Donnadogsoth

It wouldn't work on a culturally retarded five-year-old perhaps. I'm presuming the Platonically ideal five-year-old, a five-year-old from Plato's Republic. Attentive, bright, respectful, loving, and curious. So parcel it out one or two paragraphs at a time to your inner five-year-old, if you like. Other than descending into epigrams and puppet shows, there's no other way to convey it, it demands the reader or listener reach for it. One doesn't learn by reading at one's comprehension level, one learns by reading above one's comprehension level and tripping new language circuits. You're saying you can't have love without reason? I agree. I am integrating Stef, and by extension yourself and RoseCodex, into my list of those committed to principle. But the most important part of that work of integration is integrating you and them into the concept of creative mentation, which provides the proper historical sweep. Not just rationality as such, which for many is a synonym for logic, but creativity.

I'm happy you said this. It's a good exercise to explain things as elementarily as possible. The two best things to have are Love, and Reason. Love moves us to help each other, and Reason tells us how. Together, Love and Reason make your mind the most important thing in the world. Reason lets us find out laws of Nature, which help us help those we love. A law of Nature is a rule for how the world works. Logic, for example, is a law that says a thing is itself. What that means is, if your Lego brick is blue, it can't be not blue at the same time. If a bird is flying it is not also nesting. If you aren't on your bicycle, you can't ride your bicycle. This is how the world works. The more laws we find, the more we can stop doing things that go against the laws. If we don't know the laws, we're bumping up against them and get tired, and can even get hurt! Nothing gets done that way. But with Love and Reason, we can discover laws and use them to help each other. Now there is an old man named Lyndon, and he knows many laws. And the most important law of all is the the law of Reason and Love together, which, when we help them grow in us by reading good books and listening to good music, and doing experiments with math, we can use to find out more laws. Sometimes they're laws other people have found out before us, other times they are our own laws. As Lyndon says, the laws are needed because they help the Economy. The Economy is like a big lawful garden that lets us stay alive by giving us good food. This garden needs to be tended. So we use Reason to plant laws, and we water it with Love, and we harvest the fruits, from which we can get good food and more laws than before. Without Reason, we forget to plant the laws. Without Love, we forget to water the garden and the laws we planted are forgotten. The good food the garden gives, keeps us alive in the short term, and, by growing more laws than before, keeps us alive in the long term. Love isn't just about helping people right now, it's also about helping people in the future, even people not yet born. For Mankind is an immortal type of animal that does not have to go extinct like other types of animal, because we are the masters of the laws. Lyndon says that we should surround ourselves with beautiful things. Not just things we like, but things which contain law. Art that contains law shows us classical beauty. Classical beauty is meant to stir your Reason and your Love so that you will become a better person. Without classical beauty, art becomes random and ugly and small, so that we forget about Reason and believe man is an animal like any other animal. And if you think like an animal, you will never find out any laws. The most important people who ever lived are the ones who gave their lives for Mankind, using Reason and Love. These are people who died for the sake of giving people the laws they needed to live and prosper. To die this way is to be sublime. A sublime person turns a bad thing into a good thing, using Reason and Love. We should honour the sublime people, who have helped us live. So be loving, and use reason, and find out laws, so you can help people, including yourself and your family.

On the contrary, RoseCodex, Ancaps should be fertile ground because they take a stand on principle. That's great! And if you're interested in principle, you should be interested in LaRouche who lives and breathes principle. There may have been some you've missed in the cultural shitstorm that's been covering civ for the past century.

If you're not obsessed with the NAP, then that's good, that's promising. Whether or not you respond favourably to LaRouche is a litmus test for how serious you are about human freedom. LaRouche is about creative reason, creative reason as the sole source of wealth and potential for human survival, creative reason as the basis for the human mind as sacred, the basis for religion, for culture, for everything. Rejecting him because of cultural backwater prejudices about Gawwd is diametrically missing the point. The problem, the reason why it sounds like "mysticism" to you is because you, like myself and almost everyone else, have been degraded by your culture, including your educational system, into thinking in bestial terms. I do not mean you are a beast; I know you are not. But the implicit rejection of the panoply of principle I have just referenced is symptomatic of mental degradation. I'm on your side but you act as though I am not. If you are at all interested, I recommend working through the following article that discusses principle, particularly as it applies to doubling the square. Once a mind has that toe-hold, it can move on to understanding creative mentation proper and then attain the purview of the many other principles awaiting discovery or rediscovery. Carl Gauss's Fundamental Theorem of Algebra http://www.schillerinstitute.org/educ/pedagogy/gauss_fund_bmd0402.html

