You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Simplify laws: No Victim, No Crime
so the state switched to police state. how does one convinces them to give up of such power tool? they surely invested a lot into building it up and making it work in 21 century. they invested a lot of time and resources. now its working. what would it take to gain back some freedom?
Removing support for people who endorse it. Before you vote for anyone study their actions and history. Ignore their words as the actions are what truly matter.
If they are already in office if you can find a reason and way to recall them DO IT. If you can't then plan to replace them.
Now I'd like to see no government, but I believe we must do things in stages... minimizing it to as little as we can get it is a step in the right direction as far as I am concerned.
I think minimizing it to as little as we can get it is simply not participating in politics, not voting, not endorsing people that participate. It might be considered extreme by some but there's no legitimacy in someone having powers to make laws or levy tax, and endorsing such illegitimate acts help maintain the system more than bring it down. I think it's one stage, denouncing illegitimate acts.
Unfortunately that doesn't stop them from passing laws and using FORCE to make you follow them. You can resist and not follow them and die, but that is not surviving.
So to some degree I believe we CAN minimize them by participating and by participating limit the crazy shit they can force upon us. It is it endorsing it? Not necessarily it is simply survival. Minimize it and convince people that ultimately it is not needed.
It is one of those things where we can SHOUT THIS IS WRONG AND I WILL NOT DO IT. Then we die.
One less person that understood now walks the Earth.
We must LEAD (not rule)... lead by example, and yes you can protest but if they don't understand then your protesting will do nothing.
So we must also work towards helping more understand self responsibility... and the idea that they shouldn't be able to force others... you see most of them still believe it is okay to FORCE others
they think RULERS are acceptable.
So they will impose rules upon you whether you protest or not.
It's not just protesting, it's denouncing illegitimate acts, which you cannot if you are performing, or giving credence to illegitimate acts as it would constitute hypocrisy to denounce your own choice.
The argument is that you should petition them to not be as bad in their treatment, but since denouncing rule by force's illegitimacy, is paramount to holding credibility/integrity if you recognize that initiating force is not acceptable. You can participate in the system, actively and overtly trying to bring it down, one representative, one mayor, one person at a time, or subversively doing it from within, leaking information, but the whole time you are getting compensated or helping keep people compensated through the extortion you want to stop, and seeking to resolve that hypocrisy you would have to contend that the ends justify the means, I understand but leading requires integrity, and compromises, but compromised integrity is not what I think of when I think of leaders, but of puppets.
So you don't pay taxes? You drive the speed you want and ignore speed limits? You drive on whatever side of the road you want? You camp on any so-called public land wherever you want and ignore postings, etc.?
If you do all of these things then perhaps you have room to talk. It also would be a pretty amazing trick. If you don't do all of these things even if you see them as illegitamet then it may have something to do with doing what you must to survive.
People can talk from a high position all they want, that doesn't make such things realistic. So there are things you may believe are illegitamet, but if the system has not changed then what you THINK is pointless if you die in your pride.
I don't view it like an on/off switch. I believe that is a false dichotomy. It is another one of those things that makes people FEEL GOOD to say you are either for it or against it. Yet as with most dichotomies there are more choices than that.
You can also treat it more like a path where you are building a path towards where you want to go one stone at a time. I have no right to arrogantly tell you MY choice is the right one, and yours is the wrong one. They are different paths. Which one gets us where we need to go is the right one. Telling anyone YOU MUST DO AS I or you are a fool is not a way to speak either, for any of us so certain our path is the ONLY true path I think need to really consider what we are saying. There are many paths. Often they lead to similar places by different routes.
It's inconsequential what you do so that the gang doesn't archate against you. I am not denouncing speed limits, driving on a specific side of the road, or where and how you should deal with not bringing or involving the gang into your activities.
I am doing and have done all those things (drove all over the road) but that's not the point, I was talking about the integrity you hold as a leader, will you compromise on integrity because of the kinds of acts and proxies you support and support you, effective from your choices of participating in or petitioning the gang.
Yes, it's important that you don't self destruct in the hands of the gang. I wasn't saying go self destruct so that you have integrity. I was saying denounce the illegitimacy of levying taxes and imposing your will onto others and don't participate or entertain it's legitimacy or you will perish as a hypocrite if you recognized that illegitimacy and participate in it.
What you're suggesting is that petitioning the gang will work. Pleading with the aggressor is better than denouncing him. If it's about survival, then the first thing you would do is protect and defend as much against the aggressor as possible, being proactive and watching the aggressors with vigilance.
What I think could be very important, because ideas are what people live and die for. Ideas builds ones ideals, and in matters of free will, ideals is what constitutes the thought behind choice. It's their contagious nature that makes just one utterance of an idea so potent, so powerful, that the energy spent uttering one idea in comparison to the energy potential of ideas to move and direct individuals in their choices and ultimately effect critical mass (the one hundred monkey), is perfectly painted by a bullet leaving the gun with the pull of a trigger. It's not pride, it's effecting the most change.
One can chose to even support the gang and drive the laws to be even more stringent, the regulations even more far reaching, the licenses, the permits, the diplomas even more important and necessary, you could drive the apparatus to a more swift end by pushing it to consume itself, by essentially making it's illegitimacy insufferable to everybody. But in the context of being a leader, you very much lose integrity in the eyes of those that recognize this illegitimacy and it's essential insufferable nature, so if you wish to lead by example crying for harder laws is just as equal as crying for better laws, you are essentially legitimizing that which you know to be illegitimate. You can effect anarchy in all kinds of ways, but in the context of leading by example it's not a false dichotomy. You are either against using force and extortion to your ends, or not.
Actually I am not. That is what you are assuming I am suggesting. Your assumption would be wrong. Yet this is okay because we are not mind readers.
I am suggesting that I survive and I help other people that are in the throes of the gang learn and wake up. You see I KNOW from observation time and time again just saying "You are wrong! Stop!" has virtually no effect on your target except maybe to make them think you are an arrogant nut job. So I don't approach it that way. I approach it like I said as laying down stones. I do not approach it as MY PATH is the way. I approach it as laying down stones that people can choose to follow or not and with the gradual introduction of the idea they become receptive to what you are saying.
The problem here is you are preaching to the choir. I already get that. I follow the works of Larken Rose, and other who speak much the same as you.
I get it.
Yet they also don't reach everyone. Larken and myself spoke once and he admitted his method doesn't reach everyone. There are many paths. I have mine, you have yours. I believe our desired destination is the same. How we believe we should travel to get there differs.
I am not saying you are wrong, and I am not saying I am right. I am telling you there are many paths. Unless you are a person who has an omniscient view of the future then you can't really know the outcome of the path anyone (including yourself) chooses to walk.
As far as denouncing its illegitamacy... I do so frequently. I even did so in this article. Yet I personally don't think the flipping the switch and simply yelling "it is wrong" will meet the reception we need to start pushing people along a path towards that final destination. You apparently disagree. That is fine. Walk your path, and hopefully we get there or help the future get there closer. You leading some people that are receptive to your path, and me leading those that are receptive to mine, and sadly we likely both will miss some.
I understand now, I got the impression that you were advocating for better laws as a way to affect freedom. I don't think it's about reaching everyone, the gang has legitimacy because of the majority aren't questioning their legitimacy, so anything that makes people question that is essential to change.