Strong democracy or strong constitution ?

[BADecker]

"Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime."

Authoritarian anarchism teaches men, by its authoritarianism, how to dwell among without will of state.

"... dwell among without ..."

Dwell among what?

At a time when there were only a few people in the world, the only thing that held them together was love.

Sooner or later among people there is going to be the thief. Some people simply do this. It is a standard fact of life.

If the thief steals from you, you can protect yourself, man to man, from the thief.

If the thief is smart, he will get together with a few others of like mind, and you will not be able to stop them all.

If you are smart, you will get together with a few others of like mind. Then you will be able to stop the thieves.

"... without will of state," is a really neat idea. But it never lasts. Best is a state that upholds "harm no one, and don't damage someone's property" by making it a non-state accusing when a state official does the harm or damage.

In other words, the state officials act in their official capacity when prosecuting harm or damage acts, but if THEY do harm or damage, even in their official capacity, they are prosecuted in their non-official capacity, by others who are in THEIR official capacity.

This is the basic thing that the U.S. Constitution provides for, along with protecting the nation from foreign aggression. The fact that the people have allowed themselves to become so extremely stupid about this, that they don't use what they have, but rather often seek to overthrow the best form of government out there, shows just how strong the Constitution is. Even government can't destroy it, but, rather, is required to destroy all destroyers of this Constitutional government, be they from without or within.

[1714837708]

1714837708

[1714837708]

1714837708

[1714837708]

1714837708

[1714837708]

1714837708

[username18333]

"Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime."

Authoritarian anarchism teaches men, by its authoritarianism, how to dwell among without will of state.

"... dwell among without ..."

Dwell among what?

At a time when there were only a few people in the world, the only thing that held them together was love.

Sooner or later among people there is going to be the thief. Some people simply do this. It is a standard fact of life.

If the thief steals from you, you can protect yourself, man to man, from the thief.

If the thief is smart, he will get together with a few others of like mind, and you will not be able to stop them all.

If you are smart, you will get together with a few others of like mind. Then you will be able to stop the thieves.

"... without will of state," is a really neat idea. But it never lasts. Best is a state that upholds "harm no one, and don't damage someone's property" by making it a non-state accusing when a state official does the harm or damage.

In other words, the state officials act in their official capacity when prosecuting harm or damage acts, but if THEY do harm or damage, even in their official capacity, they are prosecuted in their non-official capacity, by others who are in THEIR official capacity.

This is the basic thing that the U.S. Constitution provides for, along with protecting the nation from foreign aggression. The fact that the people have allowed themselves to become so extremely stupid about this, that they don't use what they have, but rather often seek to overthrow the best form of government out there, shows just how strong the Constitution is. Even government can't destroy it, but, rather, is required to destroy all destroyers of this Constitutional government, be they from without or within.

If it did not last, they were not taught.

[BADecker]

"Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime."

Authoritarian anarchism teaches men, by its authoritarianism, how to dwell among without will of state.

"... dwell among without ..."

Dwell among what?

At a time when there were only a few people in the world, the only thing that held them together was love.

Sooner or later among people there is going to be the thief. Some people simply do this. It is a standard fact of life.

If the thief steals from you, you can protect yourself, man to man, from the thief.

If the thief is smart, he will get together with a few others of like mind, and you will not be able to stop them all.

If you are smart, you will get together with a few others of like mind. Then you will be able to stop the thieves.

"... without will of state," is a really neat idea. But it never lasts. Best is a state that upholds "harm no one, and don't damage someone's property" by making it a non-state accusing when a state official does the harm or damage.

In other words, the state officials act in their official capacity when prosecuting harm or damage acts, but if THEY do harm or damage, even in their official capacity, they are prosecuted in their non-official capacity, by others who are in THEIR official capacity.

This is the basic thing that the U.S. Constitution provides for, along with protecting the nation from foreign aggression. The fact that the people have allowed themselves to become so extremely stupid about this, that they don't use what they have, but rather often seek to overthrow the best form of government out there, shows just how strong the Constitution is. Even government can't destroy it, but, rather, is required to destroy all destroyers of this Constitutional government, be they from without or within.

If it did not last, they were not taught.

This is the exact thing. Strong as the constitutional government of the USA is, that was one of its major flaws. Around civil war times, the military was ordered to force people into the public school system. There is no way a law can force public school operations. But the military could do it in a time of turmoil. That's why private schools are an option.