LaRouche supporters can be a mixed bag because they essentially constitute an army, and an army that can sometimes be run ragged in its dogged attempts at effecting political change. But I'm not telling you to join his organisation, I'm telling you to get hooked into principle beyond merely the NAP. People around here give the impression that the NAP is the only principle in existence and that its implementation will bring about a utopia. I'm saying there are other principles: sufficient reason, identity of indiscernibles, perfection, continuity, preëstablished harmony, creativity, least-time, least-action, isopermetric, Agapic (both as motivator and as proof against solipsism), squaring, pythagorean, general welfare, republican and what I term the role-playing pirinciple. There are many more that I can only weakly adumbrate. The understanding of these principles is not the memorisation of epigrams, but the creative discovery of a universal thought-object that alters the structure of the mind, creating a "stuff" beneath the "words and pictures" of daily life. This "stuff" is vitally needed to effect justice in the world. Merely hammering about the NAP as if it will solve all problems is so crude. It's a real principle, going back to Christ's "do unto others", but it's not the ONLY principle. Consider, if you dare, the following essay on the grand sweep of European civilisation. You don't have to be a Christian to grasp this, and I'm respecting your intelligence by offering it to you. Jesus Christ and Civilization http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2000/2739_jesus_christ.html

Begrudgingly or not, you're not the easiest interlocutor to deal with, you know. I apologise for puppeteering you. I was merely saving time by anticipating your responses. I'm not sure what deflection you mean. I must have missed it. When you say “You also haven't explained how this line of questioning brings you closer to the irreconcilability of consent and lack of consent,” I am unsure what you mean. This Ancap business is new to me. I understand it less intricately than you do and would appreciate help in understanding it better. Your rape club example is clarifying. If I consent to death, this does not violate property rights so long as I'm not forcing anyone else to kill me. So a suicide would be consensual, within property rights, and though I wouldn't call it good, it cannot be coercively acted against, unless the would-be suicide were mentally unbalanced (e.g., paranoid schizophrenia, thinks that he will go to meet Elvis by jumping off a bridge, etc.). When you say, “Therefore if PEOPLE voluntarily entered into a contract, ALL stipulations are consensual and therefore cannot simultaneously accept and reject property rights,” this sounds reasonable. Hypothetically then people could enter into a “tax-paying liberal democracy” club that would replicate exactly what we have now, except that all stipulations are voluntarily entered into, including taxes, conscription, and the justice system of the ol' USA. Help me to understand: is this possible, if everyone is agreeing to it (or the ones who disagree simply are free to move away)? I'm not saying it would be desirable to have a State 2.0, but is it principled under the NAP? You say I would say, "But what about homeowner's associations?" and you respond, “To which I ask: What happens when one of those homeowners dies and leaves his house to somebody else? Are the rules binding upon them? Without their consent?” A homeowner's association-related house would be a house that comes with those incumbencies, so the inheriting person can accept that property with its strings, or reject it. Is that not what you meant? I wrote, “Expand the possibility across the world if you prefer,” and you said, “My preference doesn't enter into why you do anything. The question was why you did something and was meant to reveal the lack of principle in your proposition.” I think this has been addressed elsewhere by us and so is irrelevant. I wrote, “Suppose one can think of any better way,” and you said, “One needs to suppose no such thing. The question referenced superior technology, denoting its presence and availability. To consider something that is available as unavailable is only helpful when you're trying to make a conclusion stick in the face of rational refutation.” Alright, that makes sense. Now, will you kindly answer my second question from post 34? It's not enough to say the NAP will take care of it or we'll find a better way somehow. What is the actual better way when it comes to dethroning a State monopoly on power? Just competing DROs that might wage war on each other to the inverse degree of their mutual integration? I want to understand this, but would appreciate you relaxing your attitude a bit and helping me understand.

