Greetings to all (Dale Eastman)

[ibanez2k]

Ok. Well, I do understand your point then. It seems Dale is trying to prove, based our current laws, that taxing is illegal, correct?

This is where he is definately wrong. Whether law is just or fair, it is still law and we are under obligation to obey if we are in it's jurisdiction.

If you don't mind me asking, why, when so many have stated otherwise as I've shown in my quotes, do so many here feel government is required to have more power than individuals, or even the whole of society, possess? I don't see any purpose for it based on why we created government and law in the first place.

[LPC]

It seems Dale is trying to prove, based our current laws, that taxing is illegal, correct?

I'm not sure what he has been trying to prove.

He might be trying to prove that taxing is illegal, or he might be trying to prove that taxing is amoral or illogical.

Whether law is just or fair, it is still law and we are under obligation to obey if we are in it's jurisdiction.

There may be a moral duty to disobey an unjust law.

That doesn't mean that the law doesn't exist, or can't be enforced, but only that there may be a role for civil disobedience in the world.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Ok. Well, I do understand your point then. It seems Dale is trying to prove, based our current laws, that taxing is illegal, correct?
...

To paraphrase from the seventh district: Some people believe BS that just happens to coincide with their own financial interests.

Eastman is yet another proponent of one of a myriad of flawed propositions that, at their core, start with being pissed off at the amount of tax they are supposed to pay.

Their failure to effectively deal with reality is representative of the fact that while ignorance can be alleviated, there really is no cure for stupid.

[wserra]

I split the "Fair Tax" posts to their own thread in the Tax Policy forum.

[wserra]

Ok. Well, I do understand your point then. It seems Dale is trying to prove, based our current laws, that taxing is illegal, correct?

As is clear from many posts in the thread, we have been trying in vain to get Eastman to specify exactly what he is trying to prove. He refuses. Safer that way.

[wserra]

The subject of Locke on government is a large one. I haven't had time to do it justice for several days, and still don't. But it's clear that Locke and Eastman do not mean the same thing - not exactly a revelation, since Locke was one of the most profound political philosophers of his age and Eastman is an idiot.

Yes, Locke wrote that a just government was limited in its power to the powers of the individuals that created it. But Locke also believed that there is a "moral law", granted by God and deducible by logic and experience, which individuals were entitled to enforce, by force if necessary. Locke was thus a spiritual father of both the American and French Revolutions. Moreover, Locke believed that just governments exist primarily to enforce that moral law, again by force if necessary. Eastman's apparent proposition - "apparent" because he is a mealy-mouthed nitwit who refuses to specify it - that legitimate government cannot exercise compulsion against its citizens is nonsense, and was certainly not Locke's.

The other problem with Locke in a pluralistic society (as opposed to that of late seventeenth century England) is that I doubt there is general agreement on a "moral law", or that it came from God, a god, or many gods. Absent such agreement, Locke's idea of government as enforcer of "natural law" is unworkable. We just have to muddle along with a secular alternative.

[Cathulhu]

I tend to associate "natural law" with "Nature red in tooth and claw."

[grixit]

Natural Law is what tells you that "...all men are created equal. Unless they are negroes. Or indians. Or jews. Or poor. And women don't count at all."

[Prof]

IMHO, the Catholic Encyclopedia has an excellent definition of "natural law," as that term is used by the Church (and I find most commentators today who write about "natural law" are within the Catholic tradition):

In English this term is frequently employed as equivalent to the laws of nature, meaning the order which governs the activities of the material universe. Among the Roman jurists natural law designated those instincts and emotions common to man and the lower animals, such as the instinct of self-preservation and love of offspring. In its strictly ethical application—the sense in which this article treats it—the natural law is the rule of conduct which is prescribed to us by the Creator in the constitution of the nature with which He has endowed us.

According to St. Thomas, the natural law is "nothing else than the rational creature's participation in the eternal law" (I-II.94). The eternal law is God's wisdom, inasmuch as it is the directive norm of all movement and action. When God willed to give existence to creatures, He willed to ordain and direct them to an end. In the case of inanimate things, this Divine direction is provided for in the nature which God has given to each; in them determinism reigns. Like all the rest of creation, man is destined by God to an end, and receives from Him a direction towards this end. This ordination is of a character in harmony with his free intelligent nature. In virtue of his intelligence and free will, man is master of his conduct. Unlike the things of the mere material world he can vary his action, act, or abstain from action, as he pleases. Yet he is not a lawless being in an ordered universe. In the very constitution of his nature, he too has a law laid down for him, reflecting that ordination and direction of all things, which is the eternal law. The rule, then, which God has prescribed for our conduct, is found in our nature itself. Those actions which conform with its tendencies, lead to our destined end, and are thereby constituted right and morally good; those at variance with our nature are wrong and immoral.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm

Natural Law is fixed, being Devine in origin; Man's (political) laws must not violate Natural Law.

[LPC]

I tend to associate "natural law" with "Nature red in tooth and claw."

Or: "The result I want for which I have no better rationalization."

[wserra]

The off-topic stuff went to "Devine, Divine and Shakespeare". I know, I know, Kickback and I should be shot.

Belated suggestion to all, including me: please reserve this thread for Eastman.

[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.

The power to enact laws is given to the legislature even though that power is not possessed by the individuals (or even by the collective group of individuals). The legislative power is excercised by the government, as it should be.

Mr. G, you state: "The power to enact laws is given to the legislature even though that power is not possessed by the individuals (or even by the collective group of individuals)."

The Office of the Law Revision Counsel states that the Constitution AND the Declaration of Independence are ORGANIC LAW.

THE ORGANIC LAWS

OF

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA


THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE - 1776
ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION - 1777
ORDINANCE OF 1787: THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - 1787

The Constitution states:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Please direct your attention to the highlighted words: "We the people ... do ordain and establish this Constitution."

Who made this law? The People.

