I am defeated. He flung things at me faster than I could respond. He wouldn't read the responses I wrote, and wouldn't watch videos I shared. The common ground I tried to find slipped away as fast as he could make it go.
So, I honestly just feel completely lost and buffaloed.
That is a feeling I can't remember having before in this sort of thing.
I know it means I didn't "do it right", and made mistakes. I allowed him to get to me, and derail the topic. And I didn't think fast enough. Or clearly enough. I failed.
It all began with this post from Facebook (although I had to do some snooping to figure it out):
So, let me get this straight... it's wrong if a fake cop does it, but OK if a "real cop" does it?
Coproaches and copsuckers are so funny!
The victim alleges the man inappropriately touched her during a fake traffic stop.
10TV.COM
So, he reposted it on his timeline and said of my commentary: "looking at news and these types of people show up"- he is NOT my "friend" on Facebook, but my content is open to expose those who wouldn't otherwise be exposed to it..
Anyway, I only found out about him reposting my post when he sent me a confusing message, posted below (I believe the identifying info has been removed to protect his privacy), and I answered him (no prize for guessing which side of the screen is me).
This is how it went:
22 hours ago
looking at your post
im sorry are you fucking stupid
8 hours ago
I guess you should have told me which post so I could hang my head in shame at your superiority.
6 hours ago
just for future reference, police arent allowed to touch people randomly either
Sure they are. They are called "pat downs", "cavity searches", and other euphemistic names, but they all come down to the same thing. They may claim it isn't random, but is for "officer safety", but it is still evil.
are you one of those "fuck the police" people
pat downs barely ever put pressure on the body
3 hours ago
I hate the fact that cops are where the boot heel of tyranny meets the face of individuals. There is no such thing as a "good cop", by definition- they live on stolen money ("taxes") and enforce counterfeit rules which violate Rightful Liberty. But I don't waste my time saying "f the police" because they aren't worth my time. But I will comment on ridiculous news items which illustrate the double standard.
Pat downs are still "touch" and are wrong. Rape isn't somehow "better" if you do it gently.
well when you put it that way, sure, but that is quite a subjective and salty way to put it
cops are doing their jobs
for the most part, they dont have any personal opinions on whether or not someone gets a ticket for speeding
taxes go to infrastructure; cops in general are not paid as well as congressmen
there is this idea that the old men wage wars so the young men can fight them
same idea applies here, police are a domestic military force
if there is a good reason to believe that someone is carrying unauthorized weapons or explosives, then there is good reason to believe that said someone is a criminal of some sort
falsely made pat downs are investigated by separate entities often, and therefore dont occur very often
but pat downs are a standard precaution which can prevent the risk of a person being searched using a weapon
i dont know what youve been taught, but if every individual could do anything, its anarchy
its not democracy
its not freedom
its failure of humans to have the morsel of intelligence required to keep society in working order
if police could do whatever they wanted, then the police would probably become ISIS
they arent
if you could do whatever you wanted, then you would probably become ISIS
so yes, i think it is quite necessary for the "tyrannic" policepeople to keep a leash on people like you, to whom "intelligence" is something that is infinitely inferior to "feelings" and "freedoms"
2 hours ago
"cops are doing their jobs"
Yes, jobs that shouldn't be done. That was the Nuremberg Defense, and it simply won't cut it.
"they dont have any personal opinions on whether or not someone gets a ticket for speeding"
Then they shouldn't have taken the job, knowing that would be a part of it. I won't become a death camp guard for that very reason- it would require me to do evil.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2ksTftYIvo
Yes, jobs that shouldn't be done. That was the Nuremberg Defense, and it simply won't cut it.
"they dont have any personal opinions on whether or not someone gets a ticket for speeding"
Then they shouldn't have taken the job, knowing that would be a part of it. I won't become a death camp guard for that very reason- it would require me to do evil.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2ksTftYIvo
"cops in general are not paid as well as congressmen"
So, if a burglar only steals a little, it's OK? Theft is theft, the amount isn't the issue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H585nogZWpQ
So, if a burglar only steals a little, it's OK? Theft is theft, the amount isn't the issue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H585nogZWpQ
"police are a domestic military force"
Yes, they are the domestic enemies the founders of America warned us about, and told us not to ever allow.
