May I respctfully begin a new thread?

Moderators: Prof, Judge Roy Bean, ArthurWankspittle

pigpot
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 546
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2015 8:49 am

May I respctfully begin a new thread?

Postby pigpot » Fri Jul 10, 2015 2:26 pm

If so I will start with this below:

Is it okay to initiate force against another, when said other has not been seen (let alone proved) to have demonstrated any act of causing loss, harm, injury or fraud against or to another individual?

If so, would you be so kind as to provide me with references that point to the legitimacy of the reaction (initial force), based up the original action (no actual causation / no victim).

All thoughts upon this matter are most welcome. I do have my own thoughts upon this matter and I welcome ALL points of view upon this. I would like it to remain logical and without opinion but I do recognise that people are different and have differing starting points on all matters, even this.

This is the most open forum of it's kind I have been entertained upon as of yet. Cheers in advance for the discussion. :wink:
Boaz. It's a little like Shazam. It certainly meant a lot to Billy Batson.
Nothing in this post is legal or lawful advice, it is only used for the sake of entertainment.
All "rights" are reserved by this poster.

Dai Kiwi
Cannoneer
Cannoneer
Posts: 83
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 8:06 am
Location: An Island South of the Equator

Re: May I respctfully begin a new thread?

Postby Dai Kiwi » Fri Jul 10, 2015 2:35 pm

OK, I'll play,

What do you mean by "force"?
What do you mean by "original action"

Please provide examples of both.

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6341
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: May I respctfully begin a new thread?

Postby wserra » Fri Jul 10, 2015 2:39 pm

pigpot wrote:Is it okay to initiate force against another, when said other has not been seen (let alone proved) to have demonstrated any act of causing loss, harm, injury or fraud against or to another individual?


The problem with a question that broad is that, once answered, the questioner tends to go to specifics to "disprove" the general answer. I have no intention of going down that road to sophistry (as a federal judge once called Marc Stevens' stuff). If you have a specific question or topic, I'll be glad to discuss it - after I do several hours' work.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6341
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: May I respctfully begin a new thread?

Postby wserra » Fri Jul 10, 2015 2:41 pm

Kiwi - check your PMs.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

Judge Roy Bean
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Posts: 3534
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 7:04 pm
Location: West of the Pecos
Contact:

Re: May I respctfully begin a new thread?

Postby Judge Roy Bean » Fri Jul 10, 2015 4:28 pm

pigpot wrote:If so I will start with this below:

Is it okay to initiate force against another, when said other has not been seen (let alone proved) to have demonstrated any act of causing loss, harm, injury or fraud against or to another individual?

If so, would you be so kind as to provide me with references that point to the legitimacy of the reaction (initial force), based up the original action (no actual causation / no victim). ...


Yes.

Suspects and even witnesses sometimes have to be forcefully held.

And there are any number of situations where force would be appropriate when the act does not involve "another individual."
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy.
The Devil Makes Three

Hyrion
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 616
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 2:33 pm

Re: May I respctfully begin a new thread?

Postby Hyrion » Fri Jul 10, 2015 4:54 pm

I agree with wserra that your question is too broad. No single answer - other then a generic response - can be treated as "covering the whole truth". The correct answer, as a result, is:

    Sometimes yes, sometimes no, it really depends on the situation and all factors surrounding said situation.
For example, I noticed the word "threat" is absent from your list of points.

pigpot wrote:Is it okay to initiate force against another, when said other has not been seen (let alone proved) to have demonstrated any act of causing loss, harm, injury or fraud against or to another individual?

Specific example situation:

    Person A is holding a rifle and has just threatened to use it on person B.
To rephrase your question, it becomes:

    In said situation should person A be stopped, forcefully if necessary, before they follow up on their threat and take a life?
In my humble opinion, in that specific instance, with a person holding a firearm and having just threatened to use it on another (and make no mistake, this is a serious enough situation it should never be used as "a joke"):

    It is absolutely imperative to preemptively apply force in order to stop a murder
Because if you wait till the trigger is pulled - it's too late to save the life.