Your assertion that the power to enact laws is not possessed by the collective group of individuals is refuted by the words of the Constitution.

I'll deal with your assertion that the power to enact laws is not possessed by the individual at a later time.

Your assertion that: "The legislative power is excercised only by the government" is contradicted by showing that the legislating of the founding ORGANIC LAW was done NOT by government, but by the people.

My addition of the word only is to plainly state what you are implying. If it is only government that can legislate, then no others can. If it is NOT only government that can legislate, then others can.

If you challenge my inclusion of the word only, you admit that the people can legislate.
If you don't challenge my inclusion of the word only, you admit that I've correctly stated your intent.
Said intent is already refuted.

Which of course, reminds me:

Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.

Sovereignty is the author and source of law, sovereignty remains with the people.

Sovereign powers are DELEGATED to the agencies of government.
(Emphasis because of certain other arguments made by others in this topic thread.)

Sovereign "legislative power is" first delegated to, and then "excercised by the government".

Returning your statement to its full length as modified: "The legislative power is excercised only by the government, as it should be"

"As it should be" is merely your opinion. Obviously by stating so, I'm implying that I do not share that opinion.

Mr. G, you introduced section 134 of Locke's work to support your assertions. I thank you for the inclusion of the source link.

In doing so, you allowed me to read Locke's work to fully understand the context of your quotation. I'm abridging the quote and the casual reader can get section 134 unabridged from the link you thoughtfully provided: http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtreat.txt

Sec. 134. THE great end of men's entering into society, being the enjoyment of their properties in peace and safety, and the great instrument and means of that being the laws established in that society; the first and fundamental positive law of all commonwealths is the establishing of the legislative power; as the first and fundamental natural law, which is to govern even the legislative itself, is the preservation of the society, and (as far as will consist with the public good) of every person in it.

This particular highlighting is to bring attention to the fact that the fundamental natural law applies to the legislators and the laws they create.

Locke starts to expound upon the natural law in section 4.

Sec. 4. TO understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.

A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident, than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection, unless the lord and master of them all should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another, and confer on him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty.

Or in other words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal

In section 6, Locke states:

The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions[...]

The law of nature is: no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.

Or in other words:

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

Simply stated, the purpose of LAW is to protect Life, Liberty, and Property.

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

As a point of logic: There can be no collective right if there is no individual right. It makes no sense to say you don't have a right to not be robbed and I don't have a right to not be robbed and then turn around and say WE collectively do have a right to not be robbed.

Returning to what Locke stated in section 134: "the first and fundamental natural law, which is to govern even the legislative itself", Therefore, the legislative itself should NOT "harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions".

Bastiat addresses what happens when the legislative violates the fundamental natural law in THE LAW. http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

The Complete Perversion of the Law

But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.

Which upon reading the prior, brings Jefferson's words into sharp focus.

Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But 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 right of an individual.

Thus a very solid, objective law examining yardstick is exposed: Does this law violate or protect Life, Liberty, or Property?

[Mr. Eastman]

Doesn't anyone get tired of arguing on the shallow, unthinking level Eastman at which started this whole debate?

Pot shot noted.

If the debate is so shallow, then why did you post and engage on that debate?

Individuals don't give government authority over others that the individuals don't possess themselves --

Thank you for admitting this much.

My point is not that individuals DON'T give government authority over others, my point is that individuals CAN'T give government authority over others if they themselves do not have that authority in the first place.

Individuals don't give government authority over others that the individuals don't possess themselves -- they give the government authority over themselves in a fair exchange for others also giving the government authority over themselves.

While the latter statement is what you believe, it is not what I believe. While you choose to submit to slavery, I do not.

I do not give government authority over myself for any reason. Therefore, you and I have exchanged NOTHING.

The easiest example is in taxation, where the government takes your property. What does it mean to say that something is your property?

If it is justly acquired property, then no human, no corporation, no government and no other entity can have a higher legitimate claim on that property than I do. My property is that which no other can lay a higher legitimate claim to. If they can, then it's not my property.

Your statement is actually a non sequitur to your previous statement. You state "The easiest example is in taxation..." You do not state what taxation is an example of, nor does the context of the rest of your post indicate what taxation is an example of.

As you stated: "The easiest example is in taxation, where the government takes your property."
As I pointed out, if another can lay a higher legitimate claim on my property than I, then it's not my property.

Therefore, the government is taking ITS property.

Thus, the question arises, how does/did a portion of MY compensation for labor (or any other property that I own) become the government's property?

Since compensation for labor is merely the conversion of the capital called labor into another form, then the government MUST (logically) already own that portion of my labor.

In the days of slaves, did not the plantation owner also own his slave's labor and the fruits thereof?

That you can use it as you wish and keep someone else from using it?

Yes. Exactly. (Unless the use injures another.)

What if that someone else is bigger than you are?

There's a reason why Samuel Colt's 45 caliber revolver was called "The Equalizer".

If a person attempts to unjustly take my property from me against my will, then that person is initiating force and violence upon me.

Under those conditions I have the right to escalate my defense of my property to whatever level is necessary to keep my property, whether it is to ask my friends for assistance, or to load a gun.

What if the property I own, that the aggressor wants to take, is my life?
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

The casual reader should note that the issue of who is the aggressor gets conveniently ignored in most arguments of this nature.

Or just claims that it is his property?

I would ask for the proof he has that it is his property. The situation splits at this point. Either he can prove it is his, in which case I would have to return it or he can not prove it is his, in which case I would not have to return it. Any third party or parties could be requested to weigh in on the strength of the evidence.

It's not really your property if your rights depend on your personal ability to fight off others or on the altruism of others.

That statement is just asinine.

If it's MY property, then it's MY property, regardless of whether I have custody or the thief / robber has forcefully taken custody. If the robber has custody of MY property, then my property right has been violated.

Basically, your rights aren't worth anything unless society agrees to enforce them.