"if there is a good reason to believe that someone is carrying unauthorized weapons..."
No such thing. The Constituion makes it a crime to pass or enforce anti-weapon "laws", and even if it didn't, the human right to own and carry weapons isn't for anyone to "authorize" or deny. The right doesn't depend on the Constitution or government recognition; it existed before the first government was formed and will still exist after the last government fades away.
"if every individual could do anything, its anarchy"
No. Anarchy is living without a Ruler- not without rules. You still have no right to use violence against someone who is neither using violence nor violating property. The "law" makes exceptions where none exist- for government employees, for example. You have the absolute right to do anything you want, as long as you don't violate anyone else's identical rights. Thomas Jefferson put it this way: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
"its not democracy"
Good! Since another name for Democracy is "mob rule".
"its not freedom"
Well, actually, doing whatever you want, good or bad, is the definition of freedom. Which is why liberty is better. Liberty is the freedom to do whatever doesn't violate anyone else- so if that's what you want to do, you don't have the right. Such as to make up anti-weapon "laws" or commit a pat down.
"its failure of humans to have the morsel of intelligence required to keep society in working order"
Society is self-correcting, except when exceptions for certain anti-social acts are carved out.
"if police could do whatever they wanted, then the police would probably become ISIS"
Funny you should say that... http://blog.kentforliberty.com/2015/03/good-isis.html
Yes, they are the domestic enemies the founders of America warned us about, and told us not to ever allow.
"if there is a good reason to believe that someone is carrying unauthorized weapons..."
No such thing. The Constituion makes it a crime to pass or enforce anti-weapon "laws", and even if it didn't, the human right to own and carry weapons isn't for anyone to "authorize" or deny. The right doesn't depend on the Constitution or government recognition; it existed before the first government was formed and will still exist after the last government fades away.
"if every individual could do anything, its anarchy"
No. Anarchy is living without a Ruler- not without rules. You still have no right to use violence against someone who is neither using violence nor violating property. The "law" makes exceptions where none exist- for government employees, for example. You have the absolute right to do anything you want, as long as you don't violate anyone else's identical rights. Thomas Jefferson put it this way: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
"its not democracy"
Good! Since another name for Democracy is "mob rule".
"its not freedom"
Well, actually, doing whatever you want, good or bad, is the definition of freedom. Which is why liberty is better. Liberty is the freedom to do whatever doesn't violate anyone else- so if that's what you want to do, you don't have the right. Such as to make up anti-weapon "laws" or commit a pat down.
"its failure of humans to have the morsel of intelligence required to keep society in working order"
Society is self-correcting, except when exceptions for certain anti-social acts are carved out.
"if police could do whatever they wanted, then the police would probably become ISIS"
Funny you should say that... http://blog.kentforliberty.com/2015/03/good-isis.html
here
put it this way
do you like having highways
"if you could do whatever you wanted, then you would probably become ISIS"
Nope, because I understand I have no right to violate the person or property of another. Even if I believe no one is watching. Remove "government" and I would not change my mind- it is a principle, not an idea of convenience. But, things like that are why it is so dangerous to allow individuals to gain power over others- such as by becoming a cop.
"i think it is quite necessary for the 'tyrannic' policepeople to keep a leash on people like you"
INteresting, since I have explained why it would be wrong for me to initiate force (use violence against the non-violator) in any circumstance, no matter how "necessary" I might believe it to be. You have a lot of prejudices and pre-conceived notions about a person who believes all human interaction should be voluntary, who believes that no one ever has a right to initiate force or violate private property, and doesn't make exceptions for anyone, ever- most particularly myself, no matter my "feelings" on the issue.
"to whom 'intelligence' is something that is infinitely inferior to 'feelings' and 'freedoms'"
The first part seems to indicate projection on your part, and I have already explained why I don't think "freedom" is the right goal.
