Peter Schiff "Radio" with Marc - July 6, 2011

[NonEntity]

eye2i2hear Wrote:If memory serves me, it's now pretty well substantiated that it's not only (or merely?) a reading issue.

For me one manifestation is east/west. I can NEVER figure out which it is without stopping and putting some serious effort into it. I often think "which way is California?", then I know that is west.

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

[don't mind us, m8ey]

NonEntity Wrote:

eye2i2hear Wrote:If memory serves me, it's now pretty well substantiated [strike]that it's not only (or merely?) a reading issue.[/strike] to be a sequencing issue in general

For me one manifestation is east/west. I can NEVER figure out which it is without stopping and putting some serious effort into it. I often think "which way is California?", then I know that is west.

Hadn't thought of that aspect, but it clicks for me for sure. Pinker has some interesting observations about these (relative) "positions" in general in his book The Stuff Of Thought (which is on "Language as a window into human nature", hence the sub-title). Coupled with the very relative "left" vs "right" tossed in with 360 degrees options (with no sun or landscape markers) makes it easy enuff for me to relate to as a sequencing issue.

One for me, that to this day makes totally no sense in context, is "7 + 5" and "7 + 4". 7+3, no problem, instant answer; ditto 7+6, no question, no hesitation, no doubting. But 7+5 is an instant: now which is it, is it 11 or is it 12 --and which is which (either it's one or the other)?! Always has been, for as long as I can remember, guess it always will be.
That's what I call "the either/or syndrome" for me; where once that question is given pause, which is the correct one, is forever a question. And it works the same for me with the word "separate" --for those nano-seconds, it's "either "e" (seperate) or "a", but which is it (again... and again... and again!!)? Lastly, my most obvious confirmation of dyslexia came through 'puter keyboarding. Over the years, I've been able to observe the multi-nano-second instances where my mind is "saying" one thing but my fingers type inversely to it. Even when I try to g-o-s-l-o-w-l-y, one letter at a time. It happens in general, but with some specific words, it's EVERY time, and over and over and over. I can now backspace+correct at about 40wpm! And man, but what an energy drain --and distraction... and exasperating frustration.

[John T. Kennedy]

NonEntity Wrote:

John T. Kennedy Wrote:Oh, but don't you see that there is no difference here. The Bloods and Crips also claim a monopoly of force in their territory as well. Calling something "legal" does not change the fact that it is a one-sided imposition of force. As Marc has pointed out, "law" is simply an opinion backed by a gun.

I accept your claim that you don't engage in the group think thing, but what is it about this word "legal" that somehow appears to separate, in your mind, this one group of violent thugs from any other group of violent thugs?

No, the mafia, bloods and crips do not claim monopolies of force - when brought up on charges in US courts they do not assert independent sovereignty as members of those groups, but foreign officials from other states do.

While I recognize the legislation of the USA has no moral authority I also recognize that it exists.


I don't dispute that such law can be characterized as opinion backed by a gun, it's still true that the US often acts very differently form these other groups. For instance, you may be tried before a jury which may not even be composed of committed members of the criminal gang.

[NonEntity]

John T. Kennedy Wrote:No, the mafia, bloods and crips do not claim monopolies of force - when brought up on charges in US courts they do not assert independent sovereignty as members of those groups, but foreign officials from other states do.

And the governments of other countries do not have monopoly power when the larger and more powerful groups of thugs, those who have nuclear weapons and drone aircraft killing machines, decide to exert their superior power. It is all about power, don't you see, not legitimacy. Remove "Crips" and insert "Libya," or "Afghanistan," or "Vietnam," or ad infinitum.

John T. Kennedy Wrote:While I recognize the legislation of the USA has no moral authority I also recognize that it exists.

Well then what the hell is your point anyway? :rolleyes2: :biggrinblue:

- NonE

[John T. Kennedy]

eye2i2hear Wrote:If I may ask, how does one go about determining, factually, what's "legitimate" "authority"?

Just powers are derived from consent.

Quote:On the bit about something having to be believed to exist before it can even be discussed, honestly, I'm tempted [strike]to say: "seriously!?!"[/strike] After all, just for starters, there's The Enterprise [star date 2011], leprechauns, fairies, Santa, God(s), ghosts, Harry Potter, unicorns, [strike]Lady Gaga[/strike] 'er, no, wait... strike that last one (I really don't know on that one!) ;D ...and folks communicate about such all the time! So why not The State? Concepts and notions can be labeled for discourse and communication as easily as things that actually/most literally exist.

I can discuss fiction, but Schiffs father remains imprisoned by a real existing agency - the state, not by Santa, ghosts or elves. It will be difficult to convince him that the agency doesn't exist.

He already knows the agency is not what it claims to be.

[John T. Kennedy]

NonEntity Wrote:Well then what the hell is your point anyway? :rolleyes2: :biggrinblue:

In the interview I found Marc's argument that the state doesn't exist confusing and ineffective, in stark contrast to almost everything else he said.

And Schiff is one of a small number of people who could potentially be persuaded by good arguments.

[eye2i2hear]

John T. Kennedy Wrote:I can discuss fiction, but Schiffs father remains imprisoned by a real existing agency - the state

I respectfully disagree. He's held by materials used by individuals to carry out actions based upon, or supported by belief(s). Saying The Agency exists only fuels and solidifies in Their minds, that indeed, it's not them doing such. It's [strike]Santa[/strike] The Agency (doing it)!

Quote:... not by Santa, ghosts or elves.

I'll grant you most today (thank doG!) aren't acting on beliefs in ghosts, nor elves (though we might seriously contemplate why that is). But Santa (and the Ashtor/Easter Bunny for "the moderns") brings a timely, tho scaled for age, mental parallel.

One might aptly appeal to Santa being a fiction, but ask all the kids (still believing, of course, critically important) whether "he" exists or not? How does that differ, factually, from your espousal that an "agency" exists? What's fueling the kids believing in Santa, if it's not individuals actions? [bonus "coincidence" that one of Santa's Agency deals is to sell for buying into that naughty or nice fiction as being factual]

If Santa doesn't exist, how the heck did those presents get under the tree?!? :eekeek: OMd!!! (not to mention, according to your prior statement, how the heck can we even be discussing Santa?! :rolleyes: He doesn't exist/he's a fiction!!
Why isn't it Gizmo and the flying widgets in our minds when we hear the popular terms? Same as it is with "Agency" and "The State"? It's been sold that way (by the individual actors)?

Quote:He already knows the agency is not what it claims to be.

And I respectfully disagree again. He knows no such thing. He's experiencing the results of the actions, based upon the beliefs some individuals hold and aptly applying a label for Them as a communication convenience --an accountability (mental) escape clause; then he's believing it's "That" holding him. The Agency, as a fiction, can claim nothing; only individuals hiding behind the illusion can. Just as more innocently (?) Parents hiding behind Santa (beard optional, except at the mall via Representatives) do.

Bonus round: factually, is it a.) a "jail" or z.) a "cage" They're using to hold him? Which exists?
(hint: it's the likes of existing matter known as metal bars, concrete, and mortar that's holding him; whether it's a jail versus a cage is the label conceptualized, rather than existing)

IMHO of course.


*footnote: and sure, the Santa bit has become embellished or exaggerated in order to better fascinate (mesmerize?) and/or Con+vince (prey/play upon innocent ignorance/superstition); added on are the likes of the red outfit, coming down the chimney, living at the North Pole, flying reindeer, "representatives" at the mall, etc; but ditto that with The State superstition! More age appropriate, of course: see the ("red white and blue" optional camo) Uniforms (with shiney Badges), The Flag, The Constitution, Authority, Christian Nation/Under God, Representatives, Borders, Licenses, Permits, Washington DC, etc

[John T. Kennedy]

eye2i2hear Wrote:Bonus round: factually, is it a.) a "jail" or z.) a "cage" They're using to hold him? Which exists?

Why stop there? Why admit cages exist when they are nothing but arrangements of elementary particles (whatever those are)? And come to think of it so are the jailers....

..or we could recognize that the jailers are not acting randomly but rather in a recognizable relationship - a criminal gang, the state. Like words, relationships do not have mass, charge or spin, yet they exist - they are apprehend-able.

[NonEntity]

John T. Kennedy Wrote:

NonEntity Wrote:Well then what the hell is your point anyway? :rolleyes2: :biggrinblue:

In the interview I found Marc's argument that the state doesn't exist confusing and ineffective, in stark contrast to almost everything else he said.

And Schiff is one of a small number of people who could potentially be persuaded by good arguments.

It was a half hour show, with commercials, and with Schiff talking much/most of the time. Jeeze, man, what do you want, ME? :rolleyes2: :bootyshake:

- NonE :winkwink:

[eye2i2hear]

John T. Kennedy Wrote:Why stop there? Why admit cages exist when they are nothing but arrangements of elementary particles (whatever those are)? And come to think of it so are the jailers....

Indeed. I DON'T refer to cages as existing!!! Cage is a concept. My question was rhetorical. And a intentionally misleading (and relative) dichotomy. I'd hoped it would spark conflict, as evidence of my point. And if you'll note, I spoke of this specific example in the elemental likes of steel, concrete, and mortar --for just that reason.
I'll repeat myself: I'd rather err on the side of not existing than on existence. Concepts serve a purpose and are quite potentially valuable.

Quote:..or we could recognize that the jailers are not acting randomly but rather in a recognizable relationship - a criminal gang, the state. Like words, relationships do not have mass, charge or spin, yet they exist - they are apprehend-able.

With sincere hesitation, I'm gonna ask: are you intentionally being or trying to be a dick? On second thought, strike that. Concepts are comprehensible. They are valuable shortcuts. Granted, they are not apprehend-able. But in reality, that's my point: we don't need to apprehend concepts; concepts like, Agencies (or jails and cages). We merely need to apprehend individuals with whom we have conflict. Stop the individuals from doing the actions, and the concepts, along with whether they ever existed or not, are irrelevant.
Yet again, when some if not most individuals begin to see mere concepts as existing, they find something to (magically) hide --and disappear-- behind --or so they believe, and sadly eventually, so does most everybody else willing to play loose with what exists. And theoretically, as evolving beings we still naturally carry the propensity to resort to arms, including yelling and screaming for starters, over things that exist; fairies, unicorns, and the Easter Bunny, not so much (anymore). [Messiahs, God(s), and States-- but I list synonyms... well We some await further evolution]

An accurate example: I walk over to a neighbor's house, knock on his door, and when he answers, I tell him to give me 15% of his paycheck for the week. He responds "No thanks" and closes the door (and rationally so).
Facts: I as an individual, acted a certain way. Another individual acted in response.
Next I put on a certain type/shaped/colored cloth, have a piece of paper with certain words and colors and shapes on it, along with ink scribblings by some other individuals in the neighborhood, all nicely laminated in plastic, and I come to the same guy's door and knock, present said papers, and when he answers, I tell him to give me 15% of his 'income' for the week. He believes in (the magicAuthority) of all those shapes, colors, and types, because when he sees them in combination something else exists, after all, and as an obvious IRS Agent, he writes me out a check, because The Service Agency told him it was his Duty, and The Agent's just a Representative doing his job.
Facts: ditto. I as an individual, acted a certain way. Another individual acted in response.

I ask then: of the two scenarios, which is likely to escalate if there's disagreement (over the concept -or- the existence)? Yet factually, the core issue (him giving me his money) was identical. [granted, there was a ton of behind the scenes prior indoctrination involved]

Btw, i don't think or speak of relationships as existing. It's unnecessary to reality. Relationships are products of ('assembled' in) minds, and minds are products of brains (grey matter). Individuals can, of course, even strike deals regarding concepts ie states of mind(s). Again, labeling such with 'exist' IS UNNECESSARY! Labeling such a concept instead (risking error to that direction), changes nothing in actually, but potentially changes EVERYTHING (ok, tad of hyperbole here) as far as some folks actions --or reactions.

So ask your "jailer" -factually, an individual with a label attached by some one, for their conceptualization (and provided a 'costume' as well)- if the 'cage' exists? Odds are, looking at the very same assembled elemental materials, he'll think you're (he'll label you) "in need of psychiatric evaluation". OK, he'll get a jury of his peers and a 'judge' to 'order' that. 8) It's obvious -to his state of mind- it's a "jail". It's THERE! (in his mind). Then tap the steel bars and ask him if those steel bars exist, and odds are there'll be zero conflict. Ditto with the concrete blocks. Thus, jail and cage are labels for concepts, rather than for what exists. Same factual structure, two different --and 'opposing' in this Case [sic]-- concepts. Just like the concepts (values) that influence what labels (words) are the choice for each individual. Ditto with a cop's 'baton'. Factually, and practically, it exists as wood (even more concisely, tree). Whether it's a billy's 'baton' or bully's 'club' is to move into the realm of concepts. Better to leave those as subjective, thus not labeled as existing, so as to not risk reinforcing enforcement over it.

[John T. Kennedy]

eye2i2hear Wrote:Next I put on a certain type/shaped/colored cloth, have a piece of paper with certain words and colors and shapes on it, along with ink scribblings by some other individuals in the neighborhood, all nicely laminated in plastic, and I come to the same guy's door and knock, present said papers, and when he answers, I tell him to give me 15% of his 'income' for the week. He believes in (the magicAuthority) of all those shapes, colors, and types, because when he sees them in combination something else exists, after all, and as an obvious IRS Agent, he writes me out a check, because The Service Agency told him it was his Duty, and The Agent's just a Representative doing his job.
Facts: ditto. I as an individual, acted a certain way. Another individual acted in response.

People pay because of the threat of violence. When that threat is removed they mostly stop paying regardless of lip service to duty. It wasn't magic that marched Irwin Schiff off to jail. And they had to jail him or face a tsunami of tax avoidance.

People are not worried the IRS agent at the door will drag them off, but they recognize that the agent has a real relationship to the men with guns and is working in concert with them.

[John T. Kennedy]

eye2i2hear, what if anything does exist?

[NonEntity]

John T. Kennedy Wrote:eye2i2hear, what if anything does exist?

[move] :rolleyes2: :bootyshake: [/move]


- NonE

[zonsb]

It's an axiom that existence exists.

[eye2i2hear]

John T. Kennedy Wrote:eye2i2hear, what if anything does exist?

Individuals. Individual minds produced by individual brains. (existence is void and mute apart from that existing; in other words, 'exist' is synonymous with 'gizmo' apart from individuals; see zonsb's axiom post)

Recall, and remember, the point here is conflict; conflict reduction, to conflict prevention; conflict, as the states of minds that risks escalation to the use(s) of violence. If there's no conflict between individuals, the matter [sic] of existence is practically mute-- gizmo, if you will, no?

Evidence indicates to me, that erring on the side of "does not exist" results in way less conflict than encouraging or promoting most every 'thing' to be said (believed) to exist.

It's exemplified in the difference between an individual threatening to (ultimately) take another individual's life and whether it's labeled as 'armed robbery' -or- 'collection of the tax'. Arguably, the greatest example is one I've brought up already: For most, how crucial is having God exist? And how relevant is that existence to folks willingness to resort to and escalate violence over -factually- mere difference of opinion? Offered in evidence already: compare the history of Buddhism with Judaism/Christinsanity/Islam. [language indicates this by there being words aka labels for such: 'infidel', 'heathen', 'reprobate', etc -rather than simply individuals with different conceptualizations]

When it comes to conflict, it's about the individuals --and what they believe that they know.

~imho
--noneyE2i ;D (i's just an individual) 8)

Quote:To treat your facts with imagination is one thing, but to imagine your facts is another.

--John Burroughs

We see things as we are, not as they are.

--Leo Rosten