In other words, there should have been some strong school provision built into the Constitution that made common law learning a requirement for the people.

Over the years, government people who have an agenda of taking control and making everyone slaves, have removed the teachings about common law from the schools. Civics class became Government class. We aren't taught about our true freedoms anymore... freedoms from almost anything that the government wants to force us to do... even driving the speed limits.

The common law is not gone. The people are waking up. This is part of the reason that we see a build-up of armament among law enforcement in the States. I expect that government will try to forcibly push common law back under the covers somehow.

[username18333]

"Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime."

Authoritarian anarchism teaches men, by its authoritarianism, how to dwell among without will of state.

"... dwell among without ..."

Dwell among what?

At a time when there were only a few people in the world, the only thing that held them together was love.

Sooner or later among people there is going to be the thief. Some people simply do this. It is a standard fact of life.

If the thief steals from you, you can protect yourself, man to man, from the thief.

If the thief is smart, he will get together with a few others of like mind, and you will not be able to stop them all.

If you are smart, you will get together with a few others of like mind. Then you will be able to stop the thieves.

"... without will of state," is a really neat idea. But it never lasts. Best is a state that upholds "harm no one, and don't damage someone's property" by making it a non-state accusing when a state official does the harm or damage.

In other words, the state officials act in their official capacity when prosecuting harm or damage acts, but if THEY do harm or damage, even in their official capacity, they are prosecuted in their non-official capacity, by others who are in THEIR official capacity.

This is the basic thing that the U.S. Constitution provides for, along with protecting the nation from foreign aggression. The fact that the people have allowed themselves to become so extremely stupid about this, that they don't use what they have, but rather often seek to overthrow the best form of government out there, shows just how strong the Constitution is. Even government can't destroy it, but, rather, is required to destroy all destroyers of this Constitutional government, be they from without or within.

If it did not last, they were not taught.

This is the exact thing. Strong as the constitutional government of the USA is, that was one of its major flaws. Around civil war times, the military was ordered to force people into the public school system. There is no way a law can force public school operations. But the military could do it in a time of turmoil. That's why private schools are an option.

In other words, there should have been some strong school provision built into the Constitution that made common law learning a requirement for the people.

Over the years, government people who have an agenda of taking control and making everyone slaves, have removed the teachings about common law from the schools. Civics class became Government class. We aren't taught about our true freedoms anymore... freedoms from almost anything that the government wants to force us to do... even driving the speed limits.

The common law is not gone. The people are waking up. This is part of the reason that we see a build-up of armament among law enforcement in the States. I expect that government will try to forcibly push common law back under the covers somehow.

Nay, for his virtue, a man must know his lack thereof.

[BADecker]

"Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime."

Authoritarian anarchism teaches men, by its authoritarianism, how to dwell among without will of state.

"... dwell among without ..."

Dwell among what?

At a time when there were only a few people in the world, the only thing that held them together was love.

Sooner or later among people there is going to be the thief. Some people simply do this. It is a standard fact of life.

If the thief steals from you, you can protect yourself, man to man, from the thief.

If the thief is smart, he will get together with a few others of like mind, and you will not be able to stop them all.

If you are smart, you will get together with a few others of like mind. Then you will be able to stop the thieves.

"... without will of state," is a really neat idea. But it never lasts. Best is a state that upholds "harm no one, and don't damage someone's property" by making it a non-state accusing when a state official does the harm or damage.

In other words, the state officials act in their official capacity when prosecuting harm or damage acts, but if THEY do harm or damage, even in their official capacity, they are prosecuted in their non-official capacity, by others who are in THEIR official capacity.

This is the basic thing that the U.S. Constitution provides for, along with protecting the nation from foreign aggression. The fact that the people have allowed themselves to become so extremely stupid about this, that they don't use what they have, but rather often seek to overthrow the best form of government out there, shows just how strong the Constitution is. Even government can't destroy it, but, rather, is required to destroy all destroyers of this Constitutional government, be they from without or within.

If it did not last, they were not taught.

This is the exact thing. Strong as the constitutional government of the USA is, that was one of its major flaws. Around civil war times, the military was ordered to force people into the public school system. There is no way a law can force public school operations. But the military could do it in a time of turmoil. That's why private schools are an option.

In other words, there should have been some strong school provision built into the Constitution that made common law learning a requirement for the people.

Over the years, government people who have an agenda of taking control and making everyone slaves, have removed the teachings about common law from the schools. Civics class became Government class. We aren't taught about our true freedoms anymore... freedoms from almost anything that the government wants to force us to do... even driving the speed limits.

The common law is not gone. The people are waking up. This is part of the reason that we see a build-up of armament among law enforcement in the States. I expect that government will try to forcibly push common law back under the covers somehow.

Nay, for his virtue, a man must know his lack thereof.

You have that right, and not only because I acknowledge it. 

[btcusury]

(What is being said is that pseudo-anarchy may be imposed via authoritarianism.)

A critical flaw of pure anarchy, for pre-ential humanity, is that it permits its own destablishment. Authoritarian anarchy is pure anarchy minus that flaw.

What does "pre-ential" mean? And how exactly do you imagine that could happen? Your idea of "authoritarian imposition of anarchy" sounds like Year Zero (the Cambodian authoritarian imposition of communism).

Over the years, government (people who have an agenda of taking control and making everyone slaves), have removed the teachings about common law from the schools. Civics class became Government class. We aren't taught about our true freedoms anymore... freedoms from almost anything that the government wants to force us to do... even driving the speed limits.

And before there was common law there was Natural Law, which logically describes your true freedoms. BTW, I fixed your misconception about what government is by taking the liberty of adding a parenthesis.

[BADecker]

(What is being said is that pseudo-anarchy may be imposed via authoritarianism.)

A critical flaw of pure anarchy, for pre-ential humanity, is that it permits its own destablishment. Authoritarian anarchy is pure anarchy minus that flaw.

What does "pre-ential" mean? And how exactly do you imagine that could happen? Your idea of "authoritarian imposition of anarchy" sounds like Year Zero (the Cambodian authoritarian imposition of communism).

Over the years, government (people who have an agenda of taking control and making everyone slaves), have removed the teachings about common law from the schools. Civics class became Government class. We aren't taught about our true freedoms anymore... freedoms from almost anything that the government wants to force us to do... even driving the speed limits.

And before there was common law there was Natural Law, which logically describes your true freedoms. BTW, I fixed your misconception about what government is by taking the liberty of adding a parenthesis.

If you read Blackstone, you will find that natural law is almost the same as common law. Common law is simply natural law with the breaking of it thrown in to correct it among people. The only important thing that natural law has, which common law may not have, is the recognition of the existence of God.

[username18333]

(What is being said is that pseudo-anarchy may be imposed via authoritarianism.)

A critical flaw of pure anarchy, for pre-ential humanity, is that it permits its own destablishment. Authoritarian anarchy is pure anarchy minus that flaw.

What does "pre-ential" mean? And how exactly do you imagine that could happen? Your idea of "authoritarian imposition of anarchy" sounds like Year Zero (the Cambodian authoritarian imposition of communism).

Over the years, government (people who have an agenda of taking control and making everyone slaves), have removed the teachings about common law from the schools. Civics class became Government class. We aren't taught about our true freedoms anymore... freedoms from almost anything that the government wants to force us to do... even driving the speed limits.

And before there was common law there was Natural Law, which logically describes your true freedoms. BTW, I fixed your misconception about what government is by taking the liberty of adding a parenthesis.

1. "Entity," there, refers to a system where-within input does not necessarily correspond with output.

2. Within authoritarian anarchism, governed are not permitted that "heat sink" of government, but are subject to a "heat pump" of anti-government.

[BADecker]

(What is being said is that pseudo-anarchy may be imposed via authoritarianism.)

A critical flaw of pure anarchy, for pre-ential humanity, is that it permits its own destablishment. Authoritarian anarchy is pure anarchy minus that flaw.

What does "pre-ential" mean? And how exactly do you imagine that could happen? Your idea of "authoritarian imposition of anarchy" sounds like Year Zero (the Cambodian authoritarian imposition of communism).

Over the years, government (people who have an agenda of taking control and making everyone slaves), have removed the teachings about common law from the schools. Civics class became Government class. We aren't taught about our true freedoms anymore... freedoms from almost anything that the government wants to force us to do... even driving the speed limits.

And before there was common law there was Natural Law, which logically describes your true freedoms. BTW, I fixed your misconception about what government is by taking the liberty of adding a parenthesis.

1. "Entity," there, refers to a system where-within input does not necessarily correspond with output.

2. Within authoritarian anarchism, governed are not permitted that "heat sink" of government, but are subject to a "heat pump" of anti-government.

So, what governmental system, considering that some people are evil, is better than a common law government in the long run?

[username18333]

(What is being said is that pseudo-anarchy may be imposed via authoritarianism.)

A critical flaw of pure anarchy, for pre-ential humanity, is that it permits its own destablishment. Authoritarian anarchy is pure anarchy minus that flaw.

What does "pre-ential" mean? And how exactly do you imagine that could happen? Your idea of "authoritarian imposition of anarchy" sounds like Year Zero (the Cambodian authoritarian imposition of communism).

Over the years, government (people who have an agenda of taking control and making everyone slaves), have removed the teachings about common law from the schools. Civics class became Government class. We aren't taught about our true freedoms anymore... freedoms from almost anything that the government wants to force us to do... even driving the speed limits.

And before there was common law there was Natural Law, which logically describes your true freedoms. BTW, I fixed your misconception about what government is by taking the liberty of adding a parenthesis.

1. "Entity," there, refers to a system where-within input does not necessarily correspond with output.

2. Within authoritarian anarchism, governed are not permitted that "heat sink" of government, but are subject to a "heat pump" of anti-government.

So, what governmental system, considering that some people are evil, is better than a common law government in the long run?

Your "good," "evil," and "better" mandate necessary correspondence of input and output within a system (which you Homo sapiens are).

[BADecker]

(What is being said is that pseudo-anarchy may be imposed via authoritarianism.)

A critical flaw of pure anarchy, for pre-ential humanity, is that it permits its own destablishment. Authoritarian anarchy is pure anarchy minus that flaw.

What does "pre-ential" mean? And how exactly do you imagine that could happen? Your idea of "authoritarian imposition of anarchy" sounds like Year Zero (the Cambodian authoritarian imposition of communism).

Over the years, government (people who have an agenda of taking control and making everyone slaves), have removed the teachings about common law from the schools. Civics class became Government class. We aren't taught about our true freedoms anymore... freedoms from almost anything that the government wants to force us to do... even driving the speed limits.

And before there was common law there was Natural Law, which logically describes your true freedoms. BTW, I fixed your misconception about what government is by taking the liberty of adding a parenthesis.

1. "Entity," there, refers to a system where-within input does not necessarily correspond with output.

2. Within authoritarian anarchism, governed are not permitted that "heat sink" of government, but are subject to a "heat pump" of anti-government.

So, what governmental system, considering that some people are evil, is better than a common law government in the long run?

Your "good," "evil," and "better" mandate necessary correspondence of input and output within a system (which you homosapians are).

Well, it is kinda fun playing. Aren't you homosapien?

[username18333]

(What is being said is that pseudo-anarchy may be imposed via authoritarianism.)

A critical flaw of pure anarchy, for pre-ential humanity, is that it permits its own destablishment. Authoritarian anarchy is pure anarchy minus that flaw.

What does "pre-ential" mean? And how exactly do you imagine that could happen? Your idea of "authoritarian imposition of anarchy" sounds like Year Zero (the Cambodian authoritarian imposition of communism).

Over the years, government (people who have an agenda of taking control and making everyone slaves), have removed the teachings about common law from the schools. Civics class became Government class. We aren't taught about our true freedoms anymore... freedoms from almost anything that the government wants to force us to do... even driving the speed limits.

And before there was common law there was Natural Law, which logically describes your true freedoms. BTW, I fixed your misconception about what government is by taking the liberty of adding a parenthesis.

1. "Entity," there, refers to a system where-within input does not necessarily correspond with output.

2. Within authoritarian anarchism, governed are not permitted that "heat sink" of government, but are subject to a "heat pump" of anti-government.

So, what governmental system, considering that some people are evil, is better than a common law government in the long run?

Your "good," "evil," and "better" mandate necessary correspondence of input and output within a system (which you Homo sapiens are).

Well, it is kinda fun playing. Aren't you homosapien?

I know not my status about that. However, what of my greater posit?

[BADecker]

Your "posits" are expressed in such a way that I don't understand for sure what they are, or for sure if one even exists.