorities, composing a letter of grievance to the king of England that we now know as the Declaration of Independence was in actuality no more than a declaration of war.
It was a bad idea, and it was never needed.
Our founding fathers, members of a highly compartmentalized secret Society known as the Freemasons, were the driving force behind the founding of America. Some of our historical events were staged by them, for example the "Boston Tea Party"…
Imagine if you will using a 1% tax on tea imports from England as the impetus to start a revolution.
Imagine if you will the members of a Masonic Lodge masquerading as Indians, boarding a ship in the harbor, and throwing its cargo into the water.
How many layers of deception do you think were involved in that one? Just another false flag. This was intended to get the colonists motivated for war.
What if they had simply not paid their taxes?
Seriously, if "taxation without representation” was truly the motivational underpinnings for war with England, why would you take actions that would guarantee an invading force of redcoats?
Why not start by educating the populace on principles such as taxes being nothing more than theft, the ridiculousness of following orders dictated by a man many thousands of miles away, the sovereignty of the individual, the inherent right of liberty, and the principles of defending it?
Instead of using redcoats for target practice, creating a war of the highest expense possible, why not undermine the legitimacy of the tax collector, and defend against the theft of these bastards with whatever means necessary?
How many tax collectors would the king have to send many thousand of miles away, only to be missing permanently, or sent home in a wooden box? From a cost benefit analysis, eventually, even the king would find such a scam unprofitable, and eventually find that the cost outweighed the benefit.
More importantly, raising the consciousness of the public to actually value and defend their freedom should have been a primary course of action, as opposed to just pissing off the king, and using his red coats for target practice.
By all accounts, George Washington acted honorably, and performed his role well, but as a lower level mason, he could not have been aware of an agenda being implemented from above.
I submit that human liberty, and free enterprise, have always been known as principles that would initiate the fastest creation and acquisition of wealth by the most people possible. By instituting even a "limited" Government, the framework for stealing all of this wealth that had yet to be accumulated was always the initial plan.
The decentralization of power and authority always creates the most prosperity. The ultimate expression of this is always individual sovereignty.
Centralization of authority in any form is always parasitical, always undermines prosperity, and is always parasitical and immoral.
If the founding fathers were truly interested in human liberty, after eradicating the tax collectors, they would have worked within the individual states to enhance human liberty wherever and whenever possible. Instead, they simply established a new central authority, bringing the power structure much closer to the source they wished to cultivate and farm,
Many of those who fought the original Revolutionary war would have been appalled at this turn of events. The people whom they freed simply voted in new slave masters, and a local means to consolidate wealth and power.
Until you can eradicate the notion that it is ever appropriate to have men ruling through use of force over other men, the notion of peaceful coexistence will always be unattainable.
I am attempting to learn how to instill such beliefs in others, since I realize that I have already made many mistakes, as many of my comments have done nothing but inflame, with the result of hardening the positions of others.
I am aware that many of my assertions have been grossly misinterpreted, since assumptions are made due to a lifetime of propaganda that are not reflected in philosophy, or history. Since most people think anarchy is synonymous with lawlessness, failing to comprehend that not only is this false, but by maintaining a ruling class, true lawlessness and immorality become a permanent aspect of the human condition.
My personal challenge, is similar to the challenges I face if I teach someone how to play the piano. I was born knowing how to play the piano, and only had to listen to the music, internalize it, and I can replicate it on the keyboard. I was born that way. I never had to go through the process of learning it.
Therefore, I never had to acquire the skill set required to pass such knowledge along to others.
Well, individual sovereignty, and the ridiculous notion that authority through the use of force is ever legitimate, is also something I was born with, is innate at the very core of my being, and all attempts to pound such societally aberrant notions out of me have consistently failed, and only reinforce them.
So I consistently share a belief system that sounds like lunacy to others, while what appears to be sheer lunacy to me is always directed back at me.
I wasn't born with the skills required to teach what I have never had to learn, it is a skill set that must be acquired.