Rights that aren't worth anything aren't rights, are they? So cutting to the chase, in order to have rights, by your thought process, society must agree that you have those rights. Conversely, if society does not agree that you have a specific right, then by your thinking, you don't have that right.

So if I can get 51% of society to agree that you do NOT have a right to life, that makes your right to life worthless and makes killing you in cold blood NOT murder.

One of my proof readers had this to say:

YOUR rights aren't worth anything... Really? MY rights aren't worth anything- to who... me? My rights are priceless to me regardless of who else or how many others agree with me.

YOUR rights aren't worth anything... Really? My rights aren't worth anything- to who... you? Thanks for giving me the heads up, I won't turn my back on you pal.

But what gives you the right to demand that I (or the courts or the police or anyone else) enforce your property rights?

Splitting that compound sentence...

"But what gives you the right to demand that I enforce your property rights?"

First off, I have no right to demand that you do anything other than respect my property rights... I can only request that you assist me in enforcing my property rights against others who refuse to respect my property rights.
(I wouldn't by the way. Not with your attitude.)

Besides, what gives you any greater authority or right than I have in enforcing my property rights anyway? Nothing. We are equal.

"But what gives you the right to demand that the police enforce your property rights?"
Nothing. Absolutely nothing. The police are under NO duty whatsoever to provide police protection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._ ... f_Columbia

The State of Illinois says very plainly what the police duties are, even if not so clearly stated, in every state in the union.

Neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes, failure to detect or solve crimes, and failure to identify or apprehend criminals. This immunity is not waived by a contract for private security service, but cannot be transferred to any non‑public entity or employee.

The first 40 words are verbatim in California statute 845.
http://law.onecle.com/california/government/845.html
http://law.onecle.com/illinois/745ilcs10/4-102.html


But what gives you the right to demand that anyone else enforce your property rights?
Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Just as I can request assistance from you, I can request assistance from anyone else in enforcing my own property rights.

The fair exchange is that I give you the right to call on me to enforce your rights in exchange for you giving me the right to call on you.

Oh, you mean a CONTRACT.
Contracts must be willingly made, with complete disclosure of the terms to be agreed to. Anything else is not a contract.

You did not really state what you are attempting to get at. What you mean to say by context and implication is that the exchange gives me a right to expect a response of assistance from you when I do call on you. In other words, an act of assistance is required per the contract. And the converse would be the same.

I do not so agree to a contract with you, therefore, the only thing you and I will be exchanging is words on this forum.

I'm not quite sure if I should call equivocation on what you have done here, thus only mention the possibility in passing.

You did state: "Individuals [...] give the government authority over themselves in a fair exchange for others also giving the government authority over themselves."
There is NOTHING exchanged between you and I.

I no longer consent to corrupt government rule. Government now rules me without my consent.

I don't care whether you consent to give government authority over you or not.

As you (mostly) correctly asserted: "Individuals don't give government authority over others that the individuals don't possess themselves" and as you half correctly assert: "they give the government authority over themselves". PERIOD.

Your personal motivation for choosing to be a slave is your business. Your choice to be a slave only became my business after I realized the limited authority of government and (in this post) recognize that you attempt to continue to promulgate the propaganda that government authority is unlimited.

None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free.

And, if we want to be efficient about it, we get together and pay the biggest, baddest dude around to actually do the enforcing, and even to do the collecting of the tax to pay him.

And when that biggest, baddest dude is the one unjustly taking your property....?

That's government at its most bare, lack of frills, basics. And it is NOT dependent on me giving that bad dude authority over you, but both of us giving him authority over ourselves in exchange for protection of our rights.

I do NOT give that bad dude authority over me because I know the bad dude is a bigger violator of rights then the rights violators the propaganda purports he is protecting us from.

As I've already shown, you have no right to expect (police) protection.

An argument over whether government has been given too much authority, or is going beyond what it was given, is legitimate, if unresolvable.

It is your opinion that it is unresolvable because of your belief system.

Unfortunately I agree that it is unresolvable because that's what happens when the fox is guarding the hen house.

The pieces are in place to resolve the issue as shown below, however when any (every) body in a position of authority to do something about the ultra vires actions refuse to reign in the wrongdoer... Those that should be listening, investigating, and stopping the ultra vires actions don't. Instead they punish the whistle blowers.

Splitting your complex sentence:

"An argument over whether government is going beyond [the authority] it was given, is legitimate, if unresolvable."

Government is an artificial entity. Government actions are executed by government officers, agents, and employees authorized to do the action. If the action is not authorized for the government to execute, then the action is not authorized for the government officers, agents, and employees either. (Which connects back to the original question: Can you give anything to anybody else that you do not possess? Like authority to take a certain action.)

The Fourth Amendment provides that:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . ."

In Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (1946), we reserved the question whether violation of that command by a federal agent acting under color of his authority gives rise to a cause of action for damages consequent upon his unconstitutional conduct. Today we hold that it does.

In other words, government immunity does NOT reach and protect government officers, agents, and employees for actions beyond what is authorized.

As already addressed, when those in positions of power refuse to address the wrongdoings of others, such law becomes meaningless.

"An argument over whether government has been given too much authority, is legitimate, if unresolvable."

Except that the argument is about what the authority given actually is, and what the source of that authority is. It is not about if it is too much authority.

But if you want to argue that you have no obligation to pay for the protection or other benefits, first forgo the benefits, which basically means go away.

So if some government actor comes to my home and cuts my grass without my permission, then at gunpoint forces me to pay for the benefit of not having to mow my lawn, I must move away in order to forgo the benefit - Then I can argue that I have no obligation to pay for the benefit?

Uh, I don't think so.

And you used the plural form "benefits", so there is more than one. I don't get a say in what the diverse benefits are, and I must pay for all the benefits even when I don't want them and don't use them.

And as for that protection...

But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: Your money, or your life. And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.

The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the road side, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.

The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.

Which are you, a dupe or a slave?