I like having highways. They existed before governments started funding them with theft, and they are built by people, not governments.
hitler invented the highway
he did it, and it fixed the economy
he did it using taxes as funding
You are the one defending theft and aggression, not me.
yes, i am
because i dont believe taxes to be theft and aggression
Then you are in denial.
if you dont like needing to pay taxes, then go live in a random island somewhere no government cares about
taxes provide infrastructure
even if you know you wouldnt be evil
there are people who would be evil
Go back and read all that I wrote above, and read the things I linked to and watch the videos before commenting again, otherwise I will be writing stuff included in those links.
taxes fund schools
i did already
and the reason isis exists is because
although many people in the middle east are peaceful people, there are bad people in the world
The videos were longer than the time you spent before commenting.
well, not the videos
i find words much faster
but as you yourself said, there are good people and there are bad people
My appreciation for education explains my opposition to "public" schools.
without taxes, there is no military
truuu
good point
common core sucks anyway
i agree for reasons different from yours but i still agree
either way
no taxes = no banks
no banks = no military
Military is government pawns- militia actually protects people and community.
no military = no resistance
yes, it seems that did the chinese and koreans very well in the 19th and 20th century
Everything you can mention that "taxation" can pay for can be provided voluntarily or done without. If your idea is so poor you can't fund it without robbing people, your idea is flawed.
"wooo the militia are here"
"aw crap we got screwed over"
or maybe you become a burden on the state if you use its services without any contribution in return
I'm not talking about those the media calls "the militia" these days-
neither am i, im referring to century-old events
The "free rider" problem. It's a non-issue for several reasona.
reasons...
Would you let me opt out of paying for government "services" if I didn't use them?
such as...?
Any of them.
you dont mind
not having jails
How could I opt out of that? I wouldn't send anyone to jail even now.
then you would most likely be dead
the fact that jails exist is a benefit to the people in general
No, I can defend myself. Jails dont provide justice. They are revenge.
can you really defend yourself?
jails are revenge, but they are also discipline
well first off
i would rather you provide actual valid research
instead of a blog of your opinions
Even if I can't defend myself, I don't want to be robbed to pay for a human cage, nor do I consent to having anyone placed in one. Ever.
You work for government, don't you?
so you would rather be robbed by those who then sell you off?
i dont
but i use logic
and your opinions are not conclusive results on societal workings
regardless of how highly you may hold them.
What's the difference? Really? Being robbed by bullies of the State is supposed to somehow be better than being robbed by freelance bullies?
Your logic is highly flawed.
do you understand how the economy works
Yes.
i appreciate that you support communism, but that isnt how people work
and therefore that isnt how the economy will ever be able to work
of course communism would be better
I despise communism- that is what you are advocating, though. Collectivism.
what do you hate about communism
if you seem to support a no government system in which everything is for the people
Government ownership of everything. Violation of human rights. "The people" isn't a thing. There are individuals, not collectives.
well this is great
everyone is an individual
everyone does what he wants
and nothing gets done
I didn't say that.
you dont seem to understand what communism is
do you?
communism has never been, nor ever will be, implemented in a human society
But people do do what they want. Even now. You want to advocate theft and aggression, and yet things still get done in spite of lots of people agreeing with you.
the thing isnt that i advocate taxes
its that taxes exist
Because "real communism" isn't possible.
and that is a fact
yes, i agree
it is a fact that taxes exist, correct?
Yes, "taxes" exist. So does rape. So?
and so do other evils, as you say
and things still get done
because thats how humans work
And States and "laws" don't prevent bad things.
what would individuals have the right to do, in your ideal world?
They simply protect some of the evildoers.
Anything that doesn't violate the person or property of another.
andd
whats to stop people from doing things that violate others?
(Actually, you already have that right, but "laws" violate it)
Self defense, and mutual voluntary defense.
And social pressure.
and what if an isis-like construct comes along?
self defense wont cut it
social pressure wont cut it
militias wont cut it
stupid people dont listen to others
and stubborn people dont stop for others
So a militia won't cut it against a militia? One which would even exist if not for government meddling?
a sensible and humane militia wont cut it against an idiotic and animalistic militia, no
There is no Utopia. Never has been, never will be. But all government does is place a veil of legitimacy over a segment of the worst people and gives tham a pass.
because the majority of the "good guys" have a morale that can be significantly dampened by what the "bad guys" do
of course there is no utopia
but, for example, putin is willing to sacrifice a minority for the good of the overwhelming majority
Since those bad things still exist, after thousands of years of government, wouldn't you see that as a failure to deliver on the promise?
he would have no ability to take action against isis, if there is no government
bad things are inherent in humans
thats why we arent perfect
but id say we are much closer to perfect than the animal kingdom
You don't believe a real, credible threat, wouldn't inspire people to take up arms to fight it off? So, how do government militaries ever form?
by taxes.