Dai Kiwi
Cannoneer
Cannoneer
Posts: 83
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 8:06 am
Location: An Island South of the Equator

Re: May I respctfully begin a new thread?

Postby Dai Kiwi » Fri Jul 10, 2015 5:34 pm

Hyrion,

With respect :-) you are reading things into pigpot's questions which are not yet answerable. Pigpot has not yet defined to us what 'force' or 'original action' mean. Pigpot might, or might not, include threats as an 'original action'. He might, or might not, consider threats 'force'. Until pigpot tells us what his terms mean we cannot possibly answer them in any sort of a meaningful way.

Games, games, games. Such fun.

Hyrion
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 616
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 2:33 pm

Re: May I respctfully begin a new thread?

Postby Hyrion » Fri Jul 10, 2015 5:49 pm

Dai Kiwi wrote:With respect :-) you are reading things into pigpot's questions which are not yet answerable.

True - but perhaps a specific example and answer to that will help pigpot organize his thoughts from the universal general into at least a worldly specific. At which point, maybe he'll be able to provide definitions to help clarify his word usage.

LordEd
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 863
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: May I respctfully begin a new thread?

Postby LordEd » Fri Jul 10, 2015 6:33 pm

Is it okay to initiate force against another, when said other has not been seen (let alone proved) to have demonstrated any act of causing loss, harm, injury or fraud against or to another individual?


Harm is not always caused against individuals. Out of necessity, we live in a structured society with various rules and laws.

A drunk driver, while not causing harm until an accident happens, is breaking the social rule preventing this action as a preventative measure, and will be forcibly detained for that purpose, even though there is no loss, harm, injury or fraud to an individual in that instance.

The harm is against the collective public.

User avatar
Pottapaug1938
Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
Posts: 4944
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:26 pm
Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.

Re: May I respctfully begin a new thread?

Postby Pottapaug1938 » Fri Jul 10, 2015 9:53 pm

Pigpot is simply playing a game which we have seen played here many times before. The newbie asks a general question, in the hope of getting an answer which he/she can twist to support the hidden reason for making the original post.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5735
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: May I respctfully begin a new thread?

Postby Burnaby49 » Sat Jul 11, 2015 12:16 am

Pottapaug1938 wrote:Pigpot is simply playing a game which we have seen played here many times before. The newbie asks a general question, in the hope of getting an answer which he/she can twist to support the hidden reason for making the original post.


Which is why we mods are keeping an eye on him and moving his posts to "Pigpot's Pot" when they are off topic. We've all seen this before and Pigpot has a history elsewhere.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

pigpot
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 546
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2015 8:49 am

Re: May I respctfully begin a new thread?

Postby pigpot » Sat Jul 11, 2015 6:30 am

Dai Kiwi wrote:Hyrion,

With respect :-) you are reading things into pigpot's questions which are not yet answerable. Pigpot has not yet defined to us what 'force' or 'original action' mean. Pigpot might, or might not, include threats as an 'original action'. He might, or might not, consider threats 'force'. Until pigpot tells us what his terms mean we cannot possibly answer them in any sort of a meaningful way.

Games, games, games. Such fun.


Okay. Thanks for the answers. I'll start with one example. An individual won't pay income tax / has never payed income tax and never wishes to pay income tax. He or she receives a NOTICE from the Inland Revenue (or whatever governmental department / collection agency is in place) stating he must pay his income tax or he will face a Court hearing as to his none payment. Remember at this point no-one has had harm, loss or injury occur to them.

So the man / woman sends the NOTICE back to it's place of origin stating that he doesn't care about the non-payment of income tax or the threat of Court action as he hasn't harmed another person and therefore no loss, harm or injury has occurred. Remember, that still at this point no-one has had harm, loss or injury occur to them.

