Notice to Wesley Serra.

[pigpot]

What do you want me to do Wes? Do you want me to agree that Nations and States exist and that they have jurisdiction? Just let me know what you'd like me to agree to.

Ta.

[Jeffrey]

Hey pigpot, since you're on a roll promoting Marc Stevens' theories let me pick your brain a little bit.

Over in the physical sciences we have a concept known as Explanatory power. Basically the strength of a theory depends on how well it can explain the world we observe.

The example used in pretty much every science textbook is phlogiston theory versus oxygen theory. Oxygen theory eventually won out because it was better able to explain and fit fire experiments.

So let me ask you the same question you asked Serra in that context. Why should we believe that Nations and States do not exist and that they do not have jurisdiction? How would it benefit us to accept that theory of the world?

Let's say I have to go across the border to Canada to visit a friend or something, would me believing that nations and borders help me deal with the border guards more effectively?

Or let's say I'm facing jail time because I didn't pay taxes to the U.S., would believing that the United States doesn't exist help me avoid jail in some way?

What do you get out of viewing the world through your theory?

Hell, do you look at baseball games and think "the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox don't exist"? How does that help you understand what's happening on the field?

[wserra]

What do you want me to do Wes?

Well, let's see - although anyone of normal intelligence has had enough examples by now to have figured it out. First of all, it's probably best to avoid stuff like this:

Just remember flashing curtains next door. Lights off and on. Long haired "Yetis" at the window checking what I'm up to. The children of a Freemasonic family NEXT DOOR! They make me laugh. :lol: :haha: I'm ready for the next visit (hopefully for the little b1tch ass pile of sh1te will NEVER SHOW AGAIN) but the if the filth show again they'll get the same message... PLUS ONE!

Or this:

That's where I'm at. I laughed at two cops who I told to piss of from my front door the other week. I thought when I was at my front door I'd stepped into a pantomime with these couple of idiots in fancy dress. I can only hope they never visit again (not that I give a shit either way) but if they do I'll have a proposition for them, it's called, "Which badge is real competition?" It works like this... They get to throw their badge at me and I get to throw my badge at them. At the end of the competition we agree with whose badge hurt more after being thrown, as in whose badge was more REAL. Who can throw it the hardest in essence

Or this:

Picking at things...

"General warrant", "no particularity" ... "4th Amendment". Rights from unreasonable searches and seizures. "Had it been a filing cabinet"...

What a hoot! It's all sh1te!

Or this:

Ho ho! How I laughed at what you typed "rumps"... :haha: :sarcasmon: My God you are boring. Do you have a family? Are they all boring like you?

Are you getting the picture?

And then there's the hijacking. Not everyone wants to talk about your nonsense in every thread.

And then there are the claims repeated ad nauseam without proof.

And the dumbass attempts to play 20 Question Gotcha.

What do I want you to do? In a word, "Behave".

[Pottapaug1938]

To expand upon one of Wes's points: show some verifiable proof that any of your assertions about the law have any validity and have held up in court. I'm not talking about copypasta word salad using quotes mined from court cases; I'm talking about appellate court cases where the HOLDING in the case supports your premise, and where that holding has not been overturned by a higher court.

[Arthur Rubin]

It's not easy for someone without access to a legal service to Shepardize a case. I think I'd give him any appellate court case where the HOLDING in the case supports his premise, until we point to where it was overturned.

[The Observer]

It's not easy for someone without access to a legal service to Shepardize a case. I think I'd give him any appellate court case where the HOLDING in the case supports his premise, until we point to where it was overturned.

It wouldn't matter. pigpot at that point would at the point claim that this is just proof that the courts are corrupt, that the statists will never allow a case like this to win, and so forth.

[bmxninja357]

Jeeze it like the people here don't even know that youtube taught them more law stuff than any lawyer knows.

So many rubes....
Ninj

[Judge Roy Bean]

What do you want me to do Wes? Do you want me to agree that Nations and States exist and that they have jurisdiction? Just let me know what you'd like me to agree to.

Ta.

That would be a start.

But your ego would never let such a thought creep into your deluded mind.

[Chaos]

there's really no shame in banning a troll. just sayin'

[AndyK]

The criteria, here, for banning someone are extremely narrow.

Just because someone is an inane, irritating troll does not warrant a ban.

Instead, the proper treatment conaiata of:

1 - withholding the supply of troll food. That is, ignore him except where it is necessary to post a simple factual rebuttal to the more dangerous (to the lay reader) claims

2 - moderate him to prevent the posting of profane, irrelevant, or ad hominem material.

Eventually (see Harvester) they will get bored and go away.

[Pottapaug1938]

People really need to sink beneath and below the standards of conduct here, repeatedly and after many warnings, before they get banned -- quite unlike the wackadooster sites, where the slightest hint of heresy is grounds for banning. In my 7 years here, I can only remember one or two people meriting (de-meriting?) this drastic step.

[AndyK]

According to the list available on the Quick-Mod panel, nine people have been banned.

However, this list probably got cleared when the data base crashed, since there are at least two that I remember who are missing: LawyerDude and David Merrill.

Also "nine" isn't truly accurate since a number of them are probably sock puppets.

[Gregg]

People really need to sink beneath and below the standards of conduct here, repeatedly and after many warnings, before they get banned -- quite unlike the wackadooster sites, where the slightest hint of heresy is grounds for banning. In my 7 years here, I can only remember one or two people meriting (de-meriting?) this drastic step.