That's what I've got so far, but it is a work in progress.
Have a nice day.
FIX NO worries about the tansition from monarchy to anarchy scenerio. The last two questions speak to Larson comments in the video you posted. He claims to have resolved the problem of dealing with the rogue elements of society which every anarchist I've ever read or discussed this with has claimed. Unlike the tansit ion scenario, I'LL ASSUME that this facet of a stateless society has been well vetted by all anarchists and should have an easy reply
You have Intel of a vast criminal syndicate in your stateless, mostly just and lawful society, how are you going to organize a response to handle it. (I won't point out the glaring logical fallacy in Larson video ) Maybe you have an answer that addresses it
Are groups free to organize a state within your stateless society without cohesion if they choose?
I'll assume for our purposes the DOTS anarchists have resolved the difficult transition process. Now ready to implement the functioning aspects of this society you all propose. PEOPLE are being raped, and coherence into silence Certainly a quick overview of the resolution isn't a time consuming task . The other anarchists are obviously looking to you to clarify the basic concepts of this functionin system. I can be convinced with a sound,lucid arguement free of logical fallacies
Our problems of a "transition from monarchy to anarchy scenario" are fully "trumped" by invasion and occupation:
The demonic has slipped in through the eastern door. The battle will not be for anarchy, and there will be millions of deaths before mankind discovers their folly. jmo Jim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or may be this one works:
The Jews were given a star of David, by Germany, to wear and they could not buy or sell "with it" and the mark of the beast system may use :
The star and crescent symbol was the emblem of theOttoman Empire in the 19th century, and gradually became associated with Islam in late 19th-century Orientalism.
and will require this mark for buying and selling in the future. jmo
This discussion of "natural law" seems ot have get itself bogged down. I propose that it bogged down because it (the philosophy of natural law) contains within itself no answer to the competing philosophy (the law implemented using force or power).
I have brought a single point to this conversation a few times and I'll do it once again.
There is nothing "natural" about a philosophy of "do no harm to others". Studying any nature documentary covering predator species puts that to rest in a fwe minutes.
Therefore "do no harm" is unnatural, and a philosophy. Natural Law is therefore a construct of "society". And it is therefore a belief set, and therefore it is a a sort of religion, and as a result "natural law" competes with other religions and social constructs of how life should be conducted. Observing this explains why "unbelievers" can not accept the concepts of natural law. Which by itself helps confirm that it is a religious thought system.
If that is the case - and I think it ias and I have demonstrated it is - then natural law is merely one of the points of attraction which "society" is sometimes attracted to, and sometimes repulsed from. As also is religion, of each type, statism, communism, fascism, capitalism, etc, etc as nauseum. Pacifism gets overcome by more organized "isms" first and it cascades up until the tyranny of one world control, abuse, and collapse. We rush towards one or more of these social constructs to embrace it, as at the same time we flee from another construct/system.
We pass by the sensible places in the middle without pause, without even seeing how good those moments really are.
Simple fact is: for renegade "elements" of society, powerful individuals, gangs, groups, dynasties, corporations - there must be a remedy when they impose intolerably upon everybody else. Thus the last attractive construct, which once attracted by its perceived promises of paradise, becomes corrupted by it's powerful insiders, and then begins to repel normal and newly oppressed people not of that particular corrupt class.
Some authority is necessary. Otherwise the renegades bring it all down. But the authority then gets infiltrated and taken over by the renegades, and becomes renegade itself.
This is not complicated.
This explains why humanity is always swinging between extremes.
It explains why nobody wants to choose a different way, that is not a loser, or far seeing under the current "regime". The loser is already disenfranchised, the far seeing knows it will come to everybody soon if the direction of "progress" is not altered. The normal "normies" want to keep it going because they have seen the insiders winning, and are beginning, (have time and money and effort) invested in weaseling their own way onto the system's veins of prosperity - never seeing that those above them will always raise the standard to stay above them no matter how hard they socially climb.