So a couple of days later he gets a second NOTICE in the post demanding the payment in full after the I.R.S. / I.R. give him / her a second NOTICE to pay. So he does exactly what he did before. Remember, that still at this point no-one has had harm, loss or injury occur to them.

So now he / she gets an Order from the local Court that under the State / local law, that he / she is being summoned to Court for non-payment of income tax. So again the Order is sent back, stating that the individual doesn't consent to being made to attend an event where at this point, no-one has had harm, loss or injury occur to them.

So various trials, initial and final are conducted according to whatever code is "in place" and the accused is found guilty then sentenced in absentia and a warrannt is issued for the arrest of the non-paying of income tax person. Remember, that still at this point no-one has had harm, loss or injury occur to them.

So the individual is sitting at home and gets a knock on the door whereby he / she answers calmly and with respect. There they find a number of Police Officers at the door and the Senior of these Officers reads the Miranda warning and attempts to place handcuffs on non-paying individual. Remember, that still at this point no-one has had harm, loss or injury occur to them other than the now physically threatened non-paying individual.

The non-paying individual responds to the INITIAL threat of violent handcuffing and restraint when, still at this point no-one has had harm, loss or injury occur to them other than himself or herself, with purely defensive force equal only in strength to that of the combined strength of the number of attacking Officers. Remember, that still at this point no-one has had harm, loss or injury occur to them other than the now physically threatened non-paying individual.

Having been repelled the Police Officers call for back up and are rewarded with more of themselves. They storm the front door of the house and using stun weapons try to arrest the non-paying individual. Remember, that still at this point no-one has had harm, loss or injury occur to them other than the now physically threatened non-paying individual. He or she was not wearing the steel toe-capped boots, nor carrying a taser, mace, baton, handcuffs or possibly carrying a pistol or having attack dogs in the rear or the vehicle. In fact he or she was very much a pacifist and wore a flower behind his or her right ear. The only defensive weapon they had was guile and the strength to physically overcome the Police Officers.

Now quite irate at being ineffectual in terms of arresting the individual, the Police Officers deem it appropriate to stun the individual using tasers, mace and batons. None of this works and they are all again thrown out of the door. Remember, that still at this point no-one has had harm, loss or injury occur to them other than the now physically threatened non-paying individual.

So as a last resort after having tried all available methods other than the last and final one, a Police Officer draws his pistol during the final melee. He or she draws it out of a combination of things, fear of being beaten back again by the defender or not being able to arrest him using anything other than deadly force. The shot rings out and the defender is dead all for one initial reason, that he or she would not pay and obey a demand for income tax. This is not extreme. It is plausible. Less things have happened like a young man runs from a bus and is shot multiple times and dies on a public street due to not being able to make a payment for a dollar journey. I could give way more examples and I thank Youtube for being able to show criminals with guns at work.

Remember, that still at that point no-one has had harm, loss or injury occur to them other than the now dead non-paying individual. That harm, loss and injury resulted in a death.

My question is again (and now more structured and very specific) is it okay for the above to happen. I genuinely look forward to your replies and I thank you in advance for your valuable time which you choose to give freely in replying to my question. Please do not assume anything or build anything into the statements I have written above. If you need further clarification as to any issue I have not been clear about or need further specifics please ask me and I'll answer.

Cheers.
Boaz. It's a little like Shazam. It certainly meant a lot to Billy Batson.
Nothing in this post is legal or lawful advice, it is only used for the sake of entertainment.
All "rights" are reserved by this poster.

Jeffrey
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2550
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:16 am

Re: May I respctfully begin a new thread?

Postby Jeffrey » Sat Jul 11, 2015 6:46 am

Not only would I be okay with it, I'd buy the cop who shot him a beer.

Dai Kiwi
Cannoneer
Cannoneer
Posts: 83
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 8:06 am
Location: An Island South of the Equator

Re: May I respctfully begin a new thread?