I've been here over 10 years now, and they haven't banned me yet, so they must not have too many rules....its like Groucho Marx says, 'I'd never join any club that would admit me"

[rumpelstilzchen]

Do you want me to agree that Nations and States exist and that they have jurisdiction?

piggy, I assume that you don't live on the street or in a cave and you have a front door of some sort? Your front door has been placed where an imaginary line has been drawn on a map. That line doesn't really exist, it only exists in everybody's imagination. Now a few questions for you. Is everyone in the world allowed to cross your threshold without your permission or do you believe you can choose who can and who cannot step foot over that imaginary line drawn on a map? Do you believe you have the authority to use force to stop someone from coming through the door? Do you expect other people to accept the existence of that imaginary line? If you believe you have the right to prevent anyone from crossing that imaginary line please tell me where you obtain that authority from.

[pigpot]

Do you want me to agree that Nations and States exist and that they have jurisdiction?

piggy, I assume that you don't live on the street or in a cave and you have a front door of some sort? Your front door has been placed where an imaginary line has been drawn on a map. That line doesn't really exist, it only exists in everybody's imagination. Now a few questions for you. Is everyone in the world allowed to cross your threshold without your permission or do you believe you can choose who can and who cannot step foot over that imaginary line drawn on a map? Do you believe you have the authority to use force to stop someone from coming through the door? Do you expect other people to accept the existence of that imaginary line? If you believe you have the right to prevent anyone from crossing that imaginary line please tell me where you obtain that authority from.

I'm not going to bow to you. I'll tell you though where your going wrong though. Shush and be quiet about it... It's simply this. It's no more than this. In a voluntary world, your world view doesn't exist and therefore doesn't need to be accommodated as no-one is fighting (and if any are they are dismissed by those that want to get on). Your world is all about fighting and sh1te, but in the adult / real world, we don't won't to to fight. Easy as. Job done.... sorted

[NYGman]

Come on Piggy, that answer is so full of hogswallop, only appropriate coming from you. Your answer was as meaningless as most of your posts. The fact that we live in societies, requires some compromise. If you don't like the local compromises, move somewhere else. You were born in to society, from parents who were members of that society. Some made the conscious decision to give birth to you, and they were already part of society. By bringing in someone new to that society, they are agreeing that the person will also become part of that society, and obey societies rules. You are free to move to another society, if you don't like the one you are in, and your parents had that choice too. So you were born in to a society, with some rules to maintain order in society, and protect your rights in society. However in order to protect some rights, you may have to give up a bit. Yea, that is the great compromise. You can't have everything your way. If you don't like the status quo, get involved with politics, and change it. Get people to support your vision of change, and make it happen. you can't just put your hands over your ears and yell "Nah, Nah, Nah, Nah" whenever anyone tells you about a law you don't like.

Recently in the US, we have had Gay marriage legalized through the will of people who wanted it, we have legalized Marijuana for both medical and non-medical use in some states, heck, we have even recalled governors. So Society has laws, that people have to follow. These laws were made by politicians, elected by the people, to pass laws to protect society, to help the poor or those in trouble, to criminalize things that are not good for society, like murder, rape, other violent crimes, Theft, etc... Society isn't a bad thing, People like PigPot are allowed to exist, and spout their nonsense in todays society. Imagine a Pigpot in Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, Communist Yugoslavia, etc.

[Jeffrey]

In a voluntary world

We don't live in a voluntary world so that's all moot.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Do you want me to agree that Nations and States exist and that they have jurisdiction?

piggy, I assume that you don't live on the street or in a cave and you have a front door of some sort? Your front door has been placed where an imaginary line has been drawn on a map. That line doesn't really exist, it only exists in everybody's imagination. Now a few questions for you. Is everyone in the world allowed to cross your threshold without your permission or do you believe you can choose who can and who cannot step foot over that imaginary line drawn on a map? Do you believe you have the authority to use force to stop someone from coming through the door? Do you expect other people to accept the existence of that imaginary line? If you believe you have the right to prevent anyone from crossing that imaginary line please tell me where you obtain that authority from.

I'm not going to bow to you. I'll tell you though where your going wrong though. Shush and be quiet about it... It's simply this. It's no more than this. In a voluntary world, your world view doesn't exist and therefore doesn't need to be accommodated as no-one is fighting (and if any are they are dismissed by those that want to get on). Your world is all about fighting and sh1te, but in the adult / real world, we don't won't to to fight. Easy as. Job done.... sorted

piggy, you quoted my questions but you didn't answer them. That's not very polite is it now? If you are going to quote my questions you should at least have the decency to answer them. You told us you can beat anyone in a debate and you have fallen at the first hurdle. Oh....I get it now.....you think avoiding questions and posting gibberish is the way to win a debate. Come on, piggy don't run away from the questions of mine that you quoted. Let's talk about that imaginary line drawn on a map where your front door is sat.
Answer my questions......if you can.

[The Observer]

We don't live in a voluntary world so that's all moot.

No, we have chosen to not live in the voluntary world that exists. pigpot, like many other sovrun/freeman types, believes that this voluntary world is a utopia where they can escape the evils of statism. Unfortunately, the voluntary world is a natural world where every person can do as they please, even if it means to do so to the detriment of their fellow man. It is the brutish and short life that Hobbes described, a life that none of these sovrun types have ever experienced. If they were ever forced out of the statist society that they live in and benefit by into the voluntary world, none of them would ever dare to mention the subject again - if they were fortunate enough to survive it.

[Pottapaug1938]

Piggy's delusions remind me of the ones which Communists used to use. They'd smash capitalism and bring about socialism; and everything would be so hunky-dory that the state would wither away and everyone would live in a voluntary society where each person worked for the common good, from each according to their abilities and to each according to their needs.

If I recall correctly, things didn't work out quite as planned... and neither did those similar dreams of anarchists and extreme libertarians.