Alright, sir, here are some succinct answers to your questions: (1) Why would I need to sign a contract? (2) As long as I'm not stealing, assaulting, raping, or murdering, why do you want a hand in whatever I choose to do? I didn't say you had to sign it, I said to the effect of what if it existed and millions of people did sign it. Is such a social contract illegitimate or not? You will say, "It is illegitimate so long as it contains stipulations that violate the NAP, which continues to stay in effect, as a universal moral principle, regardless of what any contract says." Yes? (3) Why do you only want this for Americans? Expand the possibility across the world if you prefer. (4) Why would you want to recreate defective technology (think Chernobyl) instead of upgrading to superior technology? Suppose no one can think of any better way. Though methinks you will respond to this as you did (1) and (2). (5) How does this deflection of yours bring you closer the irreconcilability of consent and not consent? Ah, so you are saying that legitimate contracts are always within principle and never outside of principle. Do you agree? Now, I, using your voice, appeared to have answered my first question (post 34), but I am unclear on the proper resolution of my second question (post 34). Will you now deign to answer it, as I have answered your questions?

Developing an understanding of the nature of the human mind is never a waste of time, dsayers. I can recommend nothing higher, especially to one who, if I read you right, wants to improve the world, rather than merely self-aggrandising, or self-protecting. Not bad things in of themselves, but not that which serves the highest human self-interest. And yes, I think Ancap needs LaRouche. It's a recommendation of the highest order such that it becomes a necessity, an IF/THEN statement. Ancap alone is like a plastic measuring cup that, when empty, easily upsets. Useful, but unstable. It needs to be filled with principles: physical principles, metaphysical principles, artistic principles, to give it weight and therefore stability.

My point is advisers can prove useful. Stefan is an adviser, is he not? He's nothing if not an adviser! And his wisdom and effort has generated here, and been the material cause of you and I talking. Now here has attracted me, and I have a new adviser to recommend, one I have been studying for a decade and, methinks, know better than anyone outside of his immediate association. dsayers, I get the feeling you're not really reading, or reading in good faith, what I am posting: you're narrow, hardened-seeming, and not considering the metaphysical reality I am describing. I'm not trying to insult you or belittle your position or your intellect or your emotions, but please try to understand what I am saying outside merely a monotonous dedication to the ramified NAP. The NAP alone won't save us. It is one principle of many--surely an important one, but not the only one. I seek out and point to others. I value your input and hope we can come to mutual understanding.

(1) Are you saying such a social contract as I describe would be illegitimate? (2) What is the capital DRO that is the court of final appeal when two disputing parties cannot reach agreement any other way--e.g., they both have competing DRO's who do not have a mutual contract with a third, DRO-serving DRO? I want to know what the solution is to dispute resolution that doesn't involve violent authoritarianism. Really, I'm all ears, good sir.

I'm not sure what you mean, but don't wish to make a mistake. Can you elabourate more?

?

Injury can admit infection, if you see what I mean. The injured (destructive) society causes young people to fall prey to infection (destructive behaviour) which in turn can further injure society. Call it the theory of complications.