[Mr. Eastman]

.....What does it mean to say that something is your property? That you can use it as you wish and keep someone else from using it? What if that someone else is bigger than you are? Or just claims that it is his property? It's not really your property if your rights depend on your personal ability to fight off others or on the altruism of others. Basically, your rights aren't worth anything unless society agrees to enforce them......

This is a kernel of truth that escapes a lot of people. Property, in a certain legal sense, is "an aggregate of rights which are guaranteed and protected by the government." Black's Law Dictionary, p. 1095 (5th ed. 1979) (italics added). In the absence of protection by the government, I do not have a property right in the legal sense.

If my only protection with respect to the house and land where I live is that I have a bigger gun (and a meaner and more determined disposition) than the bad guy who wants to oust me from the land, then I do not have a property right in the legal sense. I may have what some would call a "natural right".

The purpose of government is to secure natural rights by creating (among other things) legal rights. Natural rights may be said to exist in the absence of government. Legal rights, by contrast, are an aspect of a society that has a government, and legal rights exist only to the extent recognized by government.

EDIT: From something I read somewhere.....

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights [i.e., to secure these Natural Rights], Governments are instituted among Men....

(italics added).

Again, Natural rights, in some sense, may exist without the existence or protection of a government. Legal rights (whether property rights or other kinds of rights) exist only in contemplation of government, and only to the extent recognized and protected by government.

I want to point out that I actually agree with most of what you've stated.

Kinda takes the adversarial out of the debate when we agree on things.

However, I do have issue with your statement: "Natural rights, in some sense, may exist without the existence or protection of a government."

Natural rights exist. Period.

Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

Had you not quoted the part of the Declaration of Independence that you quoted, I would have.

With or without government, I have a right to Life, Liberty, and justly acquired property.

[Mr. Eastman]

Ohh. Political philosophy by flash video. Imagine the Federalist Papers on youtube.

Incapable of original thought, eh?

Pot shot noted. Failure to address any of the points raised in that video noted.

I surprise a lot of people when I say that I disagree with the founding fathers that all men are created with equal unalienable rights. I know what this statement is saying - that all men should be free to exist with equal rights. But people are not created with rights - there is no basic "right". "rights" are enforceable and granted by an entity that is greater than the individual. We can talk about what ought to be a right, but those are morals, not rights granted to individuals.

You stated: "people are not created with rights".
Therefore, by your own statement, you are not created with rights.
Therefore, because of your own statement, you are not created with a right to life.
Since you do not have a right to life, you have no reason to expect to have your non-existent right to life respected.

You stated: ""rights" are enforceable and granted by an entity that is greater than the individual."
Implied in your compound sentence, is that the entity that is greater than you who granted you your right to life is the same one who enforces your right to life. Is this correct? Does the same entity both grant and enforce your right to life?

You stated: ""rights" are [...] granted by an entity that is greater than the individual."
So who granted you your right to life?
Who gave you a reason to expect to have your right to life respected?

You stated: ""rights" are enforceable [...] by an entity that is greater than the individual."
Who is the entity that is greater than you that enforces your right to life?

You stated: "We can talk about what ought to be a right..."
Is keeping your life a right that ought to be?

You stated: "We can talk about what ought to be a right, but those are morals..."
Is keeping your life a moral?
Should I not attempt to kill you because it's a moral thing to not kill you?
Or should I not attempt to kill you because you have a right to life?
Or should I not attempt to kill you because it's a moral thing to not violate your right to life?

You stated: "We can talk about what ought to be a right, but those are morals, not rights granted to individuals."
So keeping your life is a moral and not a right granted to you?

You stated: ""rights" are [...] granted by an entity that is greater than the individual."
You stated: "We can talk about what ought to be a right, but those are [...] not rights granted to individuals."

You contradict yourself in a single post.

Doesn't anyone get tired of arguing on the shallow, unthinking level Eastman at which started this whole debate?

Some of us have never done that. Some of us believe that, until the guy actually states a proposition and tries to defend it, his sophistry merits only derision.

sophistry n., pl. sophistries. 1. Plausible but fallacious argumentation. 2. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.

Failure to prove sophistry noted. Failure to refute alleged misleading or alleged fallacious argumentation noted. Pot shot noted.

Doesn't anyone get tired of arguing on the shallow, unthinking level Eastman at which started this whole debate?

Some of us have never done that. Some of us believe that, until the guy actually states a proposition and tries to defend it, his sophistry merits only derision.

Yes, Mr. Eastman opens the thread with a question, hoping (apparently) that those who respond will do so on his terms, according to his unstated agenda.

Since you can read minds and know what I'm hoping to have happen, then why don't you state my unstated agenda for the casual reader?

He receives responses, some of which are humorous, some of which are technical, none of which really serve his purpose.

If you don't know my unstated agenda, then how can you know the various responses don't serve my purpose?

Then, he receives more responses which undercut or reject the underlying philosophical theory in which he apparently believes -- which is apparently that somehow society does not have the right to impose a federal income tax on him without his personal consent.

Believe what you wish. Assert what you feel you must. Wander off on these irrelevant tangents to set up your pot shots if it gives you satisfaction. Posts such as this one show your True Colors.

I say "apparently," because Mr. Eastman does seem reluctant to state a firm position -- possibly out of fear that he will then be called upon to defend it.

If you don't think I've been stating a firm position, then you have NOT been paying attention. Or maybe you have been paying attention and you are choosing to ignore certain things. Either way, you are helping to fulfill a part of my unstated agenda.

Just because I'm not stating my position directly doesn't mean I'm not stating it.

His most recent post, in response to a question from a Quatloos regular, consisted not of his own explanation of what his position is, but rather consisted of a link to a video at a web site for the "International Society for Individual Liberty."

Oh come on now. I know you can make better pot shots than that.

I tossed that link at Mr. Evans to give you all something to gnaw on until I could get some more replies written and posted. Why would you assume that I haven't taken the ISIL position as my own?

(yaaaawwwwwwwnnnnnn......)

:roll:

Pot shot noted.

Doesn't anyone get tired of arguing on the shallow, unthinking level Eastman at which started this whole debate?

Some of us have never done that. Some of us believe that, until the guy actually states a proposition and tries to defend it, his sophistry merits only derision.

Isn't that why we're on here - to engage in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents?

Pot shot noted.

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?

http://www.isil.org/resources/philosoph ... nglish.swf

Automated intellectual drivel is still intellectual drivel.

And, just so you know who you're dealing with, I'm Quaker. We talk to God. God talks back. And we talk about the difference between spirit-led revelation and self-serving crap.

And God tells me that what you're posting is self-serving crap.

Eastman's tone and attitude seems to be calculated to demonstrate (and to reassure himself and the other voices in his head)

What's this about voices in one's head?

And your failure to address the "intellectual drivel", refute the "intellectual drivel", and thus prove that the "intellectual drivel" is actually "intellectual drivel" is noted.

Some of us believe that, until the guy actually states a proposition and tries to defend it, his sophistry merits only derision.

I plead guilty to that.

The casual reader is invited to notice the True Colors of these Quatloos regulars.

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.

Pot shot noted.

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.

That would be Quatloos crew number 23 taking a pot shot.

4.a. To gain or exert influence or control over; dominate: Fury possessed me. b. To control or maintain (one's nature) in a particular condition: I possessed my temper despite the insult.
6. To cause to be influenced or controlled, as by an idea or emotion: The thought of getting rich possessed him.

As I stated, not germane to the issue at hand.

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

Pot shot noted.

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.

"nothing of worth or value was presented"
Assessing your own posts I see.

[Mr. Eastman]

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.

Pot shot noted.

Perhaps it occupies over a page on the board because there are approximately 23 of you and 1 of me and I'm only going to ignore the stuff posted by your side that has nothing to do with me.

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.

Your opinion that my questions are vague and near-meaningless is noted and and dismissed.

And yes, I do get to ask questions. If you don't want to answer them, don't. For that matter, do you understand that you don't have to read, much less reply, to any of my posts?

Oh... I don't want you to be a liar, and according to you I insist on answers... So...
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO READ, MUCH LESS REPLY, TO ANY OF MY POSTS!?

Answer or don't, as your free will guides you.

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:

Your opinion that I "apparently fear the consequences" is noted and dismissed.

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.

I did state in reply to another of the Quatloos crew, 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.

Obviously there are some powers that I accept as legitimate.

That would be the powers that individuals do have.

So, therefore, you have misstated my position because you ignored something that I posted.

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".

Are you asserting that it's perfectly okay to force people to purchase services at gunpoint?

Keep in mind, I did not introduce my affidavit regarding taxation, one of the Quatloos crew did. It is a moot argument until after what is legitimate government power is determined. I reject your blind belief regarding legitimate government power.

I'm sure you'll deny that these are actually your propositions, but readers can examine the zombies and decide for themselves.

Well since you put it that way, YOUR proposition is that it's perfectly okay to force people to purchase services at gunpoint. Mr. Evans even stated as much.

And likewise, I'm sure the readers can examine our competing thoughts on the issue and decide for themselves who makes more sense.

Two points: first of all, no one says that individuals passed on or ceded to government any power that they ever had.

By no one, you mean you don't say that individuals passed on or ceded to government any power that they ever had.

Otherwise, in the case of anybody else, an assertion without proof may be refuted without proof.

I say that individuals passed on or ceded to government power that they [...] had. Thus your assertion is refuted with proof.

Since I project that you are going to challenge that statement, I look forward to the discussion that will follow because of that statement. I'll get it started.

Individuals have a right to Life. Inherent in that right to Life is a right to protect that Life using whatever force is necessary to abate a threat to that life. As Locke points out, (thanks again Mr. G for the link) every individual has the authority to use that power, to use that force, to abate that threat to one's Life.

As a point of logic: There can be no collective right if there is no individual right. It makes no sense to say you don't have a right to Life and I don't have a right to Life and then turn around and say collectively WE do have a right to Life.

The same point of logic applies to power (the use of force). If one individual can push a stalled car, then five individuals can push a stalled car. There is no collective pushing of the stalled car without two or more individuals pushing the stalled car. Therefore, there is no collective power without individual power.

Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.

Power without authority (permission to use the power) negates the power.

As I stated, Individuals have a right to Life. Inherent in that right to Life is a right to protect that Life using whatever force is necessary to abate that threat to that life. As Locke points out, every individual has the authority to use that power, to use that force, to abate that threat.

That is one very important example of the sovereign's power (and more importantly, authority) delegated to agencies of the government.

unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men

Government is instituted to protect Life and all the other rights, listed or unlisted. Power (collective force and authority to use that force) is delegated to agencies of the government TO PROTECT LIFE and all the other rights, listed or unlisted.

If an individual has a right to Life and the individual is denied the authority to use whatever power he chooses and can muster in defense of his life, then the individual does NOT really have a right to Life.

To say an individual has a right to Life and then state that only the government has the power to defend that Life is to say that the individual really only has a right to Life if the government actors deign to protect it.

That is exactly what you are saying when you attempt to assert that individuals did not pass on nor cede powers to government that the individuals 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".

Please provide your explanation as to what exactly you believe "government" is, because I reject your apparent blind belief in government as some sort of demigod.

As to those representatives... They did not represent me because I didn't exist then. And they do not represent me because they do not exist now.

You state: "Individuals convened as representatives and agreed that government would possess certain powers..."
Where did those powers (and authority to use them) come from?
Did those powers (and authority to use them) magically appear out of nothingness?

You state: "Individuals convened as representatives and agreed that government would possess certain powers, precisely because they as individuals lacked the power"
Actually what those individuals lacked as individuals was delegated AUTHORITY, that is, permission to act as the delegate and representative of those they represent.

The belief in the superstitious ritual of voting for representatives, is flawed. Logical analysis of the process shows this.

If a group of people participate in the election process and the person they vote for (want to represent them) loses, then as a matter of logic they are NOT represented by an agent of their choosing. To say otherwise is to say that you get to choose my representative for me and get to ignore my choice. If you choose him, he doesn't represent me.

And regardless of which puppet is elected, with PAC (political action committee) campaign contributions, do you really expect a rational person to believe that their "representatives" are representing them?

You state: "Individuals convened as representatives and agreed that government would possess certain powers, precisely because they as individuals lacked the [delegated authority] "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"."
Do you have anymore to say regarding this distraction of yours?

That agreement was then ratified by more representatives.

I acknowledge the value of your assertion as a history lesson.

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?

Vis-à-vis is a French phrase meaning "face to face", often used as "in relation to".

That agreement was then ratified by more representatives. You want to argue that those individuals were unable lawfully to accomplish that [in relation to] you, and that therefore as far as you're concerned government is illegitimate?

As previously stated in this reply, I did state in reply to another of the Quatloos crew, 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.

Obviously there are some powers that I accept as legitimate.

That would be the powers that individuals do have.

So, therefore, you have misstated my position because you ignored something that I posted.

therefore as far as you're concerned government is illegitimate? Fine, but you have just nullified all government.

DING, DING, DING, DING! We have a winner.

Let me correct your statement to better reflect your position: "Fine, but you have just [attempted to nullify] all government."
(Unless you meant to cede the point.)

Embrace your anarchy.

The casual reader is invited to notice that Mr. Wserra is using second level communication techniques.

As an example, I can refer to Mr. Wserra's post as his points and counterpoints, or I can refer to Mr. Wserra's post as his spew. Obviously calling his post "spew" drags in negative connotations and is an emotional level communication to the reader.

Mr. Wserra, please provide your explanation as to what exactly you believe anarchy is.

But explain what relevance the concept of law has to an anarchist. I won't hold my breath.

I'll explain my definition of law instead. Law is a politician's command, backed by threat of force, up to and including killing you.

What gives a politician, i.e. an alleged representative, the authority to threaten me with death if I don't do what he commands with his edicts?

If 51% of the politicians (the alleged representatives) agree to legislate a law making it a crime to drink grape soda, punishable by death, the person refusing to obey that law will be killed.

If the punishment is only a fine, the result will be the same. If the grape soda drinker refuses to comply with that edict, and then refuses to pay the fine, the politician's goons will attempt to put the grape soda drinker into a cage. If the grape soda drinker resists being forcibly put in a cage, the politician's goons will escalate the force used to put the grape soda drinker into a cage up to the level of killing the grape soda drinker, in which case compliance has been forced because a dead grape soda drinker won't be drinking anything.

And since I did NOT vote for any particular politician to be my representative, he is NOT my representative. But since you did, he represents you. He is your agent, not mine.

If you don't have the authority to deny my drinking grape soda, where did your agent get that authority? Did it magically appear out of nothingness?

If you want to give YOUR representative, YOUR agent, authority to threaten to kill you for drinking grape soda, you can do that. You CAN NOT give YOUR representative, YOUR agent, authority to threaten to kill me for drinking grape soda.

(Which connects back to the original question: Can you give anything to anybody else that you do not possess? Like authority to kill me for drinking grape soda.)

And not to be forgotten is the orange soda bottler's PAC whose monetary contributions are what insured the election of anti-grape soda legislators.

Moreover, as I wrote earlier, there really is no point in responding to sophistry.

Moreover, as I replied to what you wrote earlier,

sophistry n., pl. sophistries. 1. Plausible but fallacious argumentation. 2. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.

Failure to prove sophistry noted. Failure to refute alleged misleading or alleged fallacious argumentation noted.

Abide the day when Eastman actually adopts some principles.

Back atcha.

[Mr. Eastman]

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 party A says to me, "give me your money or I will kill you", and party B says to me, "give me your money or I will kill you", you want people to accept that it's different because of 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.

There you have it... Mr. Evans thinks it is perfectly okay to kill people for refusing to pay taxes.

I invite a the casual reader to observe how Mr. Evans, a tax lawyer, will now attempt to say that's not what he means.

I could project the myriad methods Mr. Evens will attempt to try and argue that he doesn't really believe that it's perfectly okay to kill people for refusing to pay taxes, but I will have more fun addressing each illogical point as he makes it.

The threat of violence is itself a form of violence. The threat of using a gun is just as much an act of aggression as actually pulling the trigger.

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.

You've stated that people should be forced to pay for police (government) protection at gunpoint.

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

So you wish to assert that there is a difference between the mob saying "Give us your money or we won't protect you from us" and the government saying "Give us your money or we won't protect you from us"?

Sorry. Either way, I see extortion under threat of violence.

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

So you are asserting that there is a difference between government extorting money under threat of violence and mobsters extorting money under threat of violence. Do tell.

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 in 300 years, you violence mongering Statists still haven't learned that it is wrong to be the aggressor initiating violence against the peaceful people, and that you are wrong for believing such violence is perfectly acceptable.

I'll give you a clue: Government's purpose is to protect Life, Liberty, and Property. Any government that violates Life, Liberty and Property invalidates its reason for existing. And government law or action that does not protect Life, Liberty or Property is ultra vires.

So just as an aside, please explain how classifying marijuana (cannabis) as a schedule 1 drug protects Life, Liberty, and Property? Please explain how a mandatory 1 year sentence and $1,000 fine for possession of marijuana (cannabis) protects Life, Liberty, and Property? Stoners don't get into violent bar fights like drunks do.

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

Well, of course that's the way an attorney would want it to be. Lawyers get paid for dealing with "issues" and what better way for a lawyer to have "issues" to litigate than to not settle the "issues".

And since you believe "that's the way it should be", you and the Q-Crew shouldn't have a problem debating this with myself. Please see to it that the Q-Crew gets the memo.

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,

Q. How can you tell when a politician is lying?
A. His lips are moving.

Jokes of that nature are a part of our society's context. Would such jokes exist if politicians have never, ever lied to the people?

Mr. Evans suggests that selecting liars based on what they promise is a revolution. Mr. Evans suggests that replacing one set of people who lied to get elected with another group who lied to get elected is a revolution.

It's not. It's business as usual for the liars rewarding their PAC contributors with legislation favorable to their industries.

To even begin to move in the direction of what Mr. Evans suggests, EVERY SINGLE BALLOT must have a "none of the above" box FOR EVERY OFFICE. Why? Because if you are voting for the lessor of two evils, YOU ARE STILL VOTING FOR EVIL.

Mr. Evans, I reject your belief that voting for representatives and senators is equivalent to having a revolution.

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.

If this was advertising, I'd accuse Mr. Evans of doing a bait and switch. Choosing which liar gets to make laws is NOT a choice regarding "how much government we want". It's a choice of which liars the (voting) people want.

Mr. Evans, I reject your belief that voting for representatives and senators equates to selecting how much government the people want.

Some people vote for more government action, and some people vote for less.

Please provide a link showing the people's vote tally regarding making marijuana (cannabis) a schedule 1 drug with a mandatory 1 year sentence and $1,000 fine for possession.

Mr. Evans, I reject your belief that the people even get such a choice regarding more or less government action.

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.

Your opinion is noted and dismissed.

You presume to speak for me in order to set up a straw man argument in order to allow you to assert (without proof) that I am irrelevant to any meaningful discussion of the proper role of government.

In order to do this, you ignored what I posted previously (and by this batch of posts, several times): 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.

Plus, you yourself stated:

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

If you were honest, you would have said, And that's the way it should be except if MR. Eastman joins the debate.

[Mr. Eastman]

"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.

Pot shot noted. Smugly of course.

The Q-crew members taking the pot shots show the world their True Colors with every pot shot they take. So of course taking note of pot shots in that environment would be done smugly.

Seems that the worst offenders making the pot shots are the ones complaining about my taking note of the pot shots. I invite the casual reader to consider if there might be a connection.

Mr. Pottapaug states: "I have long since stopped bothering to read his rambling posts"
I ask the casual reader to consider if Mr. Pottapaug has really stopped reading my posts. If Mr. Pottapaug has stopped reading my posts, then why is he still replying to them? This post that I am replying to is itself a reply to an earlier post of mine.

Is Mr. Pottapaug a liar when he claims he stopped reading my posts? Or is he really that confused about the logic of replying to a post he claims he didn't read?

The casual reader is invited to notice how often the Q-crew posts such illogical, uh... posts.

Mr. Pottapaug states: "I have long since stopped bothering to read his rambling posts"
As another point of logic, if that answer he's demanding that I post is in any one of my posts, HE WON'T KNOW IT because he's not reading my posts.

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.

You feel... That's an emotion.

I think. I analyze. I consider. I conclude.

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.

I will post my positions as I see fit according to the illogical nonsense the Q-crew posts.

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

Mr. Pottapaug is demanding that I tell HIM why I asked my original question.

Because, Mr. Pottapaug, I wanted to see how many of the Q-crew would attempt to give a positive answer to a question that can only logically be answered in the negative. And because I wanted to see what defective logic would be used in an attempt to support that positive answer.

For the benefit of the casual reader, a quick review of the dialog is in order.

My original question was:

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

Mr. Pottapaug replied but did not answer the question:

Of course, you have a specific example in mind. I'd hate to reply to this in a way such that you could twist my reply to buttress some legal fantasy....

What Mr. Pottapaug forgets, is that if I did TWIST his reply, he could post further to point out just how I allegedly TWISTED his reply. Here is an example of my correcting a Q-crew poster's attempt to twist my words: http://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/i ... 4#msg14604

Pottapaug1938 must be a lawyer. Can't or won't answer a yes/no question with a yes or no. That's okay. The answer is self-evident.

Thank you for replying though.

At that point, Mr. Pottapaug indicated he wasn't interested in answering the question, I stated my conclusion that he appeared to be a lawyer and moved on.

In fact, I was a lawyer; but your remark is perfect proof of how you like to take other peoples' writings and distort them, through the filter of your own biases, to buttress your fantasies. And, when I was a lawyer, and someone asked me a general question such as you posed to us, my answer was much the same: "what do you have in mind?"

Certainly, you must have had some reason for asking your question. Let's hear it.

Because, Mr. Pottapaug, I wanted to see how many of the Q-crew would attempt to give a positive answer to a question that can only logically be answered in the negative. And because I wanted to see what defective logic would be used in an attempt to support that positive answer.

Since I am revisiting Mr. Pottapaug's post, it gets a new analysis.

Implied in Mr. Pottapaug's post is the accusation that I distorted his writing. Implied in Mr. Pottapaug's post is the accusation that I am in a fantasy. Yet before he made the implicit allegation that I distorted his writing, HE ADMITTED that I was correct, by ADMITTING that he was a lawyer.

So I distorted his writing with a considered guess that he was a lawyer, I'm in a fantasy because I concluded that he was a lawyer.

Mr. Pottapaug, You and I know that you can't give anything to anybody that you don't possess.

You can't give me a silver dollar unless you possess a silver dollar.

So if you can prove that you can give me a silver dollar that you don't possess, please enter the proof into evidence.

Before Mr. Pottapaug addressed the Silver Dollar Challenge, he posted some more of his particular brand of wordsmithing.

Mr. Eastman, what you don't know would fill volumes; and the way that you structure your quotes of my posts is proof that you are seeking only to weave your biases into the discussion and distort the posts of others for your own apparent benefit.

The reason why I will not give a yes or no answer to your question has nothing to do with my having been a lawyer; it has to do with the fact that I don't trust you half as far as I could throw my Hudson Bay axe. You ask a very general question; and unless we are having a purely intellectual and philosophical discussion any yes or no answer is meaningless. You obviously have some motivation for asking your question; so I am calling your hand.

What makes you ask that question? Why do you ask?

Because, Mr. Pottapaug, I wanted to see how many of the Q-crew would attempt to give a positive answer to a question that can only logically be answered in the negative. And because I wanted to see what defective logic would be used in an attempt to support that positive answer.

The casual reader is invited to take notice that Mr. Pottapaug accused me of structuring (my quotes) of his posts for the purpose of distorting his posts for my benefit:

... and the way that you structure your quotes of my posts is proof that you are seeking only to weave your biases into the discussion and distort the posts of others for your own apparent benefit.

Please elaborate on how I "structured" your posts.

Mr. Pottapaug has yet to elaborate, explain, and prove that I did what he accuses me of.

Then Mr. Pottapaug picked up the gauntlet of the Silver Dollar Challenge.

You and I know that you can't give anything to anybody that you don't possess.

How about the situation where, say, my Uncle Bert has a rare silver dollar, and that I am his only heir at law. He has a will; but he is in an irreversible coma and vegetative state. Let's say that, in return for something done for me by someone else, I assign all of my right, title and interest in that silver dollar to the second party. I have thus given away, for valuable consideration, something which I do not now possess but will, in due course, possess.

Of course, all this is meaningless without knowing why Dale has posed his original question. Let's see if he has the integrity to explain, to us, why he asked that question.

Because, Mr. Pottapaug, I wanted to see how many of the Q-crew would attempt, like you did, to give a positive answer to a question that can only logically be answered in the negative. And because I wanted to see what defective logic would be used, like yours, in an attempt to support that positive answer.

You state as a conclusion: "I have thus given away, for valuable consideration, something which I do not now possess but will, in due course, possess."

I directly contradict that statement.

What you have given away IS something you DO possess - you have given away your FUTURE "right, title and interest in that silver dollar." Until you have given away (or exchanged) your FUTURE "right, title and interest in that silver dollar"you possess, control, own, have power over, have custody of that FUTURE "right, title and interest in that silver dollar." Therefore, you have not given away (or exchanged) anything that you do not possess.

Before the title to the silver dollar passes to the second party it passes through you. For that instantaneous, infinitesimally tiny moment, you own the title to that silver dollar. So again, you have not given away (or exchanged) anything that you do not possess (own).

My original question was: Can you give anything to anybody else that you do not possess?

Mr. Pottapaug attempted to prove that the question can be answered in the positive.

I refuted Mr. Pottapaug's attempt by explaining the logic that contradicts his attempt.

Mr. Pottapaug has yet to post a logical refutation of my refutation of his attempt to prove a positive answer to a question that can only be answered with a self-evident negative answer.

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?

Because, Mr. Pottapaug, I wanted to see how many of the Q-crew would attempt, like you did, to give a positive answer to a question that can only logically be answered in the negative. And because I wanted to see what defective logic would be used, like yours, in an attempt to support that positive answer.

Mr. Pottapaug keeps demanding that I supply HIM with my reason for asking my question... Like that is going to have any bearing on the self-evident logic of what the only answer to the question can be.

[Mr. Eastman]

I would be more impressed if he would just ask a question that can actually be correctly answered other than with maybe.

My question is, Can you give anything to anybody else that you do not possess?

As Mr. Evans so considerately pointed out, possession has two parts; Custody and ownership. If I don't have physical custody of a silver dollar, I can't hand the silver dollar to you. If I don't have ownership of the silver dollar, I can't give ownership of the silver dollar to you. That is the logical proof of the self-evident negative answer to the question.

You have asserted that the question can be answered with a MAYBE. In order to prove that the answer can be answered with a MAYBE, you need to provide logical proof that the question can be answered in the affirmative.

Assertions without proof can be refuted without proof.
You have not provided proof that the question can logically be answered in the positive.
I have provided proof that my question can be logically answered in the negative.

Mr. notorial dissent's failure to provide the required proof of an affirmative answer to the question is noted.

I'm not holding my breath or really expecting such, but that is all it would take.

Yep. A logically sound answer proving the question can be answered in the affirmative is all it would take for you to prove your assertion that the question can logically be answered with a MAYBE.

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.

In your case, the answer I am fishing for is PROOF that the answer can be answered in the affirmative. Then and only then, will you have proven your assertion that MAYBE is a logical answer to my question.

Absent that logically provable answer, I'm fishing for the Q-crew to admit that my question, Can you give anything to anybody else that you do not possess? can only be answered logically with the self-evident answer of "no".

He wants someone else to prove his point, always assuming he actually has one, for him, and it isn't going to happen here.

Every attempt to prove my question can be answered in the affirmative has been answered with a refutation. In all three cases, my refutation has not been addressed, much less refuted for any errors of logic. By failing to prove an affirmative answer that is logically sound, the Q-crew has proven my point.

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.

Pot shot noted.

If I am "a waste of time to read or bother with", then why are you wasting your time reading my posts and bothering with me?

[Mr. Eastman]

I rescind my offer to give Eastman the title "Sovereign Socrates" because he obviously isn't, in spite of what he fondly imagines is inescapable logic. Some have referred to what he does as "sophistry". I think that's still too generous, if we call him a "Sovereign Sophist", we might as well call Merrill one too. Hence i propose we give him the title "Sovereign Salad Shooter".

Pot shot noted.

As a point of logic, if my logic is not inescapable, then the logic of the Q-crew would prove this. Your failure to provide ANY logic to refute my logic is noted.

sophistry n., pl. sophistries. 1. Plausible but fallacious argumentation. 2. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.

Failure to prove sophistry noted. Failure to refute alleged misleading or alleged fallacious argumentation noted.