And the advantaged are the descendents of the corrupt class from the previous system, usually. In a revolutionary loss, the doberman-in-a-suit social class get swopped out and a fresh set of dobermans in other style clothes steps in to replace them straight away.
The human brain is a plastic (adaptable) instrument of intelligence. if you killed every sociopath in the world now, and every alpha next. one minute later the alpha betas would switch to alpha, then to sociopath, and after the short contest the kingpin would emerge, same mindset as the old one.
This does not address the desire to educate the dumb and enlighten them. It's an irrational desire because they too have plastic brains, and act as they always did in the past. Reverting to dumb is desirable, because immersion in the group comforts and group intellect reduces intelligence while at the same time creating a "dumber" group entity creature. And that group entity is immediately recruited to serve the kingpin of the time.
Society is A schoolyard gang dynamics, B religious herding of the betas, C society "socializes" those in it, which is to say it domesticates surplus alphas into meeker betas, and increases the gap between rich and poor. This socialization, or domestication process protects the upper castes from capable and successful climbers from the lower castes. The longer lived the "society" the bigger the gap between priestcraft/lawmaker/rulemaker/descendent of god at its top and the herded masses.
it's just a big tribe of baboons living together, fighting other tribes, fighting for internal dominance to select the next leader/tyrant/protector. For it does indeed need a strong leader/tyrant/protector against external superior forces.
Yes. Society is that dumb, that primitive, that old.
That is natural. Not "natural law".
We just have to get on inside it, and like those above us, wield whatever amount of power/force/knowledge we happen to have for ourself and our private family/associates. that includes opposing a leader-tyrant-corporation-clergy-judge-representative who favours others over ourselves because leaving one sub-society for another sub-society in another place has a cost, and the same dynamic will to a substantial extent also pertain there too.
So until the normies learn to band together for group strength, and use that group strength against outside threat AND ALSO USE IT ag aginst inner infiltration by renegades, there will be not change. For the masses. An individual may slip through, move away, gravitate towards the place when the big lessons were learned most recently, and so on.
But our normie mindset placed there carefully by society, parents, friends, schools, religion, etc, to domesticate us tries to prevent us from easily doing that. This we are torn inside by doubts, fears, inner conflicts. We feel "lost at sea", unsure of our usually clever self. We try to band together with others of similar mindset to make a bigger group to self protect from outside. We try to attract others into our group to reduce outside threat and increase our herd strength/numbers. To feel safer.
And we come to DOTS and herd here ....
Excellent if you think out of the box
If nothing else at least listen in at the 30 min. mark.
Quinn Michaels and I join forces in Las Vegas to discuss AI and investigate the connections between cryptocurrency, Artificial Intelligence and the events of October 1, 2017
argentus maximus wrote: This discussion of "natural law" seems ot have get itself bogged down. I propose that it bogged down because it (the philosophy of natural law) contains within itself no answer to the competing philosophy (the law implemented using force or power). I have brought a single point to this conversation a few times and I'll do it once again.
AM I read your input to these conversations. I agree with your assertion about the source of authority, but your assertion that natural law is a human construct, I had already addressed. You didn’t sell me and apparently I didnt' sell you. So let me also give it a second attempt.
For one, you are inaccurately stating the basic precept of natural law. And that might be Mark Passio’s or Larson’s fault.
First, do no harm is not a precept of natural law. Do not apply force of any sort is also not a principle of natural law. The phrase is too general to give us any guidance on appropriate behavior. St. Thomas Aquinas and John Locke do include self preservation as the first principle of natural law. Self preservation of a society, tribe, family or individual requires force. Many throughout history have struggled to lay down these principles into words Greek, Chinese, Blackstone (English), Cicero, Hobbes, Locke, the Founders and most recently Richard Maybury in some codified form with historic precedence.
The underlying precept of natural law is the Golden Rule. However, the Golden Rule also leaves us in a lurch. It’s immaterial how you “want” others to treat you. Certain masochistic tendencies would be included or not? The spirit is there but not the true essence. More specificity is required. This is why Maybury insists that when others teach his two laws or quote them that, NO WORDS, may be added or removed. The two laws must be stated exactly as he wrote them and has he discovered them as the common thread between religions/spiritual teachings.
• Do all you have agreed to do
That summarizes ALL common law derived from higher law. Do all you have agreed to do is the entire basis of torte, contract law. No exceptions. Do not encroach on other persons or their property is the entire basis of criminal law. No exceptions. Everything else is political law that is simply the desire of the state for it’s own benefit.
This is only the underlying precept, but not the active principles. We have build in instincts. One to preserve ourselves, to multiply and continue the species or lineage for generations, many people have a build instinct to seek the truth especially as it relates to a higher power.
Preservation, a primary principle of natural law is not in conflict with the precept of Natural Law as Maybury has expressed them and other civilizations have practiced it albeit often for a short time period. It is held to be self evident in the Declaration of Independence.
Self preservation is build in as it is with all species as you’ve noted. Nobody has to prove it. Self-Evident. Most people, know to not commit murder. Most people do not need others to provide a rationale to “why can’t I commit murder?” Those who do run and hide is because they know they have violated a basic principle of higher law. The few that might not are not of sound mind. They call that a plea of insanity.
Aquinas and many others state that these basic impulses, preservation all wrote about the same and no encroachment and keeping your end of the bargain are build it. Instilled it in our minds or souls. It is within us.
Aristotle says , "that which all men, by a natural intuition, feel to be common right and wrong, even if they have no com- mon association and no covenant with one another."
Cicero said “ Human laws are only copies of eternal laws. Those eternal laws are peculiar to man, for only man, on earth, is a rational being. The test of validity for the state's laws is their conformity to reason.... Learned men know that "Law is the highest reason, implanted in Nature, which commands what ought to be done and forbids the opposite. This reason, when firmly fixed and fully developed in the human mind, is Law. And so they believe that Law is intelligence, whose natural function it is to command right conduct and forbid wrongdoing.
We can go on and on where back to ancient China, Byzantine and Roman empire to references to natural law/higher law as the operating principles in which man’s laws should reflect.
Larson perverts the doctrine of natural law, by forwarding the precept, and ignoring the principles. And he changes definition to suit his argument.
He redefines anarchism to forward his own version. He even contradicts himself in that video that stating that there are people who are unwilling to voluntarily assist with maters of crime and then well everyone would be willing to sacrifice their time to voluntarily prevent criminals without any mention of workable system. That’s because the moment he devises a system he is going to be designing a state. It serves the anarchist to throw out vague details, and spend more time in pointing out the problems of government than proving their own case because they moment they do, they find themselves scratching their heads. Fix can’t answer the question of transition, because at some point he is going to have to acknowledge force.
He’ll find it hard to answer the question of how to devise a system on how to fight organized crime, because the moment he does, he is going to find out that he is devising an organized state. He’s going to have to devise a police force. People highly trained to gather evidence, use inductive and deductive thinking to go after criminals. Many crimes are not solvable at the scene of the event. Many murders take place that take months to solve. DNA, license plates (not available), camera's (not available) and much more.
The human condition will always contain violence and crime and to have volunteers from the community do it is a fairy tale. There might be necessary force to collect evidence, force to find the perpetrators, force to hold them, and a system to arbiter justice. If it’s all volunteer, than a poor victim or poor victims family could accrue expenses greater than healthcare. Much greater. Then I’m going to all the anarchists and asking them to donate? are they going to do it? NO.!!! Larson is naive at best!!!
The concept of a State or nation simply refers to the particular organization of individuals as a group with regards to their political rights and duties. That’s it!!! The actual form and means by which it comes about is frankly irrelevant to the question of whether a particular group is or is not a State.
Just as natural laws for individuals have been discovered by philosophers, so too have natural laws for groups. This is sometimes referred to as the “Law of Nations,” which has been codified in our Western legal tradition and is even expressly referenced in the U.S. Constitution. In his book The Law of Nations Emmerich de Vattel https://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm defines a nation or State as follows:
“A nation or a state is, as has been said at the beginning of this work, a body politic, or a society of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by their combined strength. From the very design that induces a number of men to form a society which has its common interests, and which is to act in concert, it is necessary that there should be established a Public Authority, to order and direct what is to be done by each in relation to the end of the association. This political authority is the Sovereignty; and he or they who are invested with it are the Sovereign.
So both the precepts of natural law and preservation are reflected in the natural order. I tried to demonstrate that by introducing the I Ching, the Grid in Washington DC. Obviously no sell and too esoteric to make it useable for people.
The natural order of things is to construct a bottom-up voluntary society, rather than a top-down involuntary one. Individuals come together to form families. Families form tribes. Tribes form cities. Cities form nations. Nations in turn form international alliances. That is the natural order of things and is perfectly consistent. The power disparities and levels of dependence in a family or tribe are far greater than those of a nation. It’s just that, the higher up the pyramid you go, the more people it applies to, and thus fewer powers must be delegated to it because there is less commonality and agreement among those subjected to it.
I’ve read that in the Pre-civilization era before tribes formed was an example of anarchy. LIFE SUCKED. AS it would today if such a thing was attempted.
So now one of the anarchists can yell, so you’re in favor of constructing a society with people ruling over others? Green Lantern are you mad? Yes, then no.
As long as it done voluntarily. If people consent, no injury has been perpetrated. Those who do not consent or willing to negotiate to the terms of a group, become the outlaws especially if their principles create more harm than an organized society.
But here we are conflating two issues. The organization of a society and the principles which a society operates i.e. natural law.
So again, not encroaching on people’s property rights is not mutual exclusive from self preservation. What Maybury has done, and I have seen nobody else do it is design an index of countries who have prospered economically and have enjoyed long runs of liberty. So if natural law doesn't’t exist that we have an unexplainable phenomena. how to explain that the countries that do best economically and politically are the ones that follow the precepts of natural law? It’s going to be hard to find an alternative theory. Second, he has an ongoing challenge to date that nobody has met, to put together an index of stocks, that out performs all the major indices based solely on his model of repercussions of violations of natural law. To date nobody has met the challenge.
At first, it was through largely voluntary means that social compacts were formed as a protection against other groups who came together to initiate force on them, seeking to impose their will through involuntary means because they coveted scarce resources. The relation between scarcity and freedom is the history of politics, The alternative to forming states for collective defense was being conquered by a more powerful self-organized collective.
Short of global anarchy, which we’ve already shown to be impossible, the only other way to give anarchists what they want would be to have statism exist in parallel to anarchy. Whether it’s majority anarchists or majority statists is irrelevant as the result would ultimately be the same. Statists would carve out territory for their nations while the anarchists would carve out territory for Anticapistan.
However, this is a contradiction. A “stateless state,” would not believe in public borders, or delegation of sovereignty to a collective, only private ones and individual self-ownership, respectively. For this situation to work, a public dividing line between the two groups must exist.
In demarcating the two territories, a unifying social organization to enforce the statelessness of that society so that the ideologies of both groups are forced to remain isolated would have to be present, which is yet another contradiction for anarchists, though it remains perfectly consistent with the statist worldview. It even remains consistent with other non-anarchic forms of libertarianism, since monarchy and nationalism are not mutually exclusive concepts.
I have spent a lot of time here trying to illustrate various philosophies that demonstrate the natural order. Lion eats the zebra. Fox eats the squirrel and often it’s quite a violent site. Law of survival. You cannot ask a Lion not to eat a zebra because it’s survival is it’s first .
Anarchists are unhappy with the way a statist society operates; they feel various behaviors are logically or morally inconsistent and violate their consent, and wish to remove themselves from such a society only to find that the self-interests of the system do not want them to leave.
They have the right to leave and go off to do their own thing . However, if we extend the principle that everyone is free to do what they want, we inevitably find that some people actually want to be statists. As long as everyone within that group only imposes their rules on themselves and each other, while leaving everyone else alone, that is perfectly consistent with the non-aggression principle and property rights, yet winds up creating a State within a stateless society.
Consent makes the law. To one consenting, no injury is done.” That’s the whole point, right? You want out because you don’t consent, but others still want to remain in. Everyone’s just looking for their own little political niche.
Freedom of association means giving people the right to enslave themselves if they really want. You have no more right to force them to accept a stateless society than they have to force you to accept a statist one.
It would be impossible for them to co-exist. It would be a logical contradiction.
A “stateless state,” would not believe in public borders, or delegation of sovereignty to a collective, only private ones and individual self-ownership, respectively. For this situation to work, a public dividing line between the two groups must exist.
If they kill off all the authoritarians, they'd be using the force which they say can't be used.
In creating two territories, they'd have to create a unifying social organization to enforce the statelessness of that society so that the ideologies of both groups are forced to remain isolated would have to be present, which is yet another contradiction for anarchists, though it remains perfectly consistent with the statist worldview.
Eventually, in a conversation with anarchists they walk into these traps unknowingly. Much safer to be on the outside watching. Anybody who has done the arithmetic finds all these unresolvable paradox's. It's easy to be reactive against what we have now, much more difficult to create a thriving civilization based on devising a system that doesn't exist in nature. But you saw that too.
Since I sense that I'm wearing you down a little bit, I'll answer your question pertaining to how to handle a criminal syndicate.
First off, understand, the ability of a criminal syndicate to grow to a massive size in a voluntary society would be remarkably limited,
Because they wouldn't be able to steal and pillage unfettered, without somebody noticing, and defending themselves.
Also, there is literally no distinction between a group of armed thugs, regardless of whether they are in uniform, or not.
In a society governed by a state, this state literally owns the gangs of armed thugs, who obediently follow the orders of their masters, and since most people perceive them as legitimate, they can pillage and plunder with impunity.
In your scenario, nobody would recognize these people as legitimate, and I do believe human beings have the ability to self organize for such a worthwhile cause.
The best, and most recent example I can think of, is when the Bureau of Land Management, (a perfect example of your gang of thugs), decided that it could just steal Cliven Bundy's cattle, Drive him out of business, and then steal his land like they had already done to many others, Cliven stood his ground,
And literally hundreds of armed citizens came to his assistance. The gang of the thugs had to retreat. I'm using this to demonstrate a principle of people organizing for self-defense, I know that Bundy and his family now reside in a cage, since they were kidnapped in Oregon. I am specifically talking about the Southern Nevada incident, and there are still dozens of YouTube videos showing the gang of thugs in retreat after facing an armed populace defending themselves.
It takes constant vigilance to maintain liberty, and in the face of roaming armed thugs, most people would simply organize enough to be able to take shifts.
As far as your question concerning
If it would be okay if a smaller group of people formed a small government within a larger stateless community if they chose to,
"If they chose to” makes it voluntary, and there is no problem with that.
"If they chose to” by my definition, also disqualifies calling it a government.
If however, a small government grows outside of its boundaries, and decides to implement its "democracy" amongst those who choose to be free, freedom must be defended with vigor. Remember, individual liberty is the first and primary principle.
I read some of your answer to AM, whom I will address later, but basically, "Do no harm, and take no shit” would be the simplest form of natural law.
Mark Passio posted this in his natural law presentation,
And although it's far from all-inclusive, it does cover the basics:
For anyone who lives in a country that worships and pays tribute to their Royal figureheads, I'm going to need a lot more practice.
You are quite correct in that the "anarchist community" has hammered out all of the specifics regarding how it will work,
and although you can always find fault with certain aspects of it, it is still infinitely preferable to State-ism.
Roughly, for every problem you might find with anarchism, State-ism magnifies that problem a thousand fold.
By the way,
Larson’s name is Larkin, in case you ever wanted to look him up sometime.
In this 15 minute video, questions of philosophy and morality are specifically addressed…
In this hour-long segment of one of Mark Passio’s Radio shows, he interviews Larkin Rose, where Larken discusses the process in his own life of how he went from a conservative libertarian, to a full blown anarchist, and literally walks step-by-step through his own thought process.
Mark also reconciles a lot of the differences in their vocabulary. The principles are the same, these two guys just describe them a bit differently.
You see, I was born that way, but some people have to take the time to learn such things.
I'm talking about what appears connected to a national syndicate, possibly international sex ring, with professional spies from intelligence agencies, and all you have to offer me as a fucking neighborhood patrol? And what you are going to do, fax the information, to your partners in Hollywood and have them go in with guns to make an arrest of Mr. Weinstein your joking? You are either deflecting or don't have details to how a complete process of justice would take place.
The average person wakes up, coffee, muffin, kisses the kids off to school, and then goes sits in a cublcle for 8 to 10, maybe 12 hours, or is in the field doing labor, and they are going to come home and be Mr. Cop? That's a pile of rubbish. Not me. Hell no. I'm moving out of dodge. Quickly!!! You anarchists can have my land.
A crime that happened in New York City that had an international following. Ecuador man coming home from church, with his brother (who he had his arm around), not uncommon in Latin American countries is mistaken as gay. Two black guys get out of the car, smash him in the head with a battle and beat him to death with a baseball bat while yelling anti-gay and anti-Hispanic slurs.
You're going to offer his wife and two kids what? You and the four other anarchists here going to leave your family and solve the fucking crime, collect evidence and catch them. VOLUNTARILY!!!????. Please Fix. You're free to believe what you want but not insult people's intellegence. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/nyregion/14ecuadorean.html And his wife is the sweetest woman in the world who I happen to know through my wife. Wait till she gets a load of this one.
And notice what you did in the post, you took the time instead of defending and supporting your system of no government (which you admit to have not worked out. Either has anybody else who supports it) , and went back to pointing out the problem with a security state with no code, not even limited government. Then you answered my question just repeating Larkens' unscientific assertion that people will help and that people who don't have some dysfunction. To borrow a phrase from you "BULLSHIT"
This also assumes anybody will be present to help when a crime is committed. Doubtful. Have you checked the research? I have. If you want to see how people will react in the face of unethical behavior, just go back to the beginning of DOTS and take a survey and look for patterns. BTW, it's called the Duty to Rescue.
I went to Larken's website and watched a couple of video's. Filled with logical fallacies, vague generalizations. I'm asking you directly to provide specifics and your replies are equally vague, and deflective. That could be tiring but's easy enough for me to keep repeating the same questions. You saw the video I posted on the Socratic questioning when Bernie Sanders keeps deflecting until eventually he gets pissed. Let's avoid that.
A neighborhood patrol. Whose going to work on all the unsolved crimes? The kids when they are off from school? Or maybe it will be assigned homework by their third grade teacher?
Have you seen this guy?
Sigh. I just had a reply vanish when I hit "send".
I'll do another tomorrow.
We all have our favorite philosophers and we can watch their videos forever. When do they ever agree?
During WW1 and WW2, millions lost their lives and all the philosophers were useless. Survival and finding people who cared enough for you, to save your life, from the firing squad or starvation, was the order of every day. When we saw the event of Pearl Harbor or 9-11 in New York, each had about 3000 deaths, and the world was changed forever. When we see the coming events, where a few hundred million have died, the videos will be silent, the philosopher's will be in exile (if alive), and we will look for a clan to join, who will love us and feed us, even for a day.
If a mountain man has invited me into his camp, fed me, let me sit by his fire, I do not care if he has a title of General or governor. It is the actions, in those coming days, which will speak the loudest and not the form of government, out in the backwoods. jmo
argentus maximus wrote: Sigh. I just had a reply vanish when I hit "send". I'll do another tomorrow.
No problem. Sucks when that happens. However, I'd like to address one more comment that you consistently make. The swings of society. All true.
What I find interesting is that you teach traders about this hidden force in markets but when it appears elsewhere, it's a construct. I'm pretty sure I've seen that criticism aimed at your work. you paint the lines where you want to paint them instead of the cycles at work. They are accusing you of creating a construct that doesn't' exist.
I do recall when you started your forum, people struggled to get their head around some hidden force in the market that had nothing to do with manipulation, COMEx etc, etc, etc, etc.
After awhile you drew some vertical lines on the chart, and show them, market turn, time period, market turn. After awhile people see you can nail price inflection points well ahead of the price turn. MAGIC!!
They see the samething with GV Inflection points.
All of a sudden that which people refuted because they couldn't see it becomes visible. And they have an epiphany. There must be a hidden force in the market and they call it cycles. But it's more than cycles. Isn't it?
It shows up as equadistant events but what the hell is making the market do that? Has anybody asked the question?
Polarities of any sort still require a unifying force. The balancing force. So no matter how busy Jamie Dimon is in the back room, you are trying to show them this unifying force running through the markets. The neutral force that science has yet to discover. What is it that is so hard for people to see?
We talk alot about religion but very little mention of this force despite the fact that Christianity even has a name for it. Star Was, "The Force" Chinese "The TAo" Fix and the Greeks "The Aether" Christians a little bit more personal " The HOly Ghost" The Voice of God etc,, etc, etc,. Lots of names. Lots of descriptions. is it only in markets or is it in all things?
The Chinese have accounted for these extreme polarities a long time ago.
You acknowledge the peaks and troughs in price action. Even if some of them aren't part of the hidden force, they have a nature all to themselves.
They knew all about cycles. Cycles in the body. Cycles in nature and that all things go from one end of the spectrum to another in a cyclical fashion and that's how the unifying force has shown up. You have separated them. Alot of people here separate them. Good vs evil. Natural law vs evolution. Two extremes going up against each other. That's not how the Chinese and other civilizations looked at it. There were no absolutes, no absolutes of good or evil. Opposing forces worked in harmony with each other. Feeding each other.
Gann wasn't the only one who knew about the Jupiter cycle. Chinese big on Jupiter with the moon-jupiter year and the 12 year cycle. Even a Chinese medicine doctor has to master cycles, I posted that chart how seemingly opposing forces in nature are working in harmony.
Cycles of what is called jing (or the essence) are the unfolding of the three treasures: Then these evolve into seven- and eight-year cycles which are discussed in are presented inthe classic Chinese medical text, the Yellow Emperor's Classic of Internal Medicine.
So no matter where we look medicine, nature, markets, there is this invisible force that unify what seems to be opposing forces. This why they call this realm, duality.
But for some odd reason, you don't see this neutral force working in the realm of actions, individual and collective? And that when America sends it's troops to 140 countries that there is not equal reaction at some point later even if it's hard to measure. You see the conflicting forces separately, but no unifying/balancing agent like you do in markets?
The law of balance requires that the wild swings to the left that a society makes must be balanced with wild sings to the right. It wouldn't be balance if it only swang to the left, and to the middle. It ensures that individuals and societies experience what they dished out. From a higher point of view, the wild sings start to even out on an older soul as he learns to work with this middle or neutral force. Theoretically, these swings don't have to happen if society learned how to work with this neutral force. The precepts of natural law are the principles which ensure a smoother passage in an individuals life. This is why a neophyte on many esoteric circles are exposed to both cycles in their own lifes and the idea's of violating natural law has natural consequences. Whether you are working with the principles or contrary to them, matters not. Natural law is impersonal. As a collective we haven't discovered how to work to avoide these wild sings. But many individuals have.
This website has a few bugs in it lately, that happened to me twice yesterday morning.
The only way I can do a post that's more than a few lines long, is to compose it elsewhere, and then copy and past it here.
The biggest problem by far, is I start out thinking I'm only going to do a few lines, and you guys know how I like to get carried away,
It's all gone.