 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Thanks for the update and I would like to know whose pies are better between you and your blackberry pie and my daughter's apple pie. I am not one to judge since I am not much on pies, but my daughter is often given much thanks for the good work she does with apples, flour, and a rolling pin.
On the question of true authority, which is the context of my words, I think that we all know the answer instinctively, or naturally, or intuitively, so long as our genetic make-up is not injured, destroyed, or mutated, but words that describe that which works naturally are not easy, for reasons that may become obvious.
The authority of man upon man is a lie. That means, in context, that the origin of law is not found inside a man, since the authority of law is found in the origin of what made man, and all that man encounters through life, or the almighty, or the creator, or whatever power is the source of power that is the origin of creation.
I see that as being true. A man can claim to know true authority, and it is possible that the claim being made is true, but the fact that it is true makes it true authority, not the fact that one man, or woman, knows the true authority.
What is an example of true authority?
I can claim to know that voluntary agreements constitute true authority among those individuals of mankind that agree. My proof of the fact that this is true authority is such that anyone asked if they are forced by any man to agree proves, if the answer is no (I was not forced), and if the answer is true (the person was not forced into "agreement"), that the authority in question was not a man forcing authority upon a man. In other words, if someone disagrees with the concept of true authority being expressed as agreement, do they do so because they are not forced to do so by another man, and therefore it is an agreement, not a disagreement with the concept?
I'm asking.
In other words, you don't have to agree with true authority, because true authority does not require your agreement, nor does true authority require (human) enforcement. True authority is proven as human agreement each time people agree. The liars may claim that an agreement between two human beings to combine their power to injure another human being proves that agreement is NOT true authority, but that is another lie, since the victim, being a victim, by that definition, does not agree, so the liars are offering an example of counterfeit agreement as an example of an agreement, which is routine for criminals.
I think your help is helping me find what I mean, right here, as true authority is Liberty, as it exists in peace, and if there is going to be any force applied to intervene in between a criminal and a victim, that is another subject. That is defense against crime.
1.
True authority (criminals do not agree with it, proven by their willful crimes)
2.
Humans agreeing to find ways to avoid crime.
One is not the other thing, is it?
My words:
Authority of man upon man is a lie.
Your response:
"Is there any valid authority?"
Ask everyone you know to find anyone who says no to the following example of how true authority works.
Your loved ones, which is potentially everyone, but I am making this personal to bring it into our living rooms, or onto our kitchen tables like delicious pies...
Your loved one is cornered and a criminal is about to end the life of your loved one, and someone else, who we can call Person A, arrives in time to shout the word "NO!"
The criminal thinks better of ending the life of your loved one, and the criminal scampers off, back into the darkness, or who knows, that criminal may have been scared straight, and that criminal may run into the light.
If you find someone claiming that person A is not an example of someone expressing true authority, then there may be reasons for such a claim being made by a person we can now call Person B.
Person B may say something along the lines of your loved one deserving what they should have gotten (murdered), and therefore Person A was taking the law in his own hands, which is a crime, on and on.
I say that there may be more than one Person B, and there may be more than one Person A, and there may be many people who would just watch as the criminal ends the life of your loved one in any case whatsoever.
I know what I would do, since I've been in at least one similar situation. There is a power at work driving me to act lawfully, in my opinion, and the power is built into my being, given to me, thankfully.
What horror exists in the depths of ignorance, apathy, or criminality?
I think I can claim to know, since I've been in at least one situation where I've failed to act right, or lawfully, or in defense of innocence.
I can claim that true law defends innocence, but who would agree with me?
Should there be police, and in my mind I am not talking about criminals with badges.
To me the question of individual people specializing in being in the right place at the right time to help innocent people avoid being victims to criminals is an obviously good investment in scarce power, since so much power is destroyed with each crime perpetrated by each criminal upon each innocent victim.
Those who specialize in a free market scenario (Liberty) are those who are best at it, those who charge the least for it, and therefore the specialists who specialize in being in the right place at the right time to intervene, to stop, to say "NO!," to run off the criminals, to make crime pay less, in Liberty (free market competition), are best at it, rather than the case where the criminals take over, and the criminals make their crimes pay very well.
So, yes, I agree, certainly, to anyone claiming of the need to invest in specialists who intervene in the middle of a crime in progress. The example, on a local, individual, single, crime in progress, between two people, one criminal, and one victim, is asked for, and offered, in the case of Person A. I asked for an example, and I offered one.
That pales in comparison, competitively, to the concept of investing in a defensive power large enough to intervene in the unfortunate event of having a very large criminal army invading, destroying, raping, pillaging. and occupying a place where Liberty may be allowing people to live and let live otherwise.
