Bob
11-21-2014, 07:45 PM
I want to expose you to brilliance.
I have exposed you to Bill Malloy, the author of There's no Government like No Government
Let's review Bill and then to the next person.
Bill Malloy is a graduate of Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (Bachelor of Professional Aeronautics, 1980), University of Southern California (Master of Science in Systems Management, 1987), and Troy State University, Dothan (Master of Science in Counseling and Psychology, 1996). He served in the United States Army as a clerk, infantryman, and attack helicopter pilot and was awarded the Army Achievement Medal for twenty years' service, the Combat Infantryman Badge, and Master Army Aviator wings. He lives in Southern California.
Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.Page 26Here is the mistake the authoritarian makes when he tries to justify voting to conjure up authority. He thinks he is delegating the right to rule himself when he votes, where --
A = the right to rule one's self
B = the right to rule other people.
Where he gets confused is when he votes to delegate right 'A' to people in "government," thinking he is delegating his own right to rule himself. If Bob the statist wants George the Candidate to have the right to rule him, he votes for George to have Right 'A'. The problem is that George already has right 'A' -- the right to rule himself -- while Bob mistakenly thinks he is giving George right 'B' -- the right to rule others. Since Bob doesn't have Right 'B', he cannot delegate it to someone else. Can he delegate the right to kick you in the shins if he himself doesn't have that right? Of course not.
Bob might be able to delegate 'A', the specific right to rule himself (i.e., only Bob), in theory. Naturally, he would always have the right to take back his consent to be ruled, making that delegation null and void at Bob's discretion, which makes even that an absurdity. However, that is not the same as delegating the general right to rule others ('B'), with the resultant delegation (by voting) giving George the right to rule people that Bob has no right to rule. So, when Bob thinks he is delegating right 'A', while actually attempting to delegate right 'B', he is trying to delegate a right he does not have, which is impossible -- and since everyone (including George) already has right 'A', voting is just a meaningless and superstitious cult ritual.
One of the advantages to giving up any and all belief in "government" is the complete freedom from all arguments over what kind of "government" to have, or how much, or how to finance it, or what kind of economic theory, or what military or foreign policy to favor...
Page 98
This brings up a particularly anti-human result of the statist's philosophy. Do the murderers and rapists believe in an obligation to obey the "law"? Obviously not, since they disobey it. They only fear the consequences of getting caught. So only the generally good (albeit deluded) people really care if something is "law." And since the good people would already support justified defensive force, the only thing the "law" changes is that otherwise good people then also start to support unjust force.
I sometimes ask, "When the law is wrong, what should happen to those who disobey it?" The authoritarian tries to avoid answering, at first. He will say something irrelevant about writing to congress and changing the law (as if individual citizens could actually change what congress commands them to do. If the authoritarian respects the law so much, and congress' right to create it, why would he disagree with it enough to want to change it in the first place?). When pressed, he will say the absurd thing, out of his conditioned belief in the inherent righteousness of the law. He will say, "They should suffer the consequences." That is, they should be put in jail. Instead of pointing out how idiotic that is, I follow up with, "And what should happen to those who enforce such a wrong law?" They almost always say, "Nothing."
So, from the authoritarian's conditioned response we see in his philosophy the absurd result that people who do the right thing should be locked up, and people doing the wrong thing should run free -- which is why that so often happens in politics.
and now it is time to meet one of his friends.
Larken Rose.
A debate forum was created and I was asked to join. I found it very fascinating and felt as if it was a giant social experiment of correct thinking.
Folks, until you get into the middle of a debate such as that, you have not debated, so to speak.
OK, time to drop Larken Rose on you and he also is on youtube.
I dare you to read this book (http://www.amazon.com/review/R2QGEXVP26KJIX/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=145075063X&nodeID=283155&store=books)
By J. Quirk (http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/AV5FXVYUIAGGU/ref=cm_cr_dp_pdp) on December 31, 2011
Format: PaperbackDo you live your life according to moral principles?
I stumbled on Larken Rose speaking on Youtube and was so startled by his gift for clarity of thought and expression I went to his web site and bought all his books. This book is jaw-dropping, gasp-inducing, astounding, life-changing, with so many quotable aphorisms I underlined every fourth sentence, circled every third paragraph, cluttered the margins with exclamation points, stars, and scribbles. This is a book that forces you to wrestle with it. I was pinned.
No, I've never met Larken. He has no idea who I am. This is not nepotism. He is Thomas Paine without the rhetorical flourishes. If you think government can do "some" good, Larken will walk you through the reasons why this shared delusion is self-contradictory, anti-rational, and ethically deranged. We don't realize how deeply we brainwash each other. We don't just drink the Cool-Aide, we marinate in it. Conservatives and Liberals are both wrong precisely to the extent they agree.
If you read all 210 pages, you cannot help but decide all government must be evil and destructive by its very nature, from its initial foundational axioms to its total net effects, and our world would flourish with no government at all if we just apply the principles we teach our children to adults in government costumes: no hitting, no taking other people's stuff, keep your promises, use your words, and, yes, it matters who "started it."
Larken has cultivated a discipline of integrating his heart and mind, and he speaks to your efforts to do the same. His clarity and concision are truly find-freeing.
"Man's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes
http://www.amazon.com/dp/145075063X?SubscriptionId=1QZMGW0RRJC2PX87HDR2&tag=salranexp-20
I have exposed you to Bill Malloy, the author of There's no Government like No Government
Let's review Bill and then to the next person.
Bill Malloy is a graduate of Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (Bachelor of Professional Aeronautics, 1980), University of Southern California (Master of Science in Systems Management, 1987), and Troy State University, Dothan (Master of Science in Counseling and Psychology, 1996). He served in the United States Army as a clerk, infantryman, and attack helicopter pilot and was awarded the Army Achievement Medal for twenty years' service, the Combat Infantryman Badge, and Master Army Aviator wings. He lives in Southern California.
Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.Page 26Here is the mistake the authoritarian makes when he tries to justify voting to conjure up authority. He thinks he is delegating the right to rule himself when he votes, where --
A = the right to rule one's self
B = the right to rule other people.
Where he gets confused is when he votes to delegate right 'A' to people in "government," thinking he is delegating his own right to rule himself. If Bob the statist wants George the Candidate to have the right to rule him, he votes for George to have Right 'A'. The problem is that George already has right 'A' -- the right to rule himself -- while Bob mistakenly thinks he is giving George right 'B' -- the right to rule others. Since Bob doesn't have Right 'B', he cannot delegate it to someone else. Can he delegate the right to kick you in the shins if he himself doesn't have that right? Of course not.
Bob might be able to delegate 'A', the specific right to rule himself (i.e., only Bob), in theory. Naturally, he would always have the right to take back his consent to be ruled, making that delegation null and void at Bob's discretion, which makes even that an absurdity. However, that is not the same as delegating the general right to rule others ('B'), with the resultant delegation (by voting) giving George the right to rule people that Bob has no right to rule. So, when Bob thinks he is delegating right 'A', while actually attempting to delegate right 'B', he is trying to delegate a right he does not have, which is impossible -- and since everyone (including George) already has right 'A', voting is just a meaningless and superstitious cult ritual.
One of the advantages to giving up any and all belief in "government" is the complete freedom from all arguments over what kind of "government" to have, or how much, or how to finance it, or what kind of economic theory, or what military or foreign policy to favor...
Page 98
This brings up a particularly anti-human result of the statist's philosophy. Do the murderers and rapists believe in an obligation to obey the "law"? Obviously not, since they disobey it. They only fear the consequences of getting caught. So only the generally good (albeit deluded) people really care if something is "law." And since the good people would already support justified defensive force, the only thing the "law" changes is that otherwise good people then also start to support unjust force.
I sometimes ask, "When the law is wrong, what should happen to those who disobey it?" The authoritarian tries to avoid answering, at first. He will say something irrelevant about writing to congress and changing the law (as if individual citizens could actually change what congress commands them to do. If the authoritarian respects the law so much, and congress' right to create it, why would he disagree with it enough to want to change it in the first place?). When pressed, he will say the absurd thing, out of his conditioned belief in the inherent righteousness of the law. He will say, "They should suffer the consequences." That is, they should be put in jail. Instead of pointing out how idiotic that is, I follow up with, "And what should happen to those who enforce such a wrong law?" They almost always say, "Nothing."
So, from the authoritarian's conditioned response we see in his philosophy the absurd result that people who do the right thing should be locked up, and people doing the wrong thing should run free -- which is why that so often happens in politics.
and now it is time to meet one of his friends.
Larken Rose.
A debate forum was created and I was asked to join. I found it very fascinating and felt as if it was a giant social experiment of correct thinking.
Folks, until you get into the middle of a debate such as that, you have not debated, so to speak.
OK, time to drop Larken Rose on you and he also is on youtube.
I dare you to read this book (http://www.amazon.com/review/R2QGEXVP26KJIX/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=145075063X&nodeID=283155&store=books)
By J. Quirk (http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/AV5FXVYUIAGGU/ref=cm_cr_dp_pdp) on December 31, 2011
Format: PaperbackDo you live your life according to moral principles?
I stumbled on Larken Rose speaking on Youtube and was so startled by his gift for clarity of thought and expression I went to his web site and bought all his books. This book is jaw-dropping, gasp-inducing, astounding, life-changing, with so many quotable aphorisms I underlined every fourth sentence, circled every third paragraph, cluttered the margins with exclamation points, stars, and scribbles. This is a book that forces you to wrestle with it. I was pinned.
No, I've never met Larken. He has no idea who I am. This is not nepotism. He is Thomas Paine without the rhetorical flourishes. If you think government can do "some" good, Larken will walk you through the reasons why this shared delusion is self-contradictory, anti-rational, and ethically deranged. We don't realize how deeply we brainwash each other. We don't just drink the Cool-Aide, we marinate in it. Conservatives and Liberals are both wrong precisely to the extent they agree.
If you read all 210 pages, you cannot help but decide all government must be evil and destructive by its very nature, from its initial foundational axioms to its total net effects, and our world would flourish with no government at all if we just apply the principles we teach our children to adults in government costumes: no hitting, no taking other people's stuff, keep your promises, use your words, and, yes, it matters who "started it."
Larken has cultivated a discipline of integrating his heart and mind, and he speaks to your efforts to do the same. His clarity and concision are truly find-freeing.
"Man's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes
http://www.amazon.com/dp/145075063X?SubscriptionId=1QZMGW0RRJC2PX87HDR2&tag=salranexp-20