Postby Dai Kiwi » Sat Jul 11, 2015 7:05 am

So there's the nub of it:

"I don't want to pay tax"
"I want to choose which laws I obey"
"I don't recognise the authority of the Courts"

There really is no point in carrying on with this thread.

pigpot
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 546
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2015 8:49 am

Re: May I respctfully begin a new thread?

Postby pigpot » Sat Jul 11, 2015 8:57 am

Jeffrey wrote:Not only would I be okay with it, I'd buy the cop who shot him a beer.


Thanks for your reply 'Jeffrey'. Might I ask why you'd do that? The logical reasoning that is reasonable and fair.
Boaz. It's a little like Shazam. It certainly meant a lot to Billy Batson.
Nothing in this post is legal or lawful advice, it is only used for the sake of entertainment.
All "rights" are reserved by this poster.

pigpot
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 546
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2015 8:49 am

Re: May I respctfully begin a new thread?

Postby pigpot » Sat Jul 11, 2015 9:12 am

In thinking that this is in the 'Pen' created for these threads and I'm allowed to ask for clarification concerning certain points as follows.

Dai Kiwi wrote:So there's the nub of it:
Okay.

Dai Kiwi wrote:"I don't want to pay tax"
I'm asking where is the authority (not power) derived from, for a government to force people to be made to pay a portion of the currency they earned by their blood, sweat and tears to an organisation because it will ultimately point a gun at them and shoot if 'they' deem it okay to do so. Just a question. Don't take anything personally. I'm here to learn about what you think and why you think it. Not just to accept blindly at face value what you say. Otherwise if no-one challenged anything, boats wouldn't sail for fear of falling of the 'edge' of the 'world'.

Dai Kiwi wrote:"I want to choose which laws I obey"
From my standpoint, I'm questioning who get's to create the laws made by men over other men, which denies the idea of we are all equal under the law. Whose law? God's law? Who and where is God? I'd like to speak with him / her / it. I'm being serious here because if we all just simply stopped and said, 'Okay enough with talking about it", then vaccines wouldn't be made, medical science wouldn't progress and we'd all be living in the new 'dark ages'.

Dai Kiwi wrote:"I don't recognise the authority of the Courts"
As above. I won't labour the point as I've already questioned; What is legitimacy? It follows that a because a Court is a Court, what gives it legitimacy? The usual answer is because, "It's a Court."

Dai Kiwi wrote:There really is no point in carrying on with this thread.
I tend to agree.

Cheers. No hard feelings and thanks for all the time invested. :D
Boaz. It's a little like Shazam. It certainly meant a lot to Billy Batson.
Nothing in this post is legal or lawful advice, it is only used for the sake of entertainment.
All "rights" are reserved by this poster.

Jeffrey
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2550
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:16 am

Re: May I respctfully begin a new thread?

Postby Jeffrey » Sat Jul 11, 2015 9:18 am

Your individual there is an example of the free rider problem. He's getting the benefits of public goods and services without paying for them. Ultimately, the final recourse to dealing with that problem is for the state to use force against the individual.

Of course, being a Marc Stevens libertarian voluntary-ist, you'll disagree and say it's immoral to use force to punish him, but it's more immoral for him to exploit others by not paying taxes. And ultimately, a voluntary opt-in system for paying for public services would never work.

pigpot
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 546
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2015 8:49 am

Re: May I respctfully begin a new thread?

Postby pigpot » Sat Jul 11, 2015 9:22 am

I'd also like to pose the issue of I am no threat to anything here, there or otherwise. But I am sometimes perceived to be so. I have maintained my conduct here. More so than any website I have ever joined. There is only one of me so to perceive me as a threat and to ask for moderation is a little hard I think. I have joined here to type things through and not get into a dirt fight with anyone (see that, 'dirt fight' Wowww! No swearing by me is a rather large accomplishment).

If the Quatloos community would rather not have me here I would prefer not to post again rather than be banned as there is more honour in that. I shall however leave that to the moderation team to make a final choice. Please give me notice rather than none.