Taxes are stolen from the same people (and huge amounts of that stolen money wasted)... why couldn't people voluntarily chip in for defense?
because they arent willing to
why arent you in europe fighting isis right now, if you have so much confidence in the right things?
So, people will only spend money to defend themselves if there is a gun pointed at their heads- or at least the threat of punishment/prison (a threat always backed by the threat of death)?
death is inevitable, and the victim is the victim, regardless of how it manifests itselkf
it is not my concern why people fear death
only that people do fear death
as it seems you do
Because my job is to stay here and protect my home and family, and the local area. Others are free to go fight. Or donate to help the fight.
>others are free to go fight
others are free to "stay here and protect" their homes and families, and the local areas as well
why is it that you are now giving to other people the job that you claim all humans are willing to do?
It's not my fight. If the people there aren't willing to defy the local gang ("their government") and fight, why would I go do it for them?
it is what the government does.
why dont you fight against isis or the government in your local area, if both are threats to your being?
You are preferring one gang of aggressive thugs to another. A false dichotomy.
ok
let me put it this way
If you are not willing to leave your home to fight to help protect others, then others should not be willing to do such for you. Therefore, should an ISIS-like entity appear in a world with no governments and no obligations, and the majority of the world decided to stay home and protect their local areas, there will be no collective power to stop a collective militia of stupid and stubborn enemies.
Every invasion happens locally.
Numbers count in a fight.
if the first town brings out 1k against an ISIS of 100k, and the ISIS wins
then it will recover
and it will grow
next town, it has 100k again
and again
and again
until it starts growing to even higher numbers
I think you overstate the numbers of ISIS and their ability to get here.
i might
but i also overstated the numbers of a town
there are also always defectors
And you don't believe a real invasion like that would bring armed response? Then who does the military convince to join it?
you yourself said that you would not go fight them
so no, i do not think that there would be a significant armed response
at least, not one that does not manifest itself in the form of a disciplined government.
In a real invasion like your scenario, the "laws" against shooting people and carrying weapons would do more to help the invaders than the "citizens"- who would be the ones being kidnapped ("arrested") for going to fight off the threat.
that is irrelevant to my point
I would go fight them if they were on their way here.
well they are
No, it's not irrelevant.
and you claim it is not your job to fight them
It's not my job to go overseas and fight them.
so whose job is it
exactly
and i very much doubt you would willingly leave your home in a sedan
The local people. It is your job to defend your home, not other places. That always leads to disaster.
to fight them if they landed somewhere near the border
exactlyyy
im saying
there are not enough local people
anywhere
to form an ad hoc force strong enough to fight a fully equipped and experienced enemy force
which, most likely, is much larger than the militia force
And there is no armed invasion, either.
how do you mean
because
Where is this invading army?
since when did we start being real
and not hypothetical
From the very beginning.
there is no invading army because the military is overseas, attempting to deal with it
and if there were no military, there would not be people going overseas to deal with it
and therefore then there would be an invading force
By killing people and destroying things, making the survivors angry enough they are willing to join up to fight against America. Yeah, good plan. LOL
and it keeps them away from the american continent
unlike your plan
My plan? Governments make plans. I deal with reality.
in which there is nothing that stands between ISIS and every individual town, trying to defend its local people with no outside help
so are you basically saying
that you have no idea how things would turn out
If people wouldn't join together to fight off a threat, they also wouldn't join the military or put up with "taxation".
and you are literally just being anti government to spite reality
that
statement
is definitely false
in your view, the government and taxation are threats
yet you would not fight against it
government and taxation are passive
No. I am not anti-government. I am pro-Rightful Liberty. Government has positioned itself against Rightful Liberty, so by extension, I am against what it stands for.
fighting is active
putting up with taxes is a passive act, while fighting it is an active act
in the same way, putting up barricades is a passive act
How would you suggest I fight against government? Shooting cops? Shooting IRS agents?
while helping other places fight is an active act
i wouldnt suggest it
But you are.
i hate the american system
but i wouldnt ever suggest something as foolish as attacking it
at least, not physically
So, why cling to the concept of a "system" at all?
because the american system works
unlike an absence of a system
I need to go do some real life stuff- I suggest this book for your edification, should you care: http://www.larkenrose.com/store/books/2019-the-most-dangerous-superstition.html
as much as i hate systems, i am willing to admit that they work.
and i think
that is what makes all the difference between the two of us.