So I now offer a scale.
One criminal, acting alone, one victim at a time victimized by the one lone gunman, the lone serial killer, and the obvious, agreeable, need to invest in such a specialization as having someone powerful enough to make that type of crime pay less.
Currently there is a case here where a mom with a history of thinking problems has gone missing. The family is seeking donations since the "police" are worse than having no "police," as the "police" will work to make money from the family, by accusing, arresting, and punishing a member of the family, if the "police" can't find easier prey.
That is the sorry truth, in real time. I am not up on the whole story, as to any reasons, or lack of reason, for the mom to walk away, if that is what she did, willfully.
I am only offering that scenario as a case of "how to pay for" defense against crime.
The family is gaining the funds needed to hire a private investigator, at this point.
That is the fine, local, door to door, individual, detail of power being invested into things that can be called crime prevention, or law, or authority.
The true authority is missing? The dad has to stop working long enough to start acting in a truly authoritative way, driven to do so by forces that I can only imagine.
I can go on and on with this local stuff.
But that is only local stuff.
The Declaration of Independence is a man made declaration declared by the victims in response to crimes perpetrated by organized criminals whose power was, at the time, immense.
Is the Declaration of Independence an expression of true authority?
I can claim that it is, but who agrees with me?
How many Person B types, who claim that the Declaration of Independence is not an expression of true authority, as they may claim that Might makes Right, or some other claim meaning the same thing?
I am not saying that my claim is true authority, but it is a competitive, high quality, and low cost claim compared to the opposition offered by Person B.
I prefer those who agree with the idea that it is our duty, as human beings, to intervene in between criminals and victims so as to make crime pay less, even when the criminals are very well organized and very powerful.
I am talking about regular people who have a job that includes a badge, a gun, and a car, and who use those tools in a way that keeps the peace. Didn't they used to be called Peace Officers before they were called Police Officers, before they were called Cops, before they were called Pigs? And I have no idea what they are called today.
Even now, even after the criminals have taken over for over 200 years, here in America, there are still more good, true authorities, among us compared to those who are not, if the measure of dead corpses floating down rivers is a rough way to measure such things. The Civil War (lie) comes to mind.
How do you tell the good one's from the bad ones?
How do you tell the genuine specialists in true authority from the counterfeit versions who specialize in crime made legal?
Ask one if they think that any person who can say NO to crime aught to say NO when saying NO can end a crime in progress. Can I, merely me, deputize myself, or do I need permission sir? Can I take the law into my own hands or not, sir?
Ask one if The Declaration of Independence is true authority, whereby it is the duty of those under criminal governments to disconnect from such crimes in progress, and while you are at it, ask that person if they know that The Constitution makes rebellion against the law, and is therefore a criminal government in fact. If the answer to the question about The Declaration of Independence is affirmative concerning the duty of the people to disconnect from criminals governments, then The Constitution has to be, by that reasoning, a criminal government, since The Constitution outlaws "insurrection," which is rebellion, which is exactly what the criminals call those who refuse to be victim to criminal governments.
Is there such a thing as yielded authority where people who choose to live in a certain place abide by rules or laws and those given authority to enforce laws have a lawful and good job as long as they follow the rules and are not above the rules?
Here is the test of a person's understanding of true authority in my view. If someone claims that a rule is true authority and their claim is then made by them that the rule only applies to other people, but the rule does not apply to themselves, then, in that case, to me, you have accurately identified a criminal.
The criminals do not often make such claims in the open. Not on the local level. Not personally face to face. A criminal is not going to accost you and say that it is the rule that you have to obey this law while I do not have to obey this law, because no such requirement of camouflage is needed while both of you know, precisely, that the criminal is busy making you a victim right there on the spot.
However, the campaign, the promises, of ever better things, if only you sign on the bottom line, if only you agree, if only you buy, this or that, the bounty you will know, the paradise you will realize, will be, if only you agree, are legion, and it is called false advertizement.
The rule of might makes right is the same rule as Caveat Emptor, is it not?
Do onto others before they have a chance to do onto you?
It is the rule shared by all the criminals?
It is the one rule that everyone uses universally?
Kill or be killed?
If you do not agree, then what?
Failing to agree results in what?
Friendship?
I can't claim to be an authority over anything unspecified. But I can claim, offer, and ask for, friendship.
If I am rejected, there is no crime in my mind, I can merely work at a more competitive offer, but if the form of rejection arrives as being my injury, a broken leg, broken knee caps, a steady draining of my earnings, then I think I know that I have found criminals.
I can offer. Do you at least know what is not authority, beyond a reasonable doubt?