|
|
Post by NonEntity on May 16, 2007 16:56:14 GMT -5
Yes, Dentist, you are right. I was insulting. It is not one of my better traits. I apologize for the insults.
I'm not condemning you to a lower intellectual status. I'm simply stating that your communication is ineffective. If you care to communicate then I suggest you control your haste and create sentences which are clear. Your thoughts are not clear. Slow down. I find no content that makes sense.
Writing is not easy. Nor is clear thinking. Haste makes it worse.
I read a quote once. It said, "Writing is easy. You simply stare at a blank piece of paper until beads of blood form on your forehead."
I think he may be understating it.
I apologize for being rude. But the rest of my comments were intentional. I cannot read what you write in the fashion you are writing it. And what little I do read is not logical.
As I said, slow down. There is no hurry. Your life will not be over until it is. And then that will be that. You can't speed it up or slow it down, so just take it as it comes.
- NonE
|
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on May 16, 2007 17:41:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on May 17, 2007 14:29:13 GMT -5
...I try not to be overly hostile...  I read a quote once. It said, "Writing is easy. You simply stare at a blank piece of paper until beads of blood form on your forehead." I think he may be understating it. It's either Douglas Adams or Gene Fowler. Or (since Fowler died in 1960) it's possible Adams* was keeping the witticism alive by recycling it en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Gene_Fowleren.wikiquote.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams*It's likely that Adams really loved the quote as it applied so well to his notorious procrastinaton he suffered whenever composing his linguistic gems. |
|
|
|
Post by lummox2 on May 17, 2007 16:05:45 GMT -5
Darren, you ARE our online community. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by marc stevens on May 17, 2007 16:32:52 GMT -5
This Saturday, May 19, 2007, my guest on the No State Project will be Stefan Molyneux. You can call in at 888-202-1984.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on May 18, 2007 9:58:02 GMT -5
Wow Marc, :shock:on topic!:shock: |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on May 19, 2007 18:02:19 GMT -5
Speaking of "on topic," Stef was really informative today... CHLOROFORM! The answer to dating problems. All these years and I'd never thought of that. See, it really pays to listen to smart people like Marc and Stef. I can see that my dating is going to be picking up big time real soon now. Thanks, Stef!
- NonE
|
|
|
|
Post by damageinc on May 19, 2007 23:19:23 GMT -5
Just make sure she's not fat. |
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on May 20, 2007 14:42:36 GMT -5
...guest on the No State Project... Stefan Molyneux. The next Government fear mongering relative to illegal aliens:  ;D |
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on May 20, 2007 16:23:08 GMT -5
Marc, on the May 19th radio show, you "split a hair" (or was it "hare"?) ;D with shiny forehead-hair-less Stefan and others regarding The State not existing but Government does exist. Where you put it that Government is simply the people, etc. I need help here in why The State isn't or can't be just those same people? For me it seems both are simply 'mere' concepts to begin with (and it appears from your and Stefan's discussion and his posting here to be the case for Stefan?). Where therein the empirical validity of either is simply when either seeks to lawfully be or be seen as an individual with standing and/or be capable of being the corpus with individual rights. [perhaps in other words, why can't (or even haven't) individuals/people/we simply agree(d) that the words "The State" (the states) and "The Government" (the governments) are synonyms? does that help? as afterall, isn't it just agreement when it comes to concepts ie meeting of the minds essentially to start with? and to go even one farther, wouldn't an informal survey pretty well establish that for most, this synonymity is already held to be the case?]Where am I missing the validity of the split hare? thanks in advance for your time & consideration---- |
|
|
|
Post by marc stevens on May 21, 2007 11:22:50 GMT -5
The people are not the state because there are no citizens and no body politic. Technically here in the "US" that would also mean there is no government because that requires a body politic here. It doesn't apply in other places though as government is seen for what it is, killers, thieves and liars.
|
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on May 21, 2007 13:08:15 GMT -5
The people are not the state because there are no citizens and no body politic. Technically here in the "US" that would also mean there is no government because that requires a body politic here. It doesn't apply in other places though as government is seen for what it is, killers, thieves and liars. So the split "hare" is akin to the furry rabbit versus Alice's white rabbit-- aka splitting words from terms? Where-- "The State" as a term is The Citizens with allegiance = The State with duty to protect. The "State" as a word (for a valid concept) is or can be synonymous with Government and Citizens as individuals. ["valid" as considering how one defines the words like "Govern" eg "self-govern"/"self-control", centrally as whether there is voluntary association or aggressive/transgressive violence, etc]Where there can be individuals that are acting criminally including saying they are The State (the word or the term even) but equally saying ( juris prudence) They have no duty to protect and calling armed robbery lawful="legal"). Abbot & Costello quote here: " Who's on first, What's His Name's on second, and I Don't Know's on third..." Humpty Dumpty (and all The King's Men) quote here: " When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less." Making the word a term. Word artisans. And actions speaking louder than terms?!  |
|
Freeborn
Full Member
In legal land armed robbery is ''taxation''
Posts: 199
|
Post by Freeborn on May 21, 2007 19:30:27 GMT -5
Great post
|
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on May 22, 2007 7:29:04 GMT -5
I noted in the earlier post: "The State" as a term is The Citizens with allegiance = The State with duty to protect.
The "State" as a word (for a valid concept) is or can be synonymous with Government and Citizens as individuals.
["valid" as considering how one defines the words like "Govern" eg "self-govern"/"self-control", centrally as whether there is voluntary association or aggressive/transgressive violence, etc] It came to me, that word definitions are an excellent example of voluntary association. No? I find it interesting to consider that word meanings can be changed by popular "vote"-- in a most original sense-- simply by folks agreeing to it; and that simply by choosing to accept or reject a meaning. [and of course, with the likes of Black's, Ballentine's, Bouvier's, and Codes, we find other's "vote" for meanings?-- but where there's an offensive/aggressive gun on the table with the dictionary...]  Quickly too, regarding "State" specifically, I've always thought it interesting, if not significant, that a standard use of the word, with lower case of course, is the "state of being"-- but most significantly, "the state of mind"! So with "Government". How easily could synonyms (or specific manifestations of them) for it be "Arbitration Board" or "DRO" ("Dispute Resolution Organizations")? Where said "governing" is simply where parties have voluntarily, but contractually, agreed to be governed-- which is first principally, self-government? After all, who decides the definitions of words in a voluntary society to start with? And equally "after all", isn't any form of "Govern"ing other than self-governing (and its contractual extensions) simply "criminal"? Not to mention usurpation of the word... ======================================  Marc, hopefully with this thread including "No State" in its title makes exploring the term versus the word "State" here not too much of a thread steal? We can move this though if its distracting from the need of this thread to specific to news about the show-- just lemme know, ok? |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on May 22, 2007 8:26:11 GMT -5
2i2,
I just read your post above. You throw out some thoughts, but you don't indicate any conclusions. I'm making the guess that you have a point, a conclusion, in mind in the above post and perhaps believe that it is so obvious that we will "get it" without your having to actually state it. (the ellipsis so indicate this also...) Perhaps this is not the case, but if it IS the case, I did not get it and wonder if you'd be willing to clarify your thinking for my addled brain.
Thanks.
- NonE
|
|