I'll give you the short version and then the long version below it if you prefer to read that one. I appreciate your interest. I believe we're nearly on the same side. SHORT VERSION (1) I am not a gnostic. I do not reject the material, sensuous world, but rather recognise that there is a metaphysical world of which the human mind is a part. This metaphysical world is the level at which universal physical principles and other principles reside, and it is the unique pleasure, honour, and duty of man to discover them. (2) I come here in good faith and hope because you people seem smart, compassionate, and integral, like LaRouche. (3) I hand out firecrackers. Sooner or later someone will “get it”. (4) My views on violent authoritarianism have changed since coming here. How's that for admitting error? LONG VERSION I am a wanderer of the wastelands of modern culture who saw the signs of intelligence, compassion, and integrity in these fora, most notably in your critical eye on feminism. I am very much interested in reason, but may have a different view of what reason is than you. Reason is more than logic and empiricism, it extends into creative hypothesis and the formulation of thought objects (principles) by which we reorder Nature and human society. So I've come here because I see potential here to save the world from itself. I came here as an authoritarian because violent authority has so far seemed the best and only way to get big science, big economics, and big culture done. I am softening in my view, which was not a principled one but a hypothesis, in the face of members such as yourself who argue for voluntarism and moral consistency. You have shown me a dimension of potential I'd not hitherto encountered. Distinguish error from being wrong. I'm not wrong about my principles which I defend here, though I am ignorant of much, being ignorant is not being wrong. I can commit errors, and have in various ways, but I'm not wrong about the essential thrust of my “preachy” observations. I recognise that violent authority is unprincipled, and am working, as I wrote above, to decouple the general welfare principle from violent authority, which is really the oligarchal principle in drag. I preach here because you are smart cookies, and rebels, and sometimes loners, which makes it like herding proverbial cats as there are manifold ways of wilfully or innocently misunderstanding what I am saying. I welcome your input into how I can say what I'm saying in clearer, more cogent, more convincing ways. This board is Philosophy, and I, by all accounts, am a Philosopher. I seek to destroy evil. I view my persuasiveness like firecrackers in the mind. I'm planting them here and there in people's minds, and sooner or later, if the ideas were absorbed in any significant way, they will go off, and people will say “Ah, that does make a kind of sense.” My argument is that Ancaps should read LaRouche's corpus and begin to sift the violent-authoritarian fallacy from the principles he has discovered or rediscovered. LaRouche is a gateway drug to the classical humanist tradition which is properly the heritage of all mankind, to his aeternal benefit. Yes, read him is what I am saying, talk about him, read and talk about the authors he promotes. Time is short and we need people like myself who, after years of study, finally get what he is talking about. Excellent point about what Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex, sometimes now referred to as the prison-industrial complex, but which I might call the bureaucratic-prison-entertainment complex: We face a velvet glove (Brave New World) concealing an iron fist (1984). I agree that both that complex and the Islamic threat feed off one another. While I continue to support annihilating ISIS and neutralising Islam, I admit that the violent authoritarianism, a.k.a., the financier oligarchy and its military-espionage-geopolitics wings, have and are creating the problems that they then hypocritically rally popular support for further military-economic interventions. The key here is to beware of deductive method, because deduction leads to no creative discoveries. It can help, as part of the discovery process, but it is not creative, it is not a creative hypothesis as such. From what I can tell, the genius part of you makes a discovery, the deductive part of you checks the bolts on the testing equipment. Genius is figuring out how to double the square, deduction is checking the results and doing the measurements that confirm it.

