Greetings to all (Dale Eastman)

[notorial dissent]

Funny, I always thought that when the clown showed up in the silly clothes and funny nose that was just what you were supposed to do, or in this case, obviously silly argument. If someone shows up wearing their silly argument, and particularly with a kick me sign on their backs, it just seems rude not to oblige.

[tracer]

What happened to 4 and 6?

I see two possibilities:

1. Mr. Eastman wanted to list the first prime numbers, in case his post gets transmitted to aliens as part of the SETI program.
2. Definitions 4 and 6 hurt Mr. Eastman's argument.

[Cathulhu]

Tracer, I go with your suggestion #2. Since SETI is looking for intelligent life, can't really see them transmitting proof of stupid.

[Mr. Eastman]

Here's where it breaks down, because this is Eastman's conclusion masquerading as an argument.

Why can't The People collectively assert powers that individuals cannot? Well, they just can't, that's all. I (Eastman) don't like it.

Exactly.

The real answer is: Of course, people collectively assert power people individually cannot. That's the nature of government. That's the nature of law. Deny that this should occur, you're an anarchist.

Anarchy brings with it a host of other problems, but Eastman should at least have the cojones to admit what he is.

Mr. Wserra, do you think people should be forced to purchase services at gunpoint?

You stated: "people collectively assert power people individually cannot" Please elaborate. What power is asserted? How is it asserted?

If Eastman had any cojones (at least, that aren't solid brass), he wouldn't be offering this bull-effluent to the rest of us.

Mr. Pottapaug's comment was in reply to the previous post wherein that poster claimed I had no cojones because I would NOT admit, state, face the consequences regarding a certain point. The context of the previous post indicates that not having cojones equates to cowardice. The previous poster implies that I have no cojones and am a coward for not admitting something the previous poster thinks I should admit.

Removing the parenthetical, Mr. Pottapaug's statement reads If Eastman had any cojones, he wouldn't be offering this bull-effluent to the rest of us.
Mr. Pottapaug seems to be saying If Mr. Eastman was NOT a coward, Mr. Eastman would not be posting here. Or in other words, If Mr. Eastman was brave, Mr. Eastman would not be posting here.

But when the parenthetical is partially replaced, Mr. Pottapaug's statement reads If Eastman had any cojones (that aren't solid brass), he wouldn't be offering this bull-effluent to the rest of us.
Now Mr. Pottapaug seems to be saying that having brass balls is why I'm posting here. The cultural reference to having brass balls in my part of the world means being manly, brave, not a coward. So Mr. Pottapaug now seems to be saying If Mr. Eastman was NOT brave, Mr. Eastman would not be posting here.

This brings us to that last part of the parenthetical: (at least).

--idioms. at least. 1. According to the lowest possible assessment; not less than: waited at least an hour. 2. In any event; anyway: You might at least answer.

So bringing in the information just cited to do a transform on Mr. Pottapaug's statement: If Eastman had any cojones (not less than solid brass), he wouldn't be offering this bull-effluent to the rest of us.

The casual reader is asked to notice that Mr. Pottapaug's post was meant to be a pot shot at myself.

potshot also pot shot n. 1. A random or easy shot. 2. A criticism made without careful thought and aimed at a handy target for attack: reporters taking potshots at the mayor.

The real answer is: Of course, people collectively assert power people individually cannot. That's the nature of government. That's the nature of law. Deny that this should occur, you're an anarchist.

But Eastman isn't talking about power -- I think even he would admit that a group has the physical ability to exert power. In trying to negate the concept of authority, he's really saying that the concept of law (as the authorized use of force) is immoral. By seeing authority in terms of morality rather than legality, he's arguing philosophy rather than law.

Mr. Banjo, you are correct: I admit that a group has the physical ability to exert power.

In asserting: "he's really saying that the concept of law (as the authorized use of force) is immoral." You are close, but you don't quite understand my position. This is not an error on your part. You are basing your conclusion on what you have seen. You have not seen everything. You will as the discussion between myself and the Quatloos regulars progresses.

Mr. Banjo, you state: "By seeing authority in terms of morality rather than legality, he's arguing philosophy rather than law." Believe what you will. I'm not here to change your mind. As I stated in an earlier post, one of my purposes is to show True Colors.

I reject your assertion that I am arguing philosophy by asking this question: Do you, Mr. Banjo, have any duty to obey an immoral law?

If you answer "no", you admit that immoral law has no authority. Law without authority is a legal argument. Void ab initio is a legal term describing law that has no authority.

If you answer "yes", you admit that you are an immoral person because if the law says shove Jews and other undesirables into the ovens, you will do so. (Following orders and obeying the law are the same, you are doing what you are told to do so. The Nuremberg Trials come to mind.)

If you don't answer, you admit that you can't answer no because you gut your own assertion that it's a philosophical discussion, and you admit that you can't answer yes because you paint yourself as a Nazi.

The issue of painting yourself as a Nazi leads to a second question: Mr. Banjo, if the law says shove Jews and other undesirables into the ovens, will you do it?

If you answer no to both of the above questions, you are asserting that immoral laws are void ab initio.

Later, as the discussion progresses, I will address the raison d'être of law because this ties the morality of a law to its authority.

A glance at Eastman's board - the one he references in his sig - shows that it contains 260 posts. Of those, 247 are Eastman's.

And that applies to the original post and original question how?

You were the one who raised the subject of your board. I was just pointing out that, while you surely appear to like the sound of your own voice, no one who matters agrees with you.

I raised the subject of my board to give fair notice that replies, such as this pot shot of yours, are being archived. That way, when somebody deletes the thread, or the forum software auto-prunes, the True Colors of the Quatloos regulars as they engage with myself will still be available.

In your case, Mr. Wserra, you have posted wonderful examples of your True Colors as you attempt to deflect, distract, disrupt by any means necessary, and to insult and take pot shots at myself.

Hey, Eastman. Your warning says:

WARNING: Do not reply to or comment about my posts if you don't want your posts archived on my website.

But I didn't reply to your post or comment about your post and yet my prior post in this thread magically appeared on your forum. In the event that I actually cared whether or not my posts were archived on your website, I would feel violated to the depth of my core. For my simple post to be copied posted on your website in all its naked glory would an unforgivable act. An act so blatantly hurtful that I would every hour on the hour drop to my knees, shake my fists at the heavens and scream "WHY HAST THOU FORSAKEN ME!?" until my knees were bloody, my carpal tunnel flared up and I grew a polyp in my throat. When all these things occur, I would then start cutting the letters out of Dick & Jane books use them to form the "lyrics" of Justin Bieber songs and mail them to you in random order. Then and only then would you feel the depth of the pain that I would feel.

But only if I gave a damn. Which I don't, so whatever. Just wanted to say "hi" and tell you that you broke your own rule/warning.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Those posts have been deleted. However, this one won't be.

Justin Bieber? Now that's just plain ornery.

In all his passing gas, Mr. Eastman fails to address the one simple question I asked, long long ago: WHY DID YOU ASK YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTION? WHAT PROMPTED YOU TO ASK IT?

Pot shot noted.

At the time you posted this message, I had not yet given you the partial answer that is now in one of my prior posts. And Cpt. Banjo did get another part of the answer to your question posted by myself.

You want me to present my covert agenda. It's just not going to happen at your command. You will just have to be patient and your question's answer will appear in the dialog. Sorry.

Can Joe be given authority by a person who doesn't have authority to give Joe authority?

Please define what you mean by "authority".

From an essay I previously wrote:

Authority may be manifest in a variety of symbolic or tangible ways. Its fundamental character is “permission to act” and its metaphor is the key.

Just as one who holds a key is granted access to things beyond a locked door, the holder of authority is allegedly granted access to exceptional actions beyond the common and mundane actions that are the birth rights of every flesh and blood person.

To be given access beyond a locked door, one must be given a key. One can not be given a key by another who holds no keys.

Likewise, to allegedly be given access to exceptional actions, one must be given authority. Such authority can not be given by another who holds no such authority.

To give authority to another requires the original authority holder to concurrently hold two authorities. The first is the authority to be delegated. The second is the authority to delegate the first authority.

Delegated authority must be delegated from an existing source of authority. Delegated authority can not be spontaneously created from nothingness.

Since authority can be re-delegated if the authority holder holds concurrent authority to delegate, this can create a “chain of authority”. A chain of authority must have a beginning link, and that beginning link must be attached to the original authority. The authority delegated down the chain can only go to the last link and no further. All the links in a chain MUST be intact. Any authority if challenged must trace back to the original authority. Any authority that doesn’t connect to the original authority is not authority.

When I post this particular post, it brings my post count on Quatloos to 5.

Your post count may be low, but you more than make up for that with your post length. It's a pity your content density is not higher. I think I dozed off about 3/4 of the way through your last post while waiting for you to get to a point.

Pot shot noted.

My post density would be higher if I didn't have crap, such as this post of yours, demanding that I make note of its author's True Colors.

The question asked: "Can Joe be given authority by a person who doesn't have authority to give Joe authority?"

The answer is that under certain conditions, yes. In the world of insurance, especially property and casualty, a number of companies have agents that represent the company and those agents can do certain things on the company's behalf. It is possible that an unknowing (or unscrupulous agent) has the employee do something on the agent's behalf under the guise of doing it on behalf of the company.

If the agent has no such authority to authorize another to take that action, whatever that other person does could still be binding on the agency and company because the new guy thought the agent had such power under the rules of agency. By extension, anyone dealing with the new guy could reasonable expect to win in court and expect the company to honor the deal struck between the new guy and the client, even though the new guy had no authority and the agent had no authority to give the new guy authority. In other words, giving authority (in regards to that transaction) to the new guy who should not have been given it by an agent who had no authority to do so.

Bold emphasis mine.

Your scenario sets an analog wherein "the new guy" or "employee" equates to "Joe" in the question "Can Joe be given authority by a person who doesn't have authority to give Joe authority?"

Your own words: "even though the new guy had no authority" admits that Joe was NOT given authority. You contradict yourself in a single post.

That the insurance company was on the hook for the new guy's (Joe's) unauthorized action does not prove that the new guy (Joe) had authority delegated, as you yourself admit .

In all his passing gas, Mr. Eastman fails to address the one simple question I asked, long long ago: WHY DID YOU ASK YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTION? WHAT PROMPTED YOU TO ASK IT?

He is "tediously lay[ing his] foundation". Emphasis on the tedious. As he noted, Dan has handed him his ass on at least one occasion and he doesn't want to jump in until he has tested the waters. Strangely, he keeps a transcript of his trouncing by Dan on his website.

Pot shot noted... again. Opinion that Mr. Evans has handed my ass to me noted and dismissed. Believe what you wish.

The original question asked in the first post of this thread was, "Can you give anything to anybody else that you do not possess?"

First off, the question is overly broad and overly vague. As it lacks any sort of specificity, it can be answered in the positive, or the negative, or in the neutral (maybe), or some combination thereof.

Can you do what the question asks? For some reason the whole concept of trading carbon credits comes to mind. In this instance what is being swapped is the right to do something (pollute), but not the actual physical means to do the action (pollute). Thus you are giving someone something that is not and cannot be possessed, instead you are giving them the right/privilege to undertake an action.

And there in lies the problem with a question that is overly broad and vague, it has too many answer, many of which will conflict. A more specific question is in order.

You just attempted to answer a more specific question. The one about Joe.

In case you didn't get the memo, your side is attempting to prove the original question has an affirmative answer. I think you did get the memo by how you address the question.

In addressing the question, you state: "For some reason the whole concept of trading carbon credits comes to mind. In this instance what is being swapped is the right to do something (pollute), but not the actual physical means to do the action (pollute)." Bold emphasis mine.

It should be noted that there are two objects addressed here. The right to do something and the method (actual physical means) to execute that right.

You continue in part: "Thus you are giving someone something that is not and cannot be possessed"

Since there are only two objects being addressed in the prior sentence, the right to do something and the method to do something, then one of the two objects must be the object, the something, "that is not and cannot be possessed" that you are giving to someone.

Placing that statement back in context: "Thus you are giving someone something that is not and cannot be possessed, instead you are giving them the right/privilege to undertake an action." Bold emphasis mine.

This defines which object is actually possessed (owned).

instead adv. 1. In the place of something previously mentioned; as a substitute or an equivalent.

The word "instead" indicates that the right is the object being given in the place of the object "that is not and cannot be possessed".

By process of elimination the object "that is not and cannot be possessed" is the method, "the actual physical means to do the action".

What the object is "that is not and cannot be possessed" does not matter because you said the other object, the right, is being given INSTEAD.

By your own words you are NOT giving the object "that is not and cannot be possessed" because you are giving SOMETHING ELSE.

As to the original question, in any number of instances a stock broker will buy and sell stock for their clients without ever taking physical possession of a stock certificate. The stock broker certainly does not posess the stock certificate, and in all likelihood, neither does the client, but the client has given the stockbroker the right to execute trades on their behalf and in the course of a trading day, that stock might be bought and sold several times without anyone ever seeing, having, trading an actual physical stock certificate.

Be more specific in your question and you will receive a more specific answer. Ask a question like you are a frosh philosophy major and reap the whirlwind of answers.

There are two objects here, The stock owned and the ownership of the stock.

Seems to me, what you are addressing is the trading of the ownership of the stock.

Can the client give the broker the right to execute trades (exchange ownership for other items) if the client does not possess ownership of the stock?

[Mr. Eastman]

As Mr. Williams starts to get an inkling of my covert agenda, he posts the following 555 words in what amounts to nothing but naked, unsupported assertions.

To preserve the flavor of Mr. Williams' post, I'm quoting it intact and will re-quote the individual items as I address them.

Dale, people in North America as a group, as a "body politick", got together many years ago and a majority of the individuals in that group agreed to a United States Constitution. In that Constitution, they set up a system of national government consisting of legislative, executive and judicial branches.

We will presume, for the sake of argument, that a certain minority of the members of that "body politick" did not agree to the arrangement. That's too bad. That's just tough.

The validity of law and the validity of what government does or does not do is not something that each individual as an individual has the legal authority to determine.

You, Dale Eastman, do not have the legal or moral authority to bind other people by your own conclusion (assuming that it is your conclusion) that the government of this place where you exist is somehow invalid. The rest of the world does not need your approval in order to exert valid legal authority over you.

I repeat: The rest of the world does not need your approval in order to exert valid legal authority over you.

In this sense, your personal view about the validity, legitimacy, etc., of Political Authority, of government, of tax law, etc., is not binding on other people, even if they vote without your agreement -- to impose taxes on you, to require you to drive within a certain speed on the highway, or whatever.

In a free society such as ours, the legitimacy of political power, of governmental power, does not come from individuals acting as individuals. Legitimacy comes from the concurrence of many individuals acting as members of a group, a political body. That means, in our system, that The People (as a group) are sovereign.

There are old court cases where the courts refer to someone as being a "sovereign individual," but in none of those cases was the court using that term in the way it is being misused today by certain individuals who call themselves "sovereign citizens" and who falsely claim that they are not subject to taxation, or traffic laws, or whatever.

Dale, I don't recall seeing you use the term "sovereign individual" or "sovereign citizen," and I don't mean to imply that you have done so.

There seems to be some similarity in your beliefs about government, etc., and the arguments made by some of the so-called "sovereign citizens." My use of the term "sovereign" is a helpful way of explaining things in this context.

We do have a Constitution -- that was set up by a majority -- that (fortunately) now limits the power of the majority in certain contexts to impose its will on the minority. To use a silly example, a majority today could elect a Congress, a majority of which members might vote to outlaw the Southern Baptist denomination. In that situation, the matter would surely be litigated, and the courts would strike the law.

Dale, to cast this in the parlance of some of the current-day headlines, you and I are not "sovereign individuals." Political or governmental validity, as a general proposition, and subject to the limits of our Constitution, does not depend on the unanimous agreement of each member of the group -- even when the majority imposes its will on you, Dale, without your agreement.

Still shaking my head in dis-belief, I begin the labor to address the points, such as they are, in Mr. Williams' post.

Dale, people in North America as a group, as a "body politick", got together many years ago and a majority of the individuals in that group agreed to a United States Constitution. In that Constitution, they set up a system of national government consisting of legislative, executive and judicial branches.

Actually the Continental Congress got together and a majority of individuals in that SMALLER group agreed to a United States Constitution.

We will presume, for the sake of argument, that a certain minority of the members of that "body politick" did not agree to the arrangement. That's too bad. That's just tough.

I'll agree so long as you admit that the "body politick" in the instant case was the Continental Congress, a much smaller group than the people of North America.

The validity of law and the validity of what government does or does not do is not something that each individual as an individual has the legal authority to determine.

Mr. Williams, I'm going to ask you the same question I asked Mr. Banjo. If the law says shove Jews and other undesirables into the ovens, will you do it? Either way you answer, you have made a determination regarding the validity of that law. Each individual DOES determine the validity of each law. By obeying or not obeying.

You, Dale Eastman, do not have the legal or moral authority to bind other people by your own conclusion (assuming that it is your conclusion) that the government of this place where you exist is somehow invalid.

I'm not binding anybody to anything. Either this is a setup for a straw man argument or you are just makin' 5hit up (which is what straw men arguments are anyway).

Stripping the extraneous words out of your statement, this is what you are presenting: "You do not have the authority to bind other people by your own conclusion that the government of this place where you exist is somehow invalid." Got news for you Mr. Williams, you do not have the authority to bind other people by your own conclusion that the government of this place where you exist is somehow valid. (Good-Goose-Gander.)

Thus the contrast of our diametrically opposed opinions, viewpoints, and conclusions is visible.

I don't have any designs on binding anybody to my opinions, viewpoints, or conclusions. I am simply presenting them for other people to consider. And by doing so in debate with you, both sets of opinions, viewpoints, or conclusions are presented for comparison.

The rest of the world does not need your approval in order to exert valid legal authority over you.

Just like the Nazis did not need the approval of the Jews and other undesirables to exert valid legal authority over the Jews and other undesirables?

I repeat: The rest of the world does not need your approval in order to exert valid legal authority over you.

So you assert.

In this sense, your personal view about the validity, legitimacy, etc., of Political Authority, of government, of tax law, etc., is not binding on other people, even if they vote without your agreement -- to impose taxes on you, to require you to drive within a certain speed on the highway, or whatever.

If a majority of Americans incorporate my personal views as their own, and wake up to the brainwashing they've been subject to for years (or more correctly, all of their lives), then the lack of validity and the lack of legitimacy of certain Political Authority, government, and tax law will translate into loss of power for those reaping the benefits of a corrupt system.

My personal view is an opinion that others may or may not share. It certainly isn't one shared by the regulars here at Quatloos and it is one that people like yourself are actively trying to suppress the broadcast of.

After all, if the majority of Americans wake up and take my opinions as their own, the power base that the "legal plunderers" benefit from goes away.

In a free society such as ours

If you believe our society is still free, you are deluded.

In a free society such as ours, the legitimacy of political power, of governmental power, does not come from individuals acting as individuals. Legitimacy comes from the concurrence of many individuals acting as members of a group, a political body. That means, in our system, that The People (as a group) are sovereign.

In a kingdom is the king the sovereign? Until the Magna Carta, did anybody out rank the king? Did anybody have the authority to tell the king what to do?

Just trying to nail down what it means to be sovereign.

There are old court cases where the courts refer to someone as being a "sovereign individual," but in none of those cases was the court using that term in the way it is being misused today by certain individuals who call themselves "sovereign citizens" and who falsely claim that they are not subject to taxation, or traffic laws, or whatever.

How is the term "sovereign individual" being misused today?

Dale, I don't recall seeing you use the term "sovereign individual" or "sovereign citizen," and I don't mean to imply that you have done so.

There seems to be some similarity in your beliefs about government, etc., and the arguments made by some of the so-called "sovereign citizens." My use of the term "sovereign" is a helpful way of explaining things in this context.

As Voltaire said, "If you wish to communicate with me, first define your terms."

What does the term "sovereign" mean?

Using a term whose meaning is not clear to explain things doesn't bode well for explaining things.

We do have a Constitution -- that was set up by a majority -- that (fortunately) now limits the power of the majority in certain contexts to impose its will on the minority.

Just in case you haven't read Lysander Spooner's The Constitution of No Authority here's a link to it: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/spooner1.html

It's quite evident after reading Bastiat's and Spooner's works why a government run school system wouldn't have such books on the required reading list.

To use a silly example, a majority today could elect a Congress, a majority of which members might vote to outlaw the Southern Baptist denomination. In that situation, the matter would surely be litigated, and the courts would strike the law.

Not a silly example. Just a meaningless example.

Dale, to cast this in the parlance of some of the current-day headlines, you and I are not "sovereign individuals."

Statement is inconclusive. Meaning of sovereign not in evidence.

Political or governmental validity, as a general proposition, and subject to the limits of our Constitution, does not depend on the unanimous agreement of each member of the group -- even when the majority imposes its will on you, Dale, without your agreement.

The instilled ignorance of the populace allows the government, through that ignorance, to do things that it does not have legitimate authority to do.

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

There seems to be an issue regarding what is legitimate government authority.

[Mr. Eastman]

Dale, here is your original question:

Can you give anything to anybody else that you do not possess?

Aside from the "YES" answers, the technical legal answers, that were given to you earlier in the thread, let's get to the heart of your problem, Dale.

You mean the illogical nonsensical attempts to prove the question can be answered in the affirmative?

In fairness to Mr. Williams, I believe he posted this post before he had the chance to read my replies to the answers posted in reply to the question.

Your underlying premise is that somewhere, back there at the beginning somewhere, someone who did not possess the power to a certain thing, such as exercise political control over you personally, did so.

Bold emphasis mine.

Either they did or they did not possess the authority to use the power. Just keeping everybody clear on the issue.

You want to refute the political or legal validity or legitimacy of government or certain laws (or whatever) over you on the ground, essentially, that the person or persons who "gave" that authority over you did not have the authority to do so.

Well stated. Yes.

You are wrong.

So you assert.

The group, The People as a Body Politick, has the legal and moral Authority to bind you, Dale Eastman, regardless of whether you agree or not.

So you assert. Let's see the proof.

At a latter date, I will provide the proof of when the group DOES have the legal and moral authority to bind me. That proof shows the authority is not so broad as you believe and want others to continue to believe.

The Group has the legal and moral authority to impose taxes on you, through laws.

So you assert.

If the lawmakers do not have authority to make said law, the law is void ab initio.

So the issue continues to be the delegation of authority.

The government instituted by The People -- even without your personal permission -- has the legal and moral Authority to enforce those laws against you, in certain circumstances with coercive power.

Well you almost stated it correctly.

The government instituted by The People -- even without your personal permission -- has the legal and moral Authority to enforce those laws against you, in certain circumstances.

As I stated, At a latter date, I will provide the proof of when the group DOES have the legal and moral authority to bind me. That proof shows the authority is not so broad as you believe and want others to continue to believe.

This is not rocket science, Dale.

Pot shot noted.

[Mr. Eastman]

Dale is certainly free to leave this country and it's legal borders and not be subject to its laws and the control that the majority of individuals has placed on us all through its representatives enacting legislation. Dale, didn't you go over this at all in 8th grade?

Here - maybe this will help:

Educational Video

Pot shot noted.

Lawman doesn't like what I posted, has offered nothing to refute anything I posted, and thinks I should leave my country.

I'll see(n) your video and raise you this treatise: http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

Mr. Evans made another statement: "It's also possible to be in possession [custody, control] of something with only a partial ownership interest. A life tenant of property has the right of exclusive possession[custody, control], but is not the only owner of the property because the remainderman has ownership rights without any current right of possession." Bold emphasis mine.

REMAINDERMAN

The person who inherits property when someone passes away, and has executed a "life estate deed." For example, John owns a house. He deeds it to himself for life, and then to Jane upon his death. Jane is the remainderman.

Bold emphasis mine.

I think Mr. Evans meant to say: "[...]the remainderman has [FUTURE] ownership rights[...]"

No, I did not.

And the "lectlaw" quote is completely incompetent, because the a remainderman does not "inherit" (a completely different legal concept) when the life tenant dies. The remainderman simply comes into possession of what the remainderman already owned.

You keep confusing ownership and possession. Possession is just one of the rights of ownership, but it's not the only right.

I will accept your assertion that the "lectlaw" quote is in error and yield the point. Having done so, you can return your attention to the real issue.

I remind you that you are trying to prove that my question, Can you give anything to anybody else that you do not possess? can logically be answered with an affirmative answer.

In jumping on the point I just ceded, you ignored all the rest of my reply to your post. I'm reposting the pertinent parts of that post.

I asked, "Can you give anything to anybody else that you do not possess?"
Mr. Evans replied: "Yes."
Mr. Evans presented this situation: "For example, it is possible to make a gift of tangible property that you own, but is not in your current possession, through a symbolic delivery."
Mr. Evans continued in his clarifying post: "Which was my point, [...] it is possible to own something that is not currently in your possession, and to make a gift of the ownership."
Mr. Evans also posted this definition of possess to bolster his point: "To have under one's power or control" Bold emphasis mine.

Supporting Mr. Evans' selected definition:

possession 3. (n.) The fact of possessing: ownership; custody; guardianship; hold; keeping

Thus what Mr. Evans appears to be saying is: it is possible to own something that is not currently in your [custody, control], and to make a gift of the ownership.

The casual reader is asked to notice that there are two objects here. There is the "something" owned, and there is the "ownership" of the something.

As Mr. Evans' points out, "it is possible [...] to make a gift of the ownership."
What is in custody, what is in possession, what is possessed, what the owner possesses, what the owner controls, what is under the owner's power, what the owner owns, and what the owner gives away is the "ownership" of the something.

Mr. Evans has painted a very clear picture of the owner (the one who possesses, controls, has custody of, and power over the "ownership") "making a gift of", that is giving away, the ownership in answer to my question, Can you give anything to anybody else that you do not possess? You can't give away the ownership unless you have the ownership.

[Mr. Eastman]

Actually, there is a simple, concise, and precise answer to Eastman's intellectually dishonest and equally pointless question. "It depends." But then, that is his stock in trade, intellectual and factual dishonesty.

Pot shot noted.

You state that my question: Can you give anything to anybody else that you do not possess? has "a simple, concise, and precise answer" which is "It depends."

As I stated in an earlier post, I want acknowledgement that the question can only be answered logically, in the negative. Conversely, the Quatloos regulars do not want to acknowledge that the question can only be answered in the negative.

"It depends" neither proves an affirmative answer to the question nor negates a negative answer.

Thus your answer that "it depends" is nothing but a naked assertion and meaningless to boot.

It can be said, it has been said, that some of the Quatloos regulars have the same stock in trade: intellectual and factual dishonesty.

Another of my purposes is to catch a snapshot of all the polite discourse the respectful regulars of Quatloos post.

There is nothing about politeness or respect that requires calling bullshit "rainbow sherbet".

Calling a point you believe is bullshit, bullshit, is not what I would consider a lack of politeness. Making innuendos about the poster, calling the poster names, and taking pot shots at the poster that have nothing to do with the poster's points is what I am referring to. If you want to understand what I consider impolite, just pay attention to my noted's.

Another of my purposes is to catch a snapshot of all the polite discourse the respectful regulars of Quatloos post.

There is nothing about politeness or respect that requires calling bullshit "rainbow sherbet".

When someone is repeatedly shooting himself in the foot, complimenting his aim in polite terms doesn't save his foot.

Your opinion that I am shooting myself in the foot is noted. Believe what you wish.

Another of my purposes is to catch a snapshot of all the polite discourse the respectful regulars of Quatloos post.

There is nothing about politeness or respect that requires calling bullshit "rainbow sherbet".

When someone is repeatedly shooting himself in the foot, complimenting his aim in polite terms doesn't save his foot.

He that spareth the rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him. Proverbs 13:24. In other words, spareth the feelings, spoileth the ass.

Hey, this is fun.

Attempt to justify the impolite behavior of certain Quatloos regulars noted.

Another of my purposes is to catch a snapshot of all the polite discourse the respectful regulars of Quatloos post.

There is nothing about politeness or respect that requires calling bullshit "rainbow sherbet".

Eastman's tone and attitude seems to be calculated to demonstrate (and to reassure himself and the other voices in his head), that he is the polite and rational one, much like Norman Bates tried to demonstrate how he "wouldn't hurt a fly" at the end of "Psycho."

Pot-Kettle-Black. Eastman's tone and attitude is simply a reflection of the tone and attitude Eastman is getting from the Quatloos regulars in the first place. To bad if you don't like seeing your reflection in the mirror.
Pot shot noted.

In fairness to Mr. Dale Eastman, I would note that in the past he has been a bit more polite than many other tax protesters who, as a group, tend to be pretty nasty characters.

Thank you for so noting that I have had some success in being polite.

Thing is, I hold the same view that many of the Quatloos crew tend to be pretty nasty characters as well.

In fact, it was Mr. Evans original nastiness towards me way back when I was trying to determine if Larken Rose was nuts or on to something that was a significant part of setting my present course.

Kinda like the two politicians discussing what they do to get votes. One says when he takes a cab he gives the cabbie a big tip and asks the cabbie to vote for him. The other says when he takes the cab, he's obnoxious, stiffs the cabbie on the tip, and demands the cabbie vote for the other guy.

Having said that, Mr. Eastman might need to remind himself that the purpose of this web site is to expose scams.

Then I'm in the right place, because my conclusion is that you and others here are trying to defend a multi-trillion dollar scam, tyranny, and abrogation of unalienable rights.

On the internet, Mr. Eastman has repeatedly posted his beliefs in the form of the rhetoric of a scam -- a tax protester-tax denier scam.

The casual reader should note that Mr. Williams is attempting to forge a guilt by association connection in your mind as well as indirectly attempt to get you to view me as a scammer.

He might not himself be regarded as a "promoter" of the scam in the strictest sense.

As I just pointed out, Mr. Williams is attempting to get you to view me as a scammer.

He is not (to my knowledge) selling books or taking money from other people.

He is not to my knowledge selling books or taking money from other people either.

So, he is not as bad as the Irwin Schiffs, the Pete Hendricksons, the Larken Roses of the world.

Having read the transcripts of Mr. Rose's meetings with the IRS... Well let's just say my opinion of the IRS is that they are just as dishonest as you attempting to paint that trio to be. (I have personal experience of observing the IRS violate the law. No, I'm not going to present the case until MUCH, MUCH later, if at all.)

Mr. Williams stated "So, he is not as bad" with the implication that he is nevertheless still bad. Personal attack noted.

But he nevertheless must be held to account for his own pronouncements, whether he made them here or in some other place on the internet.

I actually agree.

The converse is true as well. Good-Goose-Gander.

He is free to post his own wackadoodle views about tax law and anarchism.

You just HAD to put that word wackadoodle in there. So I just HAVE to note the pot shot.

He is not entitled to be free from the effects of the responses that he has received in this thread.

Oh, you mean like the pot shot you just took.

Tell me counselor, what might the effect of the responses I receive conceivably be.

Hurt my feelings. No. I just consider the source.
Piss me off. No. I just consider the source.
Convince the neophyte that I'm wrong? Possibly. But I think the neophyte might pay more attention to the topic, point, and counterpoints presented by both sides.
Make the pot shot shooter look worse than the target? Definite maybe.

The responses of Quatloos regulars here have been eminently reasonable.

If you say so.

As pointed out by Famspear, Eastman does not appear, at least currently, to be a promoter, and has maintained a level of politeness and civility, albeit condescendingly, that few of the ilk ever attempt or could manage.

Thank you for noticing my attempt to be polite and civil.

As to my appearing condescending, to paraphrase my previous attending to the topic, if you don't like what you see in the mirror, change what's on your side of the glass.

That being said, and again as Famspear so correctly points out, he, Eastman, is free to believe whatever asinine thing he chooses to.

You just HAD to put that word asinine in there. So I just HAVE to note the pot shot.

He is not free, however, to attempt to twist answers out of people that suit his requirements for reality, and he is not free to expect others, particularly those with functioning gray matter to fall down and worship at his revealed truth.

I am free to ATTEMPT to twist answers out of people. And those people are free to answer or not as their free will guides them.

Who forced you to post this message? Maybe you did it according to your free will.

I do NOT expect others "to fall down and worship at [my] revealed truth." I expect them to argue the points, just as some have actually done here in this thread.

It ain't a gonna happen, for one thing, and for the most obvious reason, that he is quite frankly full of it, and not only not right, he is not even close to right.

Believe what you wish about my position. Make assertions without proof if you must.

Now laughed and snickered at he is just going to have to cope with, since that is going to be his lot in life if he continues with his chosen avocation.

You seem to have decided my comments about the impoliteness of many of the Quatloos crew means I can't cope with it. Quite the contrary. I just consider the source. My noting the impoliteness is only for record keeping purposes, otherwise I would just ignore the impoliteness.

Politeness aside, if one is going to spend ones time making an utter and complete fool of oneself the occasional guffaw has to be expected, even under the best of circumstances, politeness can only extend so far even under the best of intentions.

Your opinion is noted that I am making an utter and complete fool of myself is noted. Believe what you wish. Pot shot noted.

If one is going to make a career of making a spectacle of oneself, then one must come to terms with being laughed at.

Pot shot noted.

Unfortunately comedy, albeit unintended, is not his forté, so I rather suspect he is going to have to settle for being largely ignored and written off.

Like you are ignoring me with this post? Pot shot noted.

He has managed to be neither original, nor more importantly amusing, so his interest to me is negligible at best, I fear his intended career in unintended comedy is doomed to failure, rather coincidentally not unlike his quest to prove his delusions fact.

Would that be the interest you are indicating with this post?
Pot shot noted.

And, as someone or other has written, as trolls go, he should, having provided neither interest nor amusement here, his time is done.

You don't have to read what I post and faq.php#f6r0 says you don't even have to see what I post. Just a suggestion, take it or don't as your free will guides you.

Statistics Total posts 94255 • Total topics 5287

It's not like you don't have anything else to read.

The flow of discussion and debate with the diverse regulars of the Quatloos forum will determine when Mr. Eastman presents what he accepts as legitimate government powers.

We wait with bated breath.

Sarcasm noted.

You may recall that you have been asked since your first appearance on the board to simply state your proposition. Instead of doing that, you post lengthy blather of the sort that will eventually grow hair on your brain, sparking synapses or no.

My first proposition is that you can not give that which you do not have. That horse ain't dead yet.

Somebody produced my 8 point affidavit. That would be an 8 point proposition. That horse ain't dead yet either, being as they are related.

What you are calling "lengthy blather" I would call addressing every detail in, well, detail.

Pot shot noted.

Personal attack noted.
...
Personal attack noted.
...
attempted personal ridicule
...
Personal attack noted.
...
personal attack noted.
...
Ridicule, disrespect, and disdain noted.
...
Personal attack noted.
...
notice the personal attack.

Perhaps if you spent less time noting all the personal attacks, and more time explaining WTF you're talking about, you'd get fewer personal attacks. OTOH, it seems you like to play the martyr.

Chicken Egg Tie? Seeing as you are one of the worse offenders I can see why you don't want the personal attacks noted. As I said, True Colors. Yours are showing.

I will develop the proof of that statement in due course.

At this rate we won't be able to read it, because the sun will have gone dead.

Oh, that's right. I started posting in what I thought was this friendly environment where I would be loved for challenging everyone's belief system; Where I would be allowed to develop my points without being attacked personally; Where the S.O.P. is not deflect, distract, and disrupt. (SOPDDD. Thanks for inspiring an acronym that I can use.)

I'm posting the way I am posting because I have no illusions regarding the caliber of people I am dealing with in this forum. I thank you for helping to make that caliber available for all to see.

Could it be that you are intentionally avoiding specific claims, knowing that otherwise whatever you say will be instantly eviscerated?

Yeah, that must be it because you say so. (Sarcasm returned.)

I'm not going to be putting the roof on the house when the basement foundation concrete has not been poured. You and a few of the others can insist that I put a roof up before the foundation is in place all you want, but the roof goes on after the rafters are nailed in place.

[Mr. Eastman]

My original question was, Can you give anything to anybody else that you do not possess? Like authority to steal or authority to tax?

And my question is, What makes you think that the authority of individuals is comparable to the authority of governments?

Because the government's authority is delegated FROM the people.

I will be expounding upon this later.

As you technically and correctly state, The elected directors can *bind* the corporation. What they can not do, is *bind* the shareholders.

Of course the directors can bind the shareholders. An individual shareholder cannot rescind a contract of the corporation entered into by the directors, acting within their lawful power.

The casual reader is asked to note the lawyerly word games.

Mr. Evans asserts: "Of course the directors can bind the shareholders." This is the expected direct contradiction to my statement: "What they [the directors] can not do, is *bind* the shareholders."

In order to support this assertion, Mr. Evans presents that: "An individual shareholder cannot rescind a contract of the corporation entered into by the directors..." This is Mr. Evans' example of what he believes is the shareholder being bound by the directors.

So a logical analysis is required. What does the board of directors direct? That would be THE CORPORATION. The entity called THE CORPORATION is bound by THE CONTRACT entered into by THE CORPORATION via its agents and steering mechanism, the board of directors.

What device is doing THE BINDING? That would be THE CONTRACT.

THE CONTRACT determines what MUST be done.

THE CORPORATION's officers, MUST make what MUST be done happen, and the agents and employees of THE CORPORATION must do what must be done.

Who does THE CONTRACT bind? That would be THE CORPORATION, its officers, agents, and employees. THE CORPORATION's officers, agents, and employees are only bound in their capacities AS SUCH officers, agents, and employees, THE CORPORATION is bound as the entity required to perform per THE CONTRACT.

Having owned mutual stocks at one time, as a stockholder, I was NOT bound to take ANY action whatsoever. Not much different than putting money into a savings account. The money is rented to another and that other pays interest on such rental.

The analog to what Mr. Evans has just presented is that you loan money to a friend, that friend contracts to purchase a car, and by that contract your friend now has the right to bind (control) you.

The directors can't bind the shareholders as to non-corporate matters, but that's a different question.

Since this is analogous to the shareholders being the people, the directors being Congress, and the federal United States being the corporation, and since Mr. Evans has just said the directors can't bind the shareholders as to non-corporate matters, Mr. Evans needs to prove the people's private affairs (the shareholder's private affairs) are within the bailiwick of the federal United States (the corporate matters). The opportunity for Mr. Evans to do so will present itself as this debate goes where it must.

The shareholders are the principals. The elected directors are the agents.

And agents can bind principals. That's the whole purpose of agency.

Supporting Mr. Evans' claim is this statement of the Supreme Court:

... since the knowledge of the agent of a private insurance company, under the circumstances of this case, would be attributed to, and thereby bind, a private insurance company, the government Corporation is equally bound.

So in the private sector, the agent can bind the principal. But as Mr. Evans admits: "The directors can't bind the shareholders as to non-corporate matters" so the agent can NOT bind the corporation (his principal) as to non-corporate matters.

That Supreme Court case continues:

But the Corporation is not a private insurance company. [...] Whatever the form in which the Government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the Government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the Government stays within the bounds of his authority. The scope of this authority may be explicitly defined by Congress or be limited by delegated legislation, properly exercised through the rulemaking power. And this is so even though, as here, the agent himself may have been unaware of the limitations upon his authority.

The agent representing the Corporation in this case, acting as the Corporation's agent, did NOT bind the Corporation.

Since in this case the Corporation is synonymous with government... Don't pay any attention to the preceding. Demands for officers, agents, and employees of the IRS to produce proof of authority for actions they do is just tax protestor rhetoric.

That seems tautological. It's in the nature of governments because it's in the nature of governments.

It's not tautological, but definitional.

If you say so.

tautology n., pl. tautologies. 1.a. Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy. b. An instance of such repetition. 2. Logic. An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow.

--tautological or tautologic adj. --tautologically adv.

Evidence requires a deeper look.

Begging the Question / Circular Reasoning

An argument is circular if its conclusion is among its premises, if it assumes (either explicitly or not) what it is trying to prove. Such arguments are said to beg the question. A circular argument fails as a proof because it will only be judged to be sound by those who already accept its conclusion.

Anyone who rejects the argument’s conclusion should also reject at least one of its premises (the one that is the same as its conclusion), and so should reject the argument as a whole. Anyone who accepts all of the argument’s premises already accepts the argument’s conclusion, so can’t be said to have been persuaded by the argument. In neither case, then, will the argument be successful.

Begging the question (Latin petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which a proposition relies on an implicit premise within itself to establish the truth of that same proposition. In other words, it is a statement that refers to its own assertion to prove the assertion. Such arguments are essentially of the form "a is true because a is true" though rarely is such an argument stated as such. Often the premise 'a' is only one of many premises that go into proving that 'a' is true as a conclusion.

And, as I've said before, it's in the nature of governments to exercise powers on behalf of The People that individual persons do not have. Why? Well, it's the nature of governments.

"it's in the nature of governments [...] Why? [...] it's the nature of governments."
Uh huh.

Questioning why a government can exercise powers not exercisable by individuals is like questioning why a dog has fur and four legs. Why not scales? Or feathers? Or two legs? Or six? The short answer is that without fur and four legs, it wouldn't be a dog.

Expanding upon your example, I'm now asking Why can a government exercise powers not exercisable by individuals?

If you are so foolish as to answer because it wouldn't be government, then I only need refer the reader back up to the fallacy of circular reasoning.

In this case, "exercise powers" means "use force". As you have said:

I think it would be more accurate to say that the Constitution is the method by which The People have delegated their authority and by which they exercise their authority.

And in this case authority means permission to act, thus; Government's authority (permission) to use force is permission delegated from the people to use force.

If you do not have authority to use force against me, you can not delegate (give) this non-existent authority to use force against me to anybody else. (Not yet covered, is when the individual has authority to use force against me.)

If the people don't have authority to use a particular force for a particular reason, they can NOT create such authority out of nothingness and then delegate it to someone else.

The same limits on the people's authority (permission) to use force applies to government's authority (permission) to use force.

Mr. Evans' statement "it's in the nature of governments to exercise powers on behalf of The People that individual persons do not have" is specifically noted for future dissection.

That is THE central issue of your entire thesis, and you haven't yet figured out a response?

The casual reader might not yet know what's at stake and what's being argued, but you and I do, don't we, Mr. Evans? I'm pre-emptively removing all the escape routes. It's more fun for me you use your own words to make my points.

I'll get to the organic laws that prove my points when I get to it and not before. (Just couldn't resist a little deliberate tautology.)

By the way, the central issue of my thesis is that you can not give what you do not possess, just as addressed in my original question: Can you give anything to anybody else that you do not possess?

Remember, you're still trying to prove that my original question can be logically answered in the affirmative.

I apologize to the reader for having to read this for the third time (original and 2 reposts), But since this is the second post by Mr. Evans that ignores my rebuttal of his attempt to prove an affirmative answer... (shrug) SOPDDD.

I asked, "Can you give anything to anybody else that you do not possess?"
Mr. Evans replied: "Yes."
Mr. Evans presented this situation: "For example, it is possible to make a gift of tangible property that you own, but is not in your current possession, through a symbolic delivery."
Mr. Evans continued in his clarifying post: "Which was my point, [...] it is possible to own something that is not currently in your possession, and to make a gift of the ownership."
Mr. Evans also posted this definition of possess to bolster his point: "To have under one's power or control" Bold emphasis mine.

Supporting Mr. Evans' selected definition:

possession 3. (n.) The fact of possessing: ownership; custody; guardianship; hold; keeping

Thus what Mr. Evans appears to be saying is: it is possible to own something that is not currently in your [custody, control], and to make a gift of the ownership.

The casual reader is asked to notice that there are two objects here. There is the "something" owned, and there is the "ownership" of the something.

As Mr. Evans' points out, "it is possible [...] to make a gift of the ownership."
What is in custody, what is in possession, what is possessed, what the owner possesses, what the owner controls, what is under the owner's power, what the owner owns, and what the owner gives away is the "ownership" of the something.

Mr. Evans has painted a very clear picture of the owner (the one who possesses, controls, has custody of, and power over the "ownership") "making a gift of", that is giving away, the ownership in answer to my question, Can you give anything to anybody else that you do not possess? You can't give away the ownership unless you have the ownership.

Great work, Sherlock.

Why thank you Mr. Watson.
Sarcastic pot shots exchanged.

[Mr. Eastman]

Before I start to address the post being addressed by me, I ask the casual reader to note the SOPDDD (standard operating procedure - distract, deflect, disrupt) playing here.

I ask the casual reader to note that this entire post I am responding to fails to address the original subject matter brought forth in my original post and question: Can you give anything to anybody else that you do not possess?

I also ask the casual reader to think back upon all the posts in this thread and to try and remember the posts rebutting my rebuttals of their posts presuming to logically answer the original question in the affirmative.

Dale Eastman wrote:

....you do understand that your attempted distraction and attempted personal ridicule about my site metaphor is meaningless, right?

You do understand that the question in your very first post in this thread is meaningless, right?

Yep. It's so meaningless that several of the Quatloos crew have attempted to prove it can be answered in an affirmative. It's so meaningless that even you attempted to prove my question Can you give anything to anybody else that you do not possess? can be answered in an affirmative. As of this post, you have not attempted to rebut my rebuttal, nor have you even addressed the existence of my rebuttal. So...

As others have noted here, Dale, the answer to your question is: Yes, it is legally possible for you to give something to someone else that you yourself do not possess.

In fact, in a narrow, technical, legal sense, it is possible for you, a private individual, to direct a disposition of property when you don't even own the property yourself (I'm not talking about the government taking someone's property or anything like that).

For example, let's think about a trust (an arrangement whereby one person, called a trustee, holds legal title for the use and benefit of another person, called a beneficiary). Let's say that Bob is the Trustee and Mary is the beneficiary of our trust. It is legally possible in certain circumstances for the trust to have been set up so that an individual -- let's call him Joe (who is neither the trustee nor the beneficiary of the trust) -- to direct that the ownership of certain property in the trust be transferred to someone else, even though Joe has no legal right to the property himself, and has no right to transfer the property to himself, to his own estate, to his creditors, or to the creditors of his estate.

Dale, do you know what Joe "has" here? Do you know the technical legal term for what Joe has here?

For my curiosity's sake, I hope you will enlighten me. As to my original question, the technical term for the authority vested in Joe has no bearing. So knock the stuffing out of your straw man if you must.

You point out that it is legally possible in certain circumstances for the trust to have been set up so that Joe, who doesn't "possess" certain property can direct that certain property to be transferred.

What Joe does possess in your description, is authority given to him by someone who possesses the authority to give Joe his authority. Absent that first authority, the second can not be granted and Joe can't direct anything.

Can Joe be given authority by a person who doesn't have authority to give Joe authority? (In other words, this is where you impeach my prior paragraph.)

My paragraph stands unchallenged, unrebutted, and thus accepted as true. Joe can not be given authority by someone who doesn't have authority to give authority to Joe.

Ridicule, disrespect, and disdain noted.

Mr. Eastman, you are the one who is wandering around the internet with your questions. The fact that you have an attitude problem, and that you have earned ridicule, disrespect and disdain, is noted.

The fact that you are asserting YOUR OPINION that I have an attitude problem is noted.
The fact that you are asserting YOUR OPINION that I have earned ridicule, disrespect and disdain, is noted.
The fact that you are taking pot shots and following SOPDDD is noted.

I am asking my questions as one of my tactics to get around people's use of SOPDDD.

I'm only subject to the federal income tax if I have income. I'll not be addressing that subject at this time.

Aw, shucks.....

Yeah... Sorry 'bout that. But look on the bright side, I did say at this time so you may still get that chance for whatever you have planned.

There are other issues to be addressed first.

My heart is all a-pitter-patter in anticipation......

I thank you for the patience you have mustered so far.

And, no, Mr. Eastman, the reason you were humiliated with respect to your Merchants' Loan argument is that not that you didn't have time to "pursue your objective." The reason you were humiliated is that while you attempted to come across as someone who knew what you were talking about, you were WRONG.

So you assert. But hey! You get to humiliate me all over again, right here on the Quatloos website.

Oh, and by the way: You were the one who raised the "issue" of "credentials" back then, not I.

And you are the one who raised the issue here and now.

The reason I raised the issue was to let you know I refuse to accept any assertions from you that I was supposed to accept based upon your credentials. That still holds true. Back your assertions with proof and that gives your credentials more "street cred".

Rights are not granted by anybody with a rank of less than God.

No, not exactly. Depends on whether what kind of rights you're talking about.

That would be "unalienable Rights". You know, the ones addressed in the Organic Law of the United States, to wit: The Declaration of Independence. (I'm sure we'll get deeper into this later.)

Mr. Streng [Professor William Streng] is confused. So is Mr. Williams.

No, Mr. Eastman. I am not confused. Professor Streng is not confused.

Mr. Williams' deceptive editing is noted. The context is now replaced to show the casual reader the deception:

In the case of a trust, a power of appointment is

a right allowing a person other than the trust grantor to direct the disposition of property that he or she does not own.

---William P. Streng, Estate Planning, BNA Tax Management Portfolio, Volume 800, Bloomberg BNA (rev. 2012) (italics added).

And, hats off to William P. Streng, who was one of my tax professors in law school!

Powers are granted. Authorities are granted. Permissions are granted. Privileges are granted. Rights are not granted by anybody with a rank of less than God. Whether or not God exists is immaterial because no human has that rank.

That which is granted can be rescinded by the grantor. (The casual reader is asked to observe the argument that will now ensue regarding "rights".)

Mr. Streng is confused. So is Mr. Williams. They wordsmith the English language so that therein, usage such as Mr. Williams has quoted of Mr. Streng is common and thus continues the social engineering to get the peons to believe their rights were granted to them by "government".

Bold emphasis mine in the quote of Mr. Streng to assist in highlighting the connection.

So if Mr. Streng and Mr. Williams are NOT confused as Mr. Williams (of necessity) would assert, then the social engineering to get the peons to believe their rights were granted to them by "government" is deliberate.

And as I projected, an argument regarding rights did (and will likely continue to) follow.

And regarding your quote regarding appeals to authority always being "deductively fallacious" -- that's a bit misleading. In logic, there is a fallacy known as "appeal to authority," but not every use of authority is fallacious. For example, my use of Professor Streng's material earlier in this thread is not a fallacious "appeal to authority" as that term is used in the study of logic.

Uh, you forgot this part:

even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.

Which is why I stated above, Back your assertions with proof and that gives your credentials more "street cred"

If your use of Mr. Streng's quote was worded this way: "In the case of a trust, a power of appointment is [an authority] allowing a person other than the trust grantor to direct the disposition of property that he or she does not own" I would not have commented because I would have (implicitly) accepted the statement at face value and would not have had reason to accuse you and Mr. Streng of being confused (regarding the use of the term "right").

One of my tenets of philosophy is that you should not put a bullet between Mr. Williams' eyes just because he is being an internet dick.

Oh, what's the matter, Mr. Eastman? You don't like the idea that other people don't respect you? Got your iddy-biddy feelings hurt? Getting a taste of your own medicine doesn't suit you? Too bad. Respect is lost when you write things that cause you to lose respect. That's what you did.

Mr. Williams' deceptive editing is again noted. The context is now replaced to show the casual reader the deception:

Come on, Dale Eastman. Give us your credentials. Show us what you’ve accomplished in life that had led you to the point where you believe that others should take note of your philosophy.

The casual reader is asked to notice that Mr. Williams is asserting that one can not have a "philosophy" without credentials. As it appears, Mr. Williams wants you to believe that one can not have any philosophy without credentials.

Since I don't have credentials, Mr. Williams thinks you should not pay attention to my philosophy. One of my tenets of philosophy is that you should not put a bullet between Mr. Williams' eyes just because he is being an internet dick.

I believe the term for what just happened is "blow back".

Maybe the error was mine in that I thought Mr. Williams would understand the point and counterpoint. I'll explain it now.

Mr. Williams makes issue of my lack of credentials. Because of the lack of credentials, Mr. Williams makes issue that any philosophy I have should be ignored. Since a tenant of my philosophy is that Mr. Williams should not take a bullet for being an internet dick and Mr. Williams thinks my philosophy should be ignored, Mr. Williams disagrees with my philosophy that he should not take a bullet for being an internet dick. Therefore Mr. Williams thinks he should take a bullet for being an internet dick.

With that said, I direct the reader to notice Mr. Williams' attempt to change the issue from his discounting of my philosophy and that action's result to what he projects is my hurt feelings about HIS ridicule, disrespect, and disdain of myself.

Mr. Williams has been hurling his ridicule, disrespect, and disdain of myself at me throughout almost all of his posts.

I ask the casual reader to consider his possible motivations.

If it's to hurt my feelings, I just consider the source and continue to focus on the pertinent issues being debated. The only reason I even address such antics of his is to increase your awareness of such antics.

Perhaps Mr. Williams erroneously believes if he can make my posting here some sort of emotional torture, he can make me go away.

Perhaps Mr. Williams erroneously believes if he can emotionally upset me he can get some emotional outburst that can be used to impeach my testimony. (If you've watched drama show scenes set in court rooms, you've seen the drill.)

Perhaps it's just Mr. Williams simply executing Quatloos' SOPDDD. That's not going to work, because I do re-read previous posts with one purpose being to catch issues I have been distracted from in order to toss them back on the table, front and centered.

Mr. Eastman, whether you like it or not, this web site is devoted to exposing and illustrating scams, such as tax scams.

So are you asserting that your personal vendetta, your personal ridicule, disrespect, and disdain of myself exposes and illustrates scams?

Many of the regulars who post here have been studying people like you -- and your arguments -- for years.

And likewise I have been studying people like the regulars who post here. You are in that group, and some of my study of you is illustrated in this very post.

It's going to be difficult (not impossible, but difficult) for you to come up with any really original arguments.

So you say. Sort of like Obi-Wan in Star Wars: "These are not the 'droids you are looking for. Move along."

Give it your best shot.

Thank you.

Can Joe be given authority by a person who doesn't have authority to give Joe authority?

[Mr. Eastman]

For the casual reader:
If a question broaches a topic where an answer of yes or no is self-evident, and the person or persons asked the question refuse to answer the question, do you think it indicates that the person(s) refusing to answer the question do not want to admit to the self-evident truth contained in the question? For instance, do you need to breathe? Do you own yourself?

Actually, your questions are such that "an answer of yes or no" is possible.

The fact that you have not provided proof of your naked assertion is noted.

Also note that it is the assertion of trolls that "Famspear" is Mr. Williams. Please address pseudonyms who are not identified with real names by their pseudonyms.

I'm glad you posted this, Mr. Rubin.

First I want to thank you for using the word please. But I also am going to note your implication that I am a troll... So, pot shot noted.

The reason I thank Mr. Rubin for his post is because he gives an excellent example of a statist view of the world.

The first point to be noted is that Mr. Williams, the subject of this request, is quite capable of requesting or demanding that I use his 'nym. He has done neither. So either Famspear is Larry Williams or Famspear doesn't care that I'm calling him by the wrong name.

There is no proof in evidence that Mr. Rubin has the authority he just attempted to use. Until the proof is placed in evidence, he DOESN'T have the authority he just attempted to use.

So, just like the government the statists of Quatloos defend, Mr. Rubin attempted to (unlike that government, politely,) exert authority that he does not have.

So, Mr. Williams, whether that is or is not your name, please state your preference of being addressed, so Mr. Rubin can be made happy.

[Mr. Eastman]

Mr. Eastman: you seem unable to comprehend one simple point: we are all looking for a simple answer to a simple question.

Mr. Pottapaug, even though you are one of my adversaries, I understand your frustration at my delay in answering your direct question and am sort of sorry about it.

However, if you still haven't figured out why I asked my question at the time you read this, after having read all my posts up to this one, well then I would have to guess that you are never going to know.

You asked, originally, if someone can give something to someone else which they did not possess; and more than once I (to say nothing of the others on this forum) asked you why you felt the need to ask that question.

Mr. Pottapaug, you state: "we are all looking for a simple answer to a simple question". Therein lies a partial answer as to why the answer requested has not been forthcoming. The key words in your statement are "we" and "all". Those key words would imply EVERYBODY at Quatloos wants to know WHY I asked my question. So I spend time validating the statement. In this case, easy to do. I just search every page in this thread for the word "WHY" and read the question attached to the "WHY"

Your assertion is in error. The only questions asked regarding my question are yours and Mr. Williams' single question when he posted this: "Come on, Dale! You’ve received several answers to your question. Why can’t you answer our questions?"

Two of you is a far cry from all (twenty) of you that you presume to speak for. (Quick Quatloos posters, after the fact assert that you gave him permission to speak for you.)

As I stated in a previous reply, I am well aware of the caliber of posters who are the Quatloos regulars. So I spend the time to count posters and look for the questions to validate or invalidate your assertion.

On the other hand, with a ratio of 20:1, any answer to any of the twenty of you is an answer to all twenty of you. (That's why you might not ever get a direct answer as to why I asked my question. I've already posted answers. Go see which one fits your question. Your answer has been posted.)

Your responses have consisted of mounds of bafflegab, statutory extracts and other things which puts us to sleep halfway through.

There you go, presuming to speak for the twenty of you again. If you fall asleep half way through, then I suggest the Attention Deficit Disorder is your problem.

What you call mounds of bafflegab and statutory extracts I call supporting evidence of my assertions.

Since you brought it up, here's another bit of what you are calling bafflegab:

bafflegab n. Slang. Gobbledegook.

gobbledygook also gobbledegook n. Unclear, wordy jargon. [Imitative of the gobbling of a turkey.]

Just so we are all clear on the meaning. (Need I highlight the irony of calling actions to clarify meanings, unclear wordy jargon?)

What we are looking for is something like "I am asking this question because I assert that X cannot delegate the power to collect taxes, to Y, because it does not possess that power." Then, and only then, will you have raised a valid question for which we can formulate an answer.

There you are, presuming to speak for the twenty of you again.

If you can format an answer like that, then you have been reading my other replies and already know the answer to your question as to WHY I posted my first question.

And in a previous post, you attempted to answer that first question in the affirmative thereby proving you understand what's at stake with that question. Your attempt to answer the question in the affirmative and my rebuttal of same can be read here: http://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/i ... 0#msg14430

The reader should note that Mr. Pottapaug has not at this time attempted to rebut my rebuttal, nor has he even addressed my rebuttal. So per SOPDDD Mr. Pottapaug wants to make issue of my not DIRECTLY answering his question, even though he knows his question has been answered INDIRECTLY and he knows what that answer is.

SOPDDD = Standard operating procedure - distract, deflect, disrupt.

[Mr. Eastman]

There is a problem of symantics that needs to be resolved before any reasonable discussion can take place.

I agree with you that if there is a semantic problem, it needs to be resolved. This can help preclude its cousin, equivocation.

It appears to me that the verb "delegate" is being used to mean two things that, to me at least, are significantly different.

Which would be equivocation. So your raising the issue is proper and correct. I appreciate the manner in which you are doing so.

delegate n. 1. A person authorized to act as representative for another; a deputy or an agent. 2. A representative to a conference or convention. 3. A member of a House of Delegates, the lower house of the Maryland, Virginia, or West Virginia legislature. 4. An elected or appointed representative of a U.S. territory in the House of Representatives who is entitled to speak but not vote.
--delegate tr.v. delegated, delegating, delegates 1. To authorize and send (another person) as one's representative. 2. To commit or entrust to another: delegate a task to a subordinate. 3. Law. To appoint (one's debtor) as a debtor to one's creditor in place of oneself.
--delegator n.

I would not, for example, say that the people delegated the taxing power to Congress. I would say rather that the people established or created a taxing power for Congress. To me, delegation is the assignment of a power or duty held by the delegator.

I understand that you are differentiating between creation of a power and the giving of a power.

"Delegation" of power and "assignment" of power, as you are using the words, share the trait of passing on the power, of giving the power to the delegatee or assignee. In other words, delegation or assignment is the passing on (or sharing) of a power already existing and held by the delegator. No argument.

Concurrent with power is the authority to use that power. Holding power without authorization to use that power voids it as a power. So delegation or assignment of a power must also include the passing on, the delegation, the assignment of the authority to use the power.

Thus you differentiate between creating of a power on one hand and on the other, a passing of power and the tandem passing of the requisite authority to use that power.

Moving on the the issue of creation of power.

Let us suppose, momentarily, that instead of creating power, you are creating a coin. You are creating a coin for Congress.

Nevermind that you must have raw material, a pre-existing something, in order to make the coin.
You stamp the blank and create the coin.

At this point YOU have the coin. Congress doesn't get the coin until you give it to Congress.

Likewise, when the People create a power for Congress, they have it first.
Thus, even if the People created a power for Congress, they can't give it to Congress if they don't themselves have that power first, created or pre-existing.

Oh, and there's that little thing of the Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

This part of the United States Organic Law indicates that power is DELEGATED.

Earlier I said that Congress did not delegate the tax administrative authority to the Commissioner. I should have clarified at that time that I meant Congress created that authority under their power to impose taxes and granted it to the Commissioner.

Okay, I accept that the intent of your statement is: Congress created taxing administrative authority and "granted it to the Commissioner." As you use the word "granted" in your statement, you indicate the passing on (or sharing) of authority. This is the same indication as when you used the words delegate and assign above.

You stated above: "the people established or created a taxing power for Congress."
Here you state: "Congress created that authority under their power to impose taxes and granted it to the Commissioner."
So as you admit, Congress must grant (pass on, delegate, assign) the authority created.
But you don't admit that the people must grant (pass on, delegate, assign) the power created.
Since in the context of government, power equals force, the issue is authority (permission) to use that force.

If the phrase "Congress delegated the authority to IRS to administer the tax laws" means the same as "Congress granted the authority to IRS to administer the tax laws", then Dale Eastman is just wrong when he says one cannot delegate a power he does not have.

As a matter of logic, your IF propositions DO NOT SUPPORT your THEN conclusion. Your conclusion is a non-sequitur. It just does not follow.

NOTHING in your IF - THEN proves, or even begins to support that "Dale Eastman is just wrong when he says one cannot delegate a power he does not have".

As shown above, to delegate, to assign, and to grant are common in meaning to pass on, to give to.

"Congress delegated the authority to IRS to administer the tax laws" means the same as
"Congress granted the authority to IRS to administer the tax laws" means the same as
Congress passed on the authority to IRS to administer the tax laws means the same as
Congress gave the authority to IRS to administer the tax laws.

Reminder, my original question in my original post was: Can you give anything to anybody else that you do not possess?

If, on the other hand, there is a distinction between the verbs "delegate" and "grant", then Dale Eastman's error is in believing that delegation is the only means by which IRS could obtain the authority to administer the tax laws.

As just shown, there is no distinction when delegate and grant mean to pass on or to give.

Your post failed to provide, much less prove, any other means for the IRS to obtain (get, be given, be passed on to, be delegated, be assigned, be authorized) the authority to administer the tax laws. On the other hand, my mounds of bafflegab, statutory extracts and other things which puts Mr. Pottapaug to sleep trace exactly how the IRS gets the authority to administer the tax laws. The casual reader is invited to re-read that post and compare my supporting evidence presented in that post with the supporting evidence Mr. Quixote presented in this post. LINK TO mounds of bafflegab, statutory extracts and other things.

It should be noted that early in your post, you stated: "It appears to me that the verb "delegate" is being used to mean two things that, to me at least, are significantly different."
It should also be noted that you have failed to show where in my post, the verb "delegate" was used to mean two significantly different things.

Please quote those two different usages in their entirety so it can be seen what exactly you are referring to. At a minimum, I expect to see two of my sentences quoted.

[Mr. Eastman]

It's not that government can NOT exercise powers that are denied to individuals, governments do that all the time. It's that government SHOULD NOT exercise powers that are denied to individuals.

As I suspected, Eastman wants to debate morality or political philosophy, not the law.

Incidentally, Mr. E, you've still not said what you mean by "authority".

When Mr. Banjo posted this post, I had not posted my reply to his earlier post wherein he first asked the question.

While a challenge regarding an unanswered question would be proper, the challenger should wait until it is clear that the question has been ignored. If the challenger's post or subsequent post has been replied to without answering the question, then there is no mistake that the question is being ignored. (I had a specific question I asked a specific individual 31 times in the course of our discussion, so in that case it was quite clear that the person I was challenging was ignoring the question.)

The problem in this situation, because I had posted an answer to one of the other TWENTY posters looking to shoot me down, is that Mr. Banjo assumed I was ignoring his question. As I stated to another poster: You must be patient, Grasshopper.

The answer to his question, and the reply to his issue of morality are in the same batch of posts as this one. The reader is invited to take notice of whether Mr. Banjo answers my question asked before and asked now.

I reject your assertion that I am arguing philosophy by asking this question: Do you, Mr. Banjo, have any duty to obey an immoral law?

So if "the people" are three wolves and a lamb, and the collective will of the people is to have lamb chops for dinner, according to Mr. Observer, that consensus grants legitimacy to have lamb chops for dinner.

Your analogy is illogical. In order for your analogy to be comarable to our political reality, all members of the "people" should be the same in terms of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Okay.

If "the people" are four wolves, and the collective will of the people is to have the weakest wolf for dinner, according to Mr. Observer, that consensus grants legitimacy to have the weakest wolf for dinner.

Lambs would never seek to be included in a collective with wolves for the purpose of organizing a government, so your analogy fails.

Believe what you wish.

A better analogy would

be better for you to attempt to avoid what my analogy brings to light.

A better analogy would attempt to explain how four wolves can agree to form a wolf pack in order to be the most efficient at hunting, if three want to pursue lambs and one wolf wants to sit down and pick his nose. For the sake of the lives of the three wolves, if they need a fourth hunter to survive, do the 3 wolves have the right to compel the 4th wolf to hunt with them, if they form a collective pack and give the pack the authority and power to compel the 4th wolf?

If three wolves need a fourth to hunt to survive, then ALL FOUR are under the same situation of hunt or die. That means wolf number four can choose to pick his nose AND die or wolf number four can choose to hunt and live. With or without the creation of the collective pack, with or without compulsion of the fourth wolf, the situation will still mean hunt or die for the fourth wolf if the fourth wolf intends to stay in the same environment as the other three. Therefore:

Your analogy is illogical.

Ignoring that little flaw, we'll see where your analogy goes in just a moment.

A better analogy would attempt to explain how four wolves can agree to form a wolf pack

A better analogy would NOT introduce extraneous, undefined details, ambiguities, and loopholes for equivocations.

In this instant, you have introduced the concept of a "wolf pack". Since wolf packs are social connections between members in a group, the wolf pack already exists. It is an existing society.

What your context shows is that you are actually attempting to introduce the concept of a "wolf pack government". I will be editing your words in my quotations of your words to show this reality.

A better analogy would attempt to explain how four wolves can agree to form a wolf pack [government] in order to be the most efficient at hunting

Wasn't that the centralized planning in the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

There are approximately 8-9 million people living in and around Manhattan Island, NY. There is NO government agency that exists to make feeding the masses of NY more efficient, Yet somehow food gets to their tables (at the lowest cost - Adam Smith's hidden hand).

(Lowest cost IS maximum efficiency if the reason of low cost is not Rockefeller's pricing at a loss to undercut and bankrupt his competitors.)

This argues the point that government and/or centralized planning are NOT required, nor even necessary, to increase efficiency.

So putting aside that little detail about "efficiency" and moving on to another.

A better analogy would attempt to explain how four wolves can agree to form a wolf pack [government] in order to be the most efficient at hunting, if three want to pursue lambs and one wolf wants to sit down and pick his nose.

Unclear thinking results in unclear writing. Unclear writing results in my having to spend a bit of time deciphering what is actually meant in order to address the intended communication.

Increasing the efficiency of hunting or any other endeavor has nothing to do with addition of labor. See: Law of diminishing returns.

Your analogy's proposition of one wolf wanting to sit down and pick his nose has absolutely nothing to do with any agreements to form a wolf pack government.

Clearly, what you are attempting to reach here, is the justification of using FORCE against wolf number four to force wolf number four to act contrary to his own will and better judgement. In other words, you are attempting to justify forcing the wolf to accept the government's judgement and ignore his own.

Just as an aside, Do you, Mr. Observer, have any duty to obey an immoral law? Do you, Mr. Observer, have any duty to shove Jews and other undesirables into the ovens if that's what the law says you must do? Whose judgement do you use to determine if you are going to shove Jews and other undesirables into the oven? Yours or the government's?

For the sake of the lives of the three wolves, if they need a fourth hunter to survive, do the 3 wolves have the right to compel the 4th wolf to hunt with them, if they form a collective pack [government] and give the pack [government] the authority and power to compel the 4th wolf?

Again, unclear writing. Even so, what you are again attempting to reach here, is justification of using FORCE against wolf number four.

Restating for clarity: For the benefit of three wolves, do those three wolves have the right to compel the fourth to do something or to give up something against the fourth wolf's will?

No. They do not.

That is why you must introduce the second part of your compound sentence - If they form a government and give the government authority and power to compel the fourth wolf.

I'm giving that fourth wolf my point of view. That wolf will NOT be voting for or against forming a government. That fourth wolf will NOT be legitimizing the process of his own enslavement by participating in that dog and pony show.

You stated: "It is the voice of consensus that grants legitimacy". Do you wish to argue that three wolves voting to control the fourth by use of force is a consensus and that it's legitimate?

Observer:
Hey you two, I vote we go take (steal) Poindexter's lunch money.

Quatcrew 2:
Me too.

Quatcrew 3:
Me three.

Observer:
It's unanimous and we have a consensus, let's go get that lunch money.

Same situation, but Poindexter votes:

Observer:
Hey you three, I vote we take (steal) Poindexter's lunch money.

Quatcrew 2:
Me too.

Quatcrew 3:
Me three.

Poindexter:
I vote against.

Observer:
Sorry Poindexter, you lost the vote, It is the voice of consensus that grants legitimacy. Now cough up that lunch money.

Even when the "people" are the same in terms of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, your assertion "It is the voice of consensus that grants legitimacy" is shown to be the dangerous, abusive delusion that it is.

Mr. Observer wants to invoke "government" because it adds another layer to the obfuscation of the reality just shown.

Observer:
Hey you three, Let's create a government to protect everybody on the playground.

Observer:
Okay, we've created a playground government to protect everybody on the playground. The election results are in, Quatcrew 2, Quatcrew 3, Poindexter, and myself have been elected to be representatives in the playground Congress.

The first order of business is to enact a law to collect funds to be used to protect everybody on the playground. All in favor of a law to collect 50% of all lunch monies held by students?

Quatcrew 2:
I don't eat lunch. AYE!

Quatcrew 3:
I carry a bag lunch. AYE!

Observer:
My parents buy the monthly ticket. AYE!

Poindexter:
NAY!

I called the vote a dog and pony show because its purpose is to take the above reality out of sight and make it invisible.

Your attempt at SOPDDD is noted. You wanted to change the analogy because you have no answer to the reality exposed within.

You just might finally and fully understand the reality presented when you find yourself in Poindexter's place.

[Mr. Eastman]

The real question is why these folks stay in the U.S. -- nothing stops them from leaving?

Why does somebody like Dale Eastman who Hates America so much bother to stick around? Is it stupidity or just laziness?

Costa Rica calls . . .

That would be Quatloos crew number 21 popping his head up to take a pot shot.
Pot shot noted.

Mr. Smith makes a naked assertion that "Dale Eastman [...] Hates America".
Mr. Smith, please provide the URL of any of my posts that prove your allegation.

Assertions without proof may be refuted without proof. Mr. Smith is in error.

The real question is why these folks stay in the U.S. -- nothing stops them from leaving?

Why does somebody like Dale Eastman who Hates America so much bother to stick around? Is it stupidity or just laziness?

Costa Rica calls . . .

... or Somalia. I have it on good authority that the purview of the IRS does not extend that far; and it's an open question whether ANY taxing authority exists there.

Pot shot noted.

Yeah, maybe Mr. Eastman will volunteer to move to Somalia and work for the Internal Revenue Service -- in charge of their office in Somalia. I'm thinking of the IRS office in Somalia that handles enforcement of the law on U.S. federal income taxes imposed on Somali citizens who are, for U.S. purposes, nonresident aliens subject to the U.S. individual income tax imposed under Internal Revenue Code section 1 by way of section 2(d), to the extent provided in sections 871 or 877, as applicable......

Pot shot noted.

[wserra]

The real answer is: Of course, people collectively assert power people individually cannot. That's the nature of government. That's the nature of law. Deny that this should occur, you're an anarchist.

Anarchy brings with it a host of other problems, but Eastman should at least have the cojones to admit what he is.

Mr. Wserra, do you think people should be forced to purchase services at gunpoint?

First of all, allow me to express my pride in being chosen to lead off Eastman's shambling, mindless zombie parade that occupies over a page of the board.

But I thought we had already pointed out that you don't get to insist on answers to vague, near-meaningless questions instead of actually stating a proposition. Since you steadfastly refuse to do the latter, I'll state the points you obviously want to make but apparently fear the consequences of making: government's coercive powers are illegitimate because individuals have no such powers, and therefore cannot pass them on to governments. Corollary: government's taxing powers are illegitimate, both because of the above proposition and because you can't "force people to purchase services at gunpoint". I'm sure you'll deny that these are actually your propositions, but readers can examine the zombies and decide for themselves.

Two points: first of all, no one says that individuals passed on or ceded to government any power that they ever had. Individuals convened as representatives and agreed that government would possess certain powers, precisely because they as individuals lacked the power "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". That agreement was then ratified by more representatives. You want to argue that those individuals were unable lawfully to accomplish that vis-a-vis you, and that therefore as far as you're concerned government is illegitimate? Fine, but you have just nullified all government. Embrace your anarchy. But explain what relevance the concept of law has to an anarchist.

I won't hold my breath. Moreover, as I wrote earlier, there really is no point in responding to sophistry. Abide the day when Eastman actually adopts some principles.

[notorial dissent]

Well, once again, Dale's mouth opened, and approximately 1900 words dribbled forth, and while slung together in the appearance and pretense at sentences, nothing of worth or value was presented. Dale cannot, or more to the point, will not answer a simple question, and does not have the moral or intellectual honesty to actually state his position and defend it with anything but mouth noises.

[LPC]

Mr. Wserra, do you think people should be forced to purchase services at gunpoint?

My answer would be yes.

And no.

It depends on what services and who's holding the gun.

If the question is whether people should be forced to pay for schools and roads and police protection and fire fighting services through the government's power to tax (and taxes can be collected at gunpoint), the answer is yes.

If the question is whether a business should be forced to buy "protection" from mobsters, the answer is no.

And yes, there is a difference between governments and mobsters.

There has been an almost continuous debate in this country about the proper role and powers of governments from the 1700s onwards to the current election contests.

And that's the way it should be. We have a revolution in this country every two years, when every member of the House of Representatives must run for re-election, along with a third of the Senate members, and so we have choices about how much government we want every two years. Some people vote for more government action, and some people vote for less.

Eastman's answer is that there should be no government at all, which makes him irrelevant to any meaningful discussion of the proper role of government.

[Pottapaug1938]

"Unclear thinking results in unclear writing. Unclear writing results in my having to spend a bit of time deciphering what is actually meant in order to address the intended communication."

Hooooooo, boy -- Mr. Eastman should talk. I have long since stopped bothering to read his rambling posts, because they are nothing but word-and-picture salads, with smug "pot shot noted" remarks thrown in for seasoning. Wes has shown him the way to go, offering two well-written paragraphs which he -- and I -- feel are summaries of Mr. Eastman's positions. It is up to Mr. Eastman, now, to either confirm that his positions were accurately stated or, in similarly concise paragraphs, set us straight. We are asking no more of him than we ask of any other FB poster.

We're calling your hand, Mr. Eastman. Tell us WHY you asked your original question.

[notorial dissent]

I would be more impressed if he would just ask a question that can actually be correctly answered other than with maybe. I'm not holding my breath or really expecting such, but that is all it would take. He, of course, won't do that, since then he would get an answer, and most likely not the one he is fishing for. He wants someone else to prove his point, always assuming he actually has one, for him, and it isn't going to happen here. AS it is, he is a waste of time to read or bother with, and has achieved the dubious distinction of making the original word salad generator sound coherent by comparison.