RE: Ideologically Undermining Society. [Part 1] Social Contracts.
I was greatly relieved to discover that unalienable rights, by definition, are non-transferable, and non-surrenderable. As a result, social contract cannot be achieved legitimately. It is impossible without explicit, spoken or written contract, otherwise there is no demonstration of knowledge, and, without which, there can be no consent. The social 'contract' is a protection racket, and is, at it's core, purest fraud. If it could be done without the individual's knowledge, it could be done entirely in secret, and no one would know which rights they've given up and which rights are being protected, if they knew there was anything to be aware of at all.. It would then be in the interest of the fraudster to deprive the unknowing 'contractee' of all rights.
Speaking of the protection racket being done without the individual's knowledge, that is exactly how the constitution was written and agreed to, entirely in secret and treasonous to the established articles of the confederacy at the time. It purported unalienable rights as their card to triumph and champion but it was not explicit on what rights, but offered plenty of powers for the state. Of course many will say that taxes are what provides everyone with roads, but it was the colonies that fought their independence war with the loan from the king himself, which the colonies were fighting against, the debt that still needed to be paid which prompted the taxes on whiskey decades later, on top of the war debt incurred form the French Indian wars.
I find that the writings of Lysander Spooner make the most sense to me. These are the most reasoned according to natural law. I still use the language of the constitution to communicate with those who are not able to conceive of genuine liberty. Sometimes I feel it to be a deceit, but I don't know another way to help pull some people up, out of the mire of slavery. Starting with Spooner and natural law is like speaking an alien language to many. It has occurred to me the possibility that over 90% of humanity may not even be able to comprehend natural law. I do hope this is not the fact.
As far as taxes go, I have never seen a case where the taxes were actually used to benefit the people. The whiskey tax, I believe, led to suppression of The Whiskey Rebellion, which was a particularly telling demonstration of government tyranny in a supposed 'land of liberty'.
It might very well be, the vast majority of people resort to "who will built the roads" and "who will decide property lines" so I think 90% might be close, if not even an underestimate, for example I was watching a Rob Hustle interview a couple years ago, and the host was Anarchast, and you will notice, someone who sees the injustice and posits it in such a hard hitting way with his music video Call The Cops, hasn't really considered himself an anarchist.
For semantralist, which uses a very overused cop term, "semantics", which gets uttered when you establish your standing for possession vs ownership or their duty over investigating crimes vs suspecting, he has in the past sought to argue that I have no moral integrity because I didn't drop the issue of the inception/creation of the police force which he argued was to protect liberty which couldn't be farther from the truth as I kept pointing out that they were formed directly from slave catching patrols, and if you follow his comments to where that began you will notice how and why he is writing these things (I've had many long arguments with an-caps and libertarians to the extent of frustration, as most of them parrot the same talking point over and over without any justifiable and qualitative means.), and why I addressed that issue of social contract and dismissed his whole post.
https://steemit.com/news/@stephenkendal/noam-chomsky-the-general-population-doesn-t-know-what-s-happening-and-it-doesn-t-even-know-that-it-doesn-t-know#@baah/re-semantralist-re-baah-re-semantralist-re-baah-re-semantralist-re-baah-re-semantralist-re-stephenkendal-noam-chomsky-the-general-population-doesn-t-know-what-s-happening-and-it-doesn-t-even-know-that-it-doesn-t-know-20170419t184245869z
https://steemit.com/police/@dullhawk/police-is-not-a-race-it-s-a-gang#@baah/re-semantralist-re-markush-re-semantralist-re-baah-re-semantralist-re-dullhawk-police-is-not-a-race-it-s-a-gang-20170408t022733871z
90% was me being kind. I do think there are intelligent people out there who have simply been indoctrinated their entire lives and are struggling to get free. I find that I am still often in this category, when I am not paying close attention.
Possession vs ownership is clearly not semantics. That's why there is a difference made between 'to have' and 'to hold'. Police can not have any legitimate existence or authority. It is an impossibility, because it is a logical contradiction of natural rights and individual liberty. Despite the purported 'good intentions' behind the creation of police to 'protect' life and liberty, the result of the dynamics of imbuing a subset of the people with rights The People, at large, do not have, is well established, if not well known, and leads to corruption, if not outright despotism, every time it has been tried.
I think that 'protection of liberty' may not have any logical existence, only 'defense of liberty'. semantralist doesn't want to be correct, he wants to be right. I left him a poignant pun. Someone flagged that particular comment of yours with two dummy accounts with lots of SP (23,000 apiece) and no substance. I guess some people would rather despise the truth, than be freed by it.
I often find that arguing with an-caps and libertarians is almost as pointless as arguing with leftists, it's just a different degree of authoritarianism.
Thank you. I learn much more having conversation than faux debate with people who only desire to be right.
Don't mistake a sense of aggression or frustration with wanting to be "right". Being right or wrong is arbitrary when it comes to philosophical talking points such as politics or ideology. It's all opinions through rigorous thinking and scrutiny....just some times people rub you the wrong way and you have to cut communication before things end up at the point of "well fuck you" back and forth.
Again, you may want to learn what words mean.
Or perhaps learn to read better? I'd suggest studying structuralist approaches.
This couldn't be farther from the truth. You have no moral integrity because you compare a system that has long since passed to a system that is in place now. It would be the same proposition as me saying "I enjoy dating black men and women" and someone saying "Well slave owners like to fuck their slaves". The level of intellectual integrity you have is....by impair the same as those egregious progressive liberals.
I ended the conversation on the first post because I knew exactly how it would end, in a completely contrary stance for each of us, but you kept up the drama. You really are disingenuous.
I have no moral integrity after the nth time I argued the same thing.. The first time you abandoned/forgot about the conversation, where as now you claim prophetic vision for your "ending the conversation", making you a liar as you either forgotten, or you ended it because of your prophetic vision. Right there I have no reason to continue but for the posterity of truth, regardless of your blatant lies, because who is to say if you forgot, if you ended it because of your prophetic vision or simply didn't have any evidence to back up the claim that you made repeatedly without one ounce of evidence for it, a claim which your whole argument pretty much hinged on, and that was after I exposed that you omitted and proceed to distort the OPs initial statements, two times.
I provided ample evidence to the contrary that the system that has passed is actually the tree from which the current system fruited out of, so there is every reason to point out the similarity and I have provided evidence of that as well, so then to insist by implying yet again that one system has nothing to do with the other because one has passed and the other is in place is disingenuous and farthest from the truth, one system has passed and out of it's very foundations and members it morphed into the current system. To say that the police and it's predecessors, the slave catching patrols are two different things you must distinguish why and how they are different and you have not, instead you sought to marginalize and minimize their semblance by claiming that the slave catching patrols were on par with bounty hunters when it was an established and state ran function, not private, just like the police which evolved directly from that system.
You ended the conversation, I think you are being nice on yourself, you abandoned it, and you still haven't provided any evidence that the police were established to maintain liberty, instead you dodged and skirted that request numerous times, regardless of your prophetic vision, and right now you are a liar, uttering the word disingenuous is laughable.
I restate my claim that you argued that I have no moral integrity because I wouldn't drop the issue of the inception/creation of the police.
And this is why:
In the previous arguments you first abandoned the issue or outright disregarded it because of your prophetic vision or because you had nothing to substantiate your claim that the police maintain liberty. After that you then proceed to claim that your argument wasn't necessarily a great claim and requiring great proof, when I brought back the issue to point out that if you hold such values of great claims require great proof, by making such claims and not offering any proof you are a hypocrite, to which you didn't argue that I have no moral integrity, but only that it wasn't that great of a claim, making the proof of it not that great but you didn't provide anything yet again to substantiate that small claim But then when I wouldn't still drop it you argued moral integrity as the last time, that time by claiming that the slave catching patrols were on par with bounty hunters, another lie, as they were established by the state ran by the state, just like the police. That is why and how you resorted to saying I have no moral integrity, because I wouldn't drop the issue. Previously you sought to claim that because only anarchist disagree with the claim that police are established to maintain liberty and so it's not that great of a claim, yet you cannot substantiate that small claim, so you are a hypocrite by extension of your principles.
The rub is to claim that they are established to maintain liberty and law. That is ridiculous in it of itself, as the police are tasked with imprisoning and upholding mandates/laws, and not with maintaining any liberty what so ever, coupled with the fact that their "bounty hunter" predecessors were tasked with EXACTLY the same duty, to uphold mandates and imprison, which is why they are on par and equivalent to their fathers. You are a liar, a hypocrite, have resorted to omitting pertinent statements and arguments and effectively sought to distort the original message, claim magical prophetic vision and in the end you cannot even substantiate your marginal claim which your entire argument hinged on, which was that police are not a gang because they were established to maintain liberty and law, regardless of the fact that they have the characteristics of a gang, and if it looks like a gang, acts like a gang and quacks like a gang, it's the police.
To tie it into the "social contract", I didn't agree to their actions, and don't respect their actions, millions have done the same, "not just anarchists" and the history of the police follows: slave catching patrols>kkk supporters and ties>targeting and attacking minorities>subverting "privileges"/rights> and all thorough out it they were tasked with investigating crimes and they have failed epic at that since their inception.
Former Decorated Cop Says Abolish All Police
Maintaining liberty LOL!
Maintaining law LOL! (everything the SS did was legal, so much for morality when your linchpin is to defend immorality)