Allow me to wade into controversy. I am no stranger to it, and judging by my reputation point total here the fact is patent. Fear not: I'm not here to convince you to become a Christian. I believe there are ways around our differences on that count, between Christians and the Godless, that are mutually fruitful. So, Christ, God, the Holy Spirit, and the Catholic Church will not figure in my recommendation as such, here. So, I'm setting that aside, in good faith. Instead, I propose a solution to our mutual Problem, the Problem shared in kind between yourself as a group, Ancap, and myself as an individual, and also ourselves together as part of the human race. The Problem is threefold: military, economic, and demographic. Militarily (1) the world is, or should be, in some sense, fighting “radical” Islam, Islamism, Jihadism, etc.. which is all intentional; and (2) the world is in imminent danger of the geopolitically brokered, and also likewise intentional, outbreak of global thermonuclear war. Economically the world is bankrupt, bled white by parasitical and politically manipulative oligarchal elites weaking the advanced sector in order to bribe the developing one; which, together with a collapsing infrastructure, hobbled (pure) science sector, and financial derivatives bubble, will inevitably detonate the financial economy, taking the physical economy with it. Demographically, we face the suicidal birthrate of the European peoples; the influx of unlimited unassimilable, ghetto-creating, resentimental aliens; the feminist war against men; the homosexualisation of heterosexual relations; and the Hindooisation of culture into absolute, cacophonic diversity—and all of this is coming courtesy of the religions of multiculturalism and consumerism. My point is not to elabourate an essay on any of these three points, but to highlight their importance and show how they are three aspects of one Problem. And the Problem is the State. I do not come to Ancap easily or naturally. I am authoritarian by nature. I recognise that there is a certain value, in certain bignesses, big projects, and it is a struggle to decouple those projects from the concept of the State, which, is something that exists, has existed in modern form since shortly after Joan of Arc's sublime sacrifice to save France from dissolution. The State, or more properly the nation-State, as a nation of common heritage peoples governed by a State, has been an important, but not perfect, part of human development. It may have been inevitable, it may have been necessary. Not perfect, but not necessary, and not eternal. New forms await their emergence. We might say Ancap is a fruitful emergency. Lyndon LaRouche works as a stateman, and has activated in that capacity for several decades, but really he has been working to perfect his theory and praxis for his entire 93-year-old life. Don't be frightened by the word “statesman.” He is interested in one thing only, and it is not the State. He views at present, given the present exigency as the need to remove President Obama from office, to reinstate the Glass-Steagal law as a bulwark shielding the physical economy from the ramifications of the impending financial economic collapse, and the need to develop a new world order based on mutually beneficial economic, cultural, and scientific interactions between sovereignties. Now, note the word I just used, “sovereignties.” You might think I, and he, are talking about the State. But consider what LaRouche, last November, said about the nation-State: “The idea of the nation-state is actually something which holds mankind down and backward; because by now all the evidence we have in terms of science, is that we have not even begun to scratch the meaning of mankind, what mankind's function is. And it's what we can create from the development of the future that counts. People get so tied up with involvement in what they think their personal identity is; that that's too small a way to speak of mankind.” --“Man's Destiny in the Universe” http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2015/4247man_destiny-universe.html So, is LaRouche Ancap? Historically he has described mankind's struggle as being between the republican impulse of science, beauty, rational economics, and human freedom, human happiness on a spiritual plane; and between the oligarchal impulse, as a false principle, a mere inertia of vacuous evil that hates science, hates beauty, engineers false economics based on imperial looting, and views the hoi polloi as beasts to be enslaved, conscripted, bred, and culled as needed. LaRouche gets his republican principle from Solon the lawgiver of Athens, the architect of that ancient republic echoed in Plato's seminal Republic. No one thought the Solonic republic was perfect or unimprovable, nor does anyone think that the Republic described by Plato as a metaphor for the just ordering of the soul was perfect or attainable, either. They are compelling, these two historical and philosophical attempts, and they constitute something new in world affairs, later embedded in the US Constitutional Preamble: The general welfare principle. Now, you may find the notion of the general welfare repugnant, but you would be misleading yourself. Isn't what Stefan Molyneux talks about incessantly and vigourously really a way to ensure the general welfare? I don't mean “welfare money,” I mean the happiness of all. This is what we as empathic human beings are, in good part, striving for. So we have the Problem (State), and we have the principle opposed to it, in spirit: the General Welfare principle. But this dyad is incomplete, for the General Welfare principle itself begs a huge question: welfare of whom, exactly. In other words, what are we dealing with when we talking of humanity or of particular humans. What is a human? Why should we care? Here, LaRouche makes a telling statement, in that same article. “...the human mind is the only thing that's important.” Which is a shocking statement, but entirely true. The human mind is the source of all wealth, even of primitively accumulated wealth, it is still the mind in operation. But, there's so much more. The human mind is, uniquely, to the best of our knowledge of the Universe, capable of discovering laws, Universal laws, through that individual, sovereign mind's direct, unmediated relationship with the Universe as a whole. So that when we do proper Science, when we do proper Art, when we improve the world as through raising children, we are acting directly on the Universe as a whole. If we view human activity, human progress as a single manifold, we encounter something beneath or beyond words, but which exists within the subjective mind of the creative discoverer, which is not merely a “subjective” representation of an “objective” but inaccessible world; rather, it is the human mind in direct contact with the Universe itself, as a whole, not in terms of parts but in terms of whole, and discovering through the resolution of an ontological paradox, a principle of nature, a law, whose form is identical throughout the Universe, is identical through that Universe and reflected directly and without deviation of form into the sovereign discovering human mind. That is the crux of the matter, something that will stick in many of your craws. It shouldn't, it's not my intent that it does, but it will, because many of you were doubtless weaned on materialism and reductionism and classroom-style deductive mathematics, instead of on contructive geometery and processing the concepts of unities, as the Universe is a unity, a One, just as the human individual mind is One. So One is the capital cardinal number, the most complex of all number notations, because it stands, here, (and in slightly different ways elsewhere), for the fundamental relationship between man and the Universe, between a man and the Universe of which he is a part. From this relationship, embodying, scientifically, hypothesis, empirical experiment, resolution of ontological paradox, and the “summoning” of a new hitherto unrealised, unemployed law of nature, into human practice, which, because of the aforementioned human direct relationship to the Universe in the process of its discovery, means that the discovery of the new law or principle acts directly on all of mankind's practice, and therefore all of mankind, past, present, and future, universally. Mankind is therefore the only species with its own reason to exist: It is the crown of creation, capable of reordering Nature lawfully, but creatively, in order to increase its power to survive in a hostile Universe, yet, ironically, a Universe teeming with possibility for new forms, for new life and the unlimited growth of mankind on the Great Adventure. This, thus, makes mankind sacred, in a way that no unreflective beast is sacred. Our animals may be precious, but they are not sacred. Only the human mind is important. Alright, I've taxed your patience enough: How does this relate to the abolition of the State? It is something that has niggled at me for years, coinciding when I began listening to Freedomain Radio broadcasts where a tiny, holdover-from-highschool affection for anarcho-communism was turned inside out like a glove. The same, but different. And from that point the concept, the words of Stef were worthwhile, intriguing, but inaccessible so long as I adhered to the so-far, at least in the “Free West” imperfect-but-far-from-Bolshevik-Russia republics and parliamentary liberal democracies. But interacting with the passionate people here, in unwitting concert with Lyn, has broken that for me, by that articulate, cogent passion, by his statement, and he says nothing flippantly. So, what we're dealing with are the human species, the general welfare principle, which is really a principle of love, the republican principle, which is subject to re-imagining, re-vision, re-building, and the individual human mind, as the creator of wealth, as the survivor, as the loving creature, love of reason, love of what is behind the eyes of other humans, love of mankind, and with a spillover effect of love of beauty, and animals, and all of Nature. How does this all come together? It means that the human mind is sovereign. “The human mind is the only thing that's important.” So, our practice of government must be based on the human mind, which means the importance, the stucture of inter-State relationships envisioned by Pope Leo XIII and LaRouche later, of sovereign nation-States collaboration externally but keeping their own internal affairs shielded and inviolate, dissolves like soft rain on sugar-snow, leaving the bare green grass revealed beneath. Thus, to defend humanity against aggression both human and Natural, to promote the general happiness, to allow breathing room and ingenuity to build new and better Republics, and to foster the creativity of the sovereign human mind, the new principle needs to be discovered or rediscovered, transmitted, and assimilated into global human practice, and that is the Non-Aggression Principle. LaRouche is on your side, whether he explicitly tells or not. I encourage everyone to look into this man's corpus and break out of the materialist/reductionism paradigm that the oligarchal desk-monkeys have crafted and infused like viruses into the body politic. The NAP alone can't do it, it has to have historical weight and if you want that, you go to LaRouche. Merry Christmas!