29 minutes ago
I'm back.
Some systems do "work", while being evil to the core. That's not a compromise I'm willing to make, since there's always an alternative.
But, let's look at one specific disagreement we have: "taxation" (since you wouldn't watch the video).
What do you call it when a person's property is taken from them against their will?
That depends on the cause. It's quite simple to move away if you don't like taxes, though.
So, if I take your wallet so I can buy food for a widow, it isn't theft?
It is theft because I do not find it necessary.
I do not consider taxes a threat simply and only because I consider them necessary.
I will what I find necessary, and if I do not find the purchase of food for a widow necessary, then I do not will it.
The widow might believe it is necessary. The mugger might believe it is necessary. Just like you believe "taxes" to be necessary. So, it comes down to what each person believes?
The widow and the mugger are the receivers. I am the giver and the owner.
It is my decision.
And, I'm not talking about whether they are a threat, but asking for what you consider to be theft.
So, if I am "taxed" I am being robbed, since I am the owner?
I didn't say they were threats, I said I don't find funding them necessary, and therefore I won't fund them.
If it is against your will, then yes.
You said "taxation" isn't a threat because you believe it to be necessary.
However, in my opinion, the necessity is a necessity, and this necessity overrides most wills.
So, theft is OK if it is believed to be necessary? By whom?
Although this necessity overrides wills, the necessity is modifiable, since it is determined by the people, hence the term "democracy"
I am fairly sure that taxes are determined to be necessary by the vast majority.
So, a mob of a thousand people can decide to divvy up the property of one person, if the mob believes it to be necessary?
Effectively, yes.
And it's "right"?
No, but there isn't anything you could do to stop them, if you were the one person.
I'm not talking about stopping them, I'm discussing whether it is right or wrong.
I already answered, no.
However, that is different from the American government, in which you can use propaganda to convince others of how the government should work.
You don't have a say in the mob.
You have a say in the government.
Even better, as I said, move away if you dislike it so much.
I could join the mob and change it from the inside, just like voting or running for office.
Then go ahead and do it, that isn't my problem, nor is it part of the situation.
Why should I move away from my home and family just because a mafia has declared itself in charge of my home?
Because, by some chance, somebody decided that it would be better to be there.
So, voting or running for office is not part of the problem.
Perhaps you, perhaps your parents, perhaps your ancestors, but somebody decided it would be good.
Are you bound by agreements that people long dead came to? Where none of the parties involved are still alive?
No, but you are bound to physics. You are where you are, and you can either decide to complain about where you are or to move away. Both are viable options in America.
Complaining may help you eliminate taxes, and moving away may help you find somewhere which suits you more.
I don't have a problem with either.
Do you know that if you decide to leave America, the government still claims it is owed "taxes" for a number of years, plus you are not allowed to leave with all your possessions?
How do you mean?
I have left America with all my belongings before, with no need to pay extra taxes.
If you mean mortgage, then that is part of a contract to a bank.
You can't take all your money with you if you emigrate from America, and the government still claims you must pay "taxes" on income. Even if you renounce citizenship.
There is a dollar limit on the amount you are allowed to leave with- if they catch you.
I guarantee you that is not true. Parts of my family are formerly American citizens who now live in other countries. They have left without losing money and are citizens of other countries.
It is internationally illegal for America to demand "taxes" from citizens of other countries.
I can let you talk to some expats who would disagree.
There are many experts who would agree.
When do governments obey the law?
I trust expats over "experts".
Well, I admit it. I give up. This has never happened before. You win.
Expats may have personal grudges.
Governments obey laws when people undeniably believe the laws must be followed.
Have fun.
k u too, enjoy your day
good talk
Chat Conversation End
Later, I discovered he also shared a link to my profile, saying: "Kent McManigal: The ever salty advocate for the destruction of order, government, and taxes". Yeah, he actually believes "order" comes from government...
-
GoFundMe?
.
