Josf Posted May 19, 2015 Posted May 19, 2015 I may not last long here, as I have not lasted long in the following list: 1. John Birch Society 2. Untied We Stand (Ross Perot) 3. Fully Informed Jury Association Forum 4. Congressional Ballot 4th District California 5. National Rifle Association 6. Real News Network Forum 7. Daily Paul Liberty Forum 8. Anarchism.net Forum 9. Mises Institute Forum 10. National Liberty Alliance In most cases above the powers that were deleted, removed, ended, requested my leave, or otherwise expressed the clear and unmistakable message of involuntary association. So I see no problem, just ask, and I can thankfully pack up and move on. As to the definitions of the terms currently in use with one meaning one day, and yet another meaning another day, such as government or anarchism, it may help clue anyone else in on where my FIXED meanings of words are anchored firmly. The meaning of government is either defined by individuals acting alone in defense of innocent victims from guilty criminals or the meaning of government is defined by individuals forming voluntary mutual defense associations whereby individuals gain access to the power available with economic employment of division of labor, specialization, and economies of scale, and again the limit of where government stops and crime starts is demonstrated in time and place as innocent victims are defended from guilty criminals. The meaning of anarchism is unfortunately much more difficult to accurately identify in any case, any place, at any time. One might define the meaning of anarchism to be a synonym for effective, voluntary, defense, while another might define the meaning of anarchism as a synonym for perpetrating crimes, with malice aforethought, on anyone at any time, innocent or not. I would link example of my previous history where my activity remains to be published, however I have yet to figure out how to link to other web pages. I can offer words that reinforce my understanding concerning the difficulties associated with the employment of a contentious word, such as anarchism. The author is Stephen Pearl Andrews, who is said to be one of the founding American Anarchists, second in line only to Josiah Warren, and the reference has to do with another prominent figure in American Anarchism, whose name is Benjamin Tucker; with another contact in the name of Proudhon. Well, I tried the cut and paste of the text, and since that is not possible until I figure out how to do a simple cut and paste of text, that explanation can either wait, or be stuffed down the memory hole. I would like to find likeminded individuals, whereby the agreement is to do something about the criminals perpetrating crimes such as mass torture and mass murder under the color of law, or so called "government," whereby those agreeing to do something also agree to refuse to be the criminals perpetrating crimes under the color of law, and to that end I think I have some information worthy of digging up, and posting, and exchanging, voluntarily, toward that mutual defense association concept.
Josf Posted May 19, 2015 Author Posted May 19, 2015 Voluntary mutual defense association demanded and supplied competitively in free markets. That was the idea, expressed in words, and in actions, during the time period between 1776 and 1787, and anyone opting out, is someone encouraged, or even helped, in doing so, so long as the best cases are looked at, rather than the opposing end of the scale. Example 1 can be Quakers asked to help defend the innocent victims from the guilty criminal, mercenary, and slave army of aggressive war for profit known as The British, Red Coats, Monarchy, Divine Right of Kings, Central Banking Cabal, Roman Cult, Jesuit, Mason, military industrial complex, whatnot. Example 2 can be explained by the people in Rhode Island declaring the end of slavery, as well as the 6th President of the United States in Congress Assembled, one named Richard Henry Lee, speaking out against the evil, criminal, kidnapping, abusing, and trading of people for profit: aforementioned slavery. Those examples provide the so called anarchistic side, or the moral side, or the voluntary side, or the defensive side of the scale. On the other side, as with all human contact, there are those whose actual thoughts and actual actions are, in one word, criminal. Example 1 can be George Washington and the dictatorial enforcement of any order that must be obeyed without question whereby failure to obey without question, any order, no matter how criminal, or how immoral, is cause to act in a manner that destroys the individual who fails to obey without question, and said punishment of the disobedient is so severe, so torturous, and so murderous, so evil, as to deter any other thoughts by anyone, anywhere, of thinking, let alone acting, disobediently. Example 2 can be Alexander Hamilton and the fraudulent usurpation of the working voluntary mutual defense association, turning the voluntary nature of human contact, covertly, in the opposite direction, in order to then produce and maintain the exclusive power to issue fraudulent money to everyone stupid enough to fall into that trap. My intention was to add to this, and provide examples of events demonstrating the principles explained earlier, but as my attempt to cut some of my work here, and then paste some of my work here was not possible, there is something in the code that does not allow for pasting text in this text window, since that has happened, then that suggests to me that my work is not welcome, even before my work is offered. So be it.
Josf Posted May 20, 2015 Author Posted May 20, 2015 I understand principles based upon voluntary association, non-aggression, and non-deception, concerning free, mutually beneficial, which means mutually defensive, association. An example is provided for in the concept Open Source on one side and Intellectual Property Rights on the other end of a scale. People find cause to act in their defense against unwanted connections to undesirable information initiated involuntarily by people who spam, and people who deceive, and people whose intention - with malice aforethought - is to injure targeted, innocent, victims. So gates are put up, closing in the community of people thusly defended by those gates. Membership. Proof of membership. Presumption of guilt before proof of innocence. Prejudice, and collective punishment. I understand how that works to aid, abet, lend moral support to, and lend material support to criminals. I think I am also clear of mind to be aware of genuine, thoughtful, application of measures that work efficiently at reaching the goal of effective defense against whatever is deemed worthy of defending against by any individual, or any group of individuals associated voluntarily, and the methods, and processes employed, expediently, reach the goal effectively, without harming any innocent people directly or indirectly. One is one thing, the other is the other thing, and confusing the two is one of the things that work to cover-up the willful intentions to harm people as well as the unintended consequence whereby the innocent are blamed for the intended harm done by the guilty. Help in unraveling the confusion is valuable to some, help in spinning the accurate accounts into confusing webs of deception is valuable to other's. My goal here, which can be trusted as true, genuine, or not, is to reach for, and effectively identify, accurately, the methods and procedures that work best at defending the innocent victims from the guilty criminals, in time and place, and at the lowest cost to anyone; and the way to move in that direction is demonstrably free people defended through free market government suppliers forced to provide higher quality and lower cost, in competition with other suppliers, to meet the demand for that specific service, product, good.
Josf Posted May 21, 2015 Author Posted May 21, 2015 Discussion (rather than argument for the sake of argument) and even debate is possible. The idea can be agreed upon, shared, whereby the idea is to improve awareness of the accurate accounts, measures, views, perspectives, of life. I was listening to an account, a viewpoint, which was a collection of viewpoints offered during one presentation of those collected viewpoints, concerning George Washington, here on this Forum, and suddenly the man in question is given command of the entire continental army intending to defend against the invading criminal army of the so called British. That is a very difficult thing to perceive happening reasonably. Here is this narcissistic psychopath whose claim to fame is the worst possible military record, a known criminal within the ranks of the otherwise honorable military, and somehow this pathological liar is afforded absolute power over the defenders in America as the defenders face another pathological liar across the pond? Did I miss something?
Recommended Posts