How many men are required to form a state?

Made my point better than I could have. If people come to America they should not be surprised if Americans speak with American accents. EYE-rak, EHY-rab, CAT-sup, and so on.

5. A culture promoting misogyny and ignorance..

(1) Yes, I know that. I'm presuming that these nation-states are hypocrites with regards to how they treat their own citizens, but potentially not hypocrites with regards to their encoded ideal with regards to other nation-states. In other words, do nation-states play at the fantasy they are a group of sovereign individuals against whom no aggression is legitimate? (2) And it would be wonderful if life were wonderful. That I support a war against ISIS is not secret knowledge, but I support it only voluntaristically. I would not force another human being to go to war for my sake. My point is that there are circumstances that arise that call for killin'. If the philosopher-kings can arrange to both do the killin' that needs doin', and arrange our affairs such that no further killin' is necessary, then bully for us and three cheers for them.

And why should Modern Standard English be held accountable to foreign tongues?

I'm not mispronouncing Moslem, nor am I mocking Islam by doing so. I am preserving a miniscule piece of my heritage. In fact, I remember one High School history class, where a Moslem classmate, true to form, complained to the teacher about the teacher's writing of the word "M-u-s-l-i-m" on the blackboard, instead of the classmate's preferred spelling "M-o-s-l-e-m".

(1) I'm asking whether there is any meaningful precedent among the nation-states of the world to view the NAP as desirable. (2) Regardless of how the problem started, at some point steps need to be taken to eliminate it. By your Middle East reference are you suggesting America should have remained isolationist in WWII?--but of course the ancap answer is "yes" because America by rights shouldn't exist. Which begs the question of how an ancap population in what was formerly known as America would have responded to the military adventurism of the Third Reich.

Do you recommend calling Moscow, Moskva?

Why couldn't both men each declare themselves states-of-one? Then would their combat be war?

Strong-minded people believe in accepting members of a religion that, since its inception, has declared war on the world? The House of Islam versus the House of War?