I am not here to challenge facts as I cannot. Opinions however are not facts and are fair game I believe.

If I am wrong please correct my presumptions.

Cheers, Grand Master P.
Boaz. It's a little like Shazam. It certainly meant a lot to Billy Batson.
Nothing in this post is legal or lawful advice, it is only used for the sake of entertainment.
All "rights" are reserved by this poster.

pigpot
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 546
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2015 8:49 am

Re: May I respctfully begin a new thread?

Postby pigpot » Sat Jul 11, 2015 9:41 am

Jeffrey wrote:Your individual there is an example of the free rider problem. He's getting the benefits of public goods and services without paying for them. Ultimately, the final recourse to dealing with that problem is for the state to use force against the individual.

Of course, being a Marc Stevens libertarian voluntary-ist, you'll disagree and say it's immoral to use force to punish him, but it's more immoral for him to exploit others by not paying taxes. And ultimately, a voluntary opt-in system for paying for public services would never work.


Well I've been accused of not answering others questions "Jeremy" but although you've done the same I'll forget that and move on. If you do get the opportunity to explain you're previous stance about buying the cop a beer I'd like to read it please.

Moving on. The individual you and I both referenced to isn't free riding. I mentioned income tax. So I'll add in for you that he or she pays their rates, road tax, dog licence, general sales tax, diesel tax (depending where you are in the world), all the other taxes other than income tax. What does the government do to arbitrarily tax peoples income tax and let's forget what the that goes to for the minute.

Why does the government get to monopolise what it wants? What about a voluntary society? Why can't I pay for the services of a doctor as and when I need one? If I'm healthy why can't I pay privately? Why must the government take my income away at source without consent for things I may never need?

Now it seems I'm typing with someone who can talk the talk. For that "Jeremy' I'm very VERY grateful. Of that you can be assured.

You describe me as, 'Of course, being a Marc Stevens libertarian voluntary-ist", though not strictly true we'll just use that as a point of reference and move on from there. I could describe you not as a 'Statist' as that's too broad a brush to paint you with but say, one who regards some form of State necessary; Would you go with that?

I mean WE are not at odds and to be fair to you this is the most agreeable disagreement I've had in a long time. So again thanks for that.

Hey but you and I are also agreeing over the fact that's immoral for anyone to use something they haven't paid into. I wouldn't. I think you are confusing the Freeman bullshit '96 is your fix and that everything has been paid for nonsense with anarchism. I don't believe that if I haven't paid into something I still get the right to use it though I STILL would never see someone starving on the streets.

And ultimately, a voluntary opt-in system for paying for public services would never work.
I've never seen it work in practice though I'd like to see it given a go. However with the big old bad ass government, that's going to be something that will be seen because government is NOT about allowing people self-determination. It's allowing people self-determination within given parameters. The two are not the same thing.

Cheers Jeremy. A certainly enlightened individual that has my respect for at least typing with / against me. Kudos to you for whatever you think it's worth. The length of my post is an account of how much I have enjoyed this on-line excursion into the void of opinions and facts. :D :wink:
Boaz. It's a little like Shazam. It certainly meant a lot to Billy Batson.
Nothing in this post is legal or lawful advice, it is only used for the sake of entertainment.
All "rights" are reserved by this poster.

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10780
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: May I respctfully begin a new thread?

Postby notorial dissent » Sat Jul 11, 2015 9:43 am

Pigpot, your questions as someone has previously pointed out are sophistry, or if you don’t like that they are open ended pointless nonsense showing a basic intellectual dishonesty.

I was going to say something snarky, but you then answered the question by posting your real premi, which are equally intellectually dishonest sophistry.

As someone else pointed out at a later juncture, this discourse is pointless, thanks to your intellectual dishonesty.

Thank you for playing, now please run along and leave the big kids alone. Come back, maybe, when you acquire some maturity and maybe grow up a great deal.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.


Return to “Other Countries/Regions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest