Norbert Lennartz

Let's see only one chapter of the bulldogs behind the fence. I make libertarian foolishness. I clearly don't understand or appreciate how society works. I am defending an ideological position. I am living in a libertarian fantasy land where I think that ants have a say about whether they are part of an ant colony. I am what was written in already deleted post. I should drop my ideology and be willing to empty my cup and learn or go somewhere else. I am just be a closed minded ideological devil. I am a hypocrite to the very ideological dribble you keep regurgitating. He'll trade me an ideology for an ideology. Unlike I, he don't subscribe to "rights" or childish notions of freedom. He and every other sane person will get together and limit my ability to be a devil precisely because they don't like devils running loose. So they will physically prevent me from enslaving others. And I'll have to deal with that or die. That' my life. While I talk childish nonsense they will create a better government and better world for the majority of them. I will end up benefiting from their work even though I sit there and make a mockery of it. There needs to be a form of pest control for nondual keyboard jokeys like me on the Internet. He dares me to spew this garbage to a enlightened master looking me dead in the eyes. I am beating a dead horse. And I am a silly libertarian.

The God who allows the greatest self-realization and self-responsibility of each individual human being. God. Who wants can limit himself to Bernie or whatever. Still God. All lifestyles are possible. Then we will see, not "who wins", but how you win.

Simple. Very simple. Make God great again. §1 Everyone may leave with property in an orderly manner. The rest does not matter. Do what you want. Will you try me?

@Shiva if I? What are you dreaming about?

@Shiva Give up the IRS moderator job.

Leo posted here that all (man-made) rights are human constructs. https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/35707-whos-interested-in-conscious-politics/?page=6#comment-440031 So all man-made laws are mental constructs. And he uses them for himself (mostly after Bernie Sanders-manner) to fight the devils he has in mind. Well, let him do it privately. But you can't fight diabolical things with human thought constructs. You need the spirit that lives in everything to eliminate the diabolical things, not the limited mind that lives only in Leo or lives only in Bernie or in me. That's why Jesus says God is the law up to the iota. Leo is not the law, Bernie is not, I am not. Now you are coming into the world, perhaps badly brought up, with limited minds. And this mind gives you images of government, of state, of democracy, with fear and greed. You know what a constitutional state should be, what a society and what democracy is. And yet you have no clue what this thought is. You think so: I think, so I am - and see a chair. Then you ask, why is the chair if he does not think? That's your pathetic conditioning. And you unconsciously transfer this conditioning to your life, which of course is just as pathetic. The solution would be to simply switch off these harmful programs in the brain. Are you sure that you would have even had the idea of government if you hadn't "known" what it is? But you want to know. And then you make it the starting point of your philosophy and all your thinking and push aside the Holy Spirit who dwells everywhere. And then your miserable thinking becomes the Absolute, the Absolute of your social contract, your positivist legal system, your fake democracy, which is of course a huge self-loat. All sparring in the brain. And then you say. The starting point is 10% or 90% taxes, whatever. Do you see the Ceasar on your coin? asks Jesus. Go away and don't try me. What is your right? There is no right, except that of God. Such discussions show that you have not understood the emptiness of your own terms. With your words, you are constantly borrowing as "spirit of society" and do not sufficiently understand what Stirner knows to say: "Right is above Me, is absolute, and exists in a higher one"; "With absolute right/law right/law itself passes away; the dominion of the "concept of right" is at the same time extinguished".

@RichardY It's prejudiced.

@RichardY I do not mean such a book, but the theoretical model of a "Robinsonade", with 2 people, then with several and many. How do these people live their lives without a monopoly on violence? I have never spoken of a political system. What is that about?

@Leo Gura Leo, you have a serious problem with pigeonholes. I am an expert in the field. And I am not biased by libertarian thinking. But you have developed an aversion that blinds you. With this basic attitude you have no chance at all to fathom this exciting topic. Not at all, because you yourself have to think about how social life, starting with Robinson on an island etc, can work, in order to compare these things with historical records. Without all the basic work you are on a lost job. Arrogance doesn't help. And I say that because I mean well with you, because you have the abilities of a serious thinker. But if these abilities go spilled in the political field, as so often, then I advise you to keep your hands off the subject.

Read Franz Oppenheimer, The State.

Well, that would be some kind of self-defense, if it were. But it is not. The real social life is shaped by voluntarily cooperative people. And these people form their protection through the interaction of cooperative colaboration against criminals. A criminal has no chance to corrupt real justice, because everywhere bounty hunters, detective agencies, laboratories etc. are eager to get orders that the convicts have to pay. Property is the result of this accepted social action of cooperation. The state, on the other hand, is first and foremost an infringer of property and protects itself in the process.

Learn this: What is the difference between a social life without a state and a social life with a state is exclusively the application of coercion. Fact. You enable the state to apply coercion. For laws, no matter where for. The question is not what the state is good for, but what coercion is good for. Answer: Coercion is good for self-defense. But the state is not a means of self-defence. There is no case of self-defence. That means you are the attacker. That would put me in the situation of self-defence. But I can't take the state for that. So the state tends to serve exclusively the side of aggression. And that is here what coercion also is good for. Coercion is good for criminals. So in the end we talk about the difference between a social life without a state and an asocial life with a state. That is an irrefutable fact, not a cheap opinion.

We must once again revisit the concepts of freedom and limitation. What is freedom and limitation in our being? Freedom is being. Limitation is being. They are the same. They are only being. What is freedom and limitation in our actions? They are both ideas or mental constructions. It is thinking. Thoughts are free. Suffering limits. So what is the limitation that Leo speaks of? It is suffering. It has nothing to do with the biological limitation as a living being.

Spoiled rich kid who doesn’t appreciate nor understand the privilege he’s been given and doesn’t understand that he’d be dead if it weren’t for the luxury of his privilege. The illusion of society, as electroBeam has well explained, cannot feed us. It only feeds the illusion of the society plumber. With or without the state, they are the same people, with the state, on the other hand, the plumbers of society and their journeymen are equipped only with privileges to feed us a bowl of beans instead of the food we would have.

That may be possible tomorrow. And you're right, there are rooms for the infinite hell. The climate dictatorship, as it is just beginning, is something that can fall on our feet for 100 years. And there are technological possibilities that get us out of the iron grip of social plumbing. I have already mentioned the crypto thing several times. This shows that government is not an absolute. Even the most stubborn, state-bearing thinker would have to deal with it if he was just a little serious. But ideologists of course see the challenge in mastering all hostile technology. That is the systemic reason why they have to keep the monetary system under control.

Who put the libertarian brand on here? Nowhere did I call myself libertarian or even mean it. It is just a cheap pigeonhole. A defence mechanism of the Ego.

@Leo Gura Leo, you're blocking wherever you can. I'm not a representative of "rights" or "freedom" right now. I see it like Max Stirner. The question is, who is really devilish and unreasonable here, if some people in the self-interest (because of fear or greed, what else?) rush one government with power on the others, and the others in the self-interest boycott, corrupt, bribe, run along, exploit, limit or get rid of the government, etc. This inevitably leads to a class struggle. Not because of my kind, but because of the conflicts among those you call "we". That is socialism. It is not well controllable for simple economic and ethical reasons of human action. You can read all this in Ludwig von Mises' work. I also wonder how a government that relies on presumption of violence can function without the idea of "rights" or the "rule of law. But let's leave that out. Instead, you believe that you know life better for others. This is nothing more than deification of the state as e.g. the workers' leader Ferdinand Lassalle, Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro and the Bolshevists and the communists of the Eastern Bloc had it in mind. The presumption of knowledge. If that's not diabolical, then I don't know what can be diabolical at all. And this greed or fear makes you blind to the big picture that many "gurus" point to. Please look at Krishnamurti. After the K. explained several times that you only have to change to see what can happen, someone asks: "Yes, but how are we supposed to do it in the UN? K.: "I don't know. I am not a member of this organization. Ask your boss."

@Leo Gura Wait a minute. I translate that into Machiavelli/Orwell. ---- All "rights" are human egoic constructs [spars, lose screws in mind, whatever. I agree]. And part of your survival agenda. Who are you to say I don't have might to take away your might? If I want to, I can enslave you. You are alowed to defend yourself, if you can. Let's see who wins. Don't tell me that I am not alowed to enslave you. Who are you to take away my might? See, the truth is you only care about maximizing YOUR unhampered being. You only care about being WHEN IT SERVES YOU. So you are just bindly acting out your selfish agenda while disguising it as some higher principle, we speak only about you, parasit! The truth is you cannot tolerate my unhampered illusion because my unhampered illusion is the most dangerous thing to your want. You want to restrict people from enslaving you. That's not unhampered being, that's hampered being. So note, my Freedom is your limitation. My Limitations on you are your freedom. ---- This is a representation of stage Blue and Red of course.

Leo speaks about the "healthier survival strategies". That’s a mistake. Government is just in opposite of consent. ..when we can’t avoid it. But on state level, you need to know what it means firstly! See Rothbards Anatomy of the State. State is a troublemaker. State leads to disorder. Even if Leo doesn't believe all that, you can see from many of his quasi anarchistic statements that he's got something comfortable with "good government". And this despite the fact that he himself knows all the self-deception mechanisms. Amazing how stubbornly these survival mechanisms work. (That's not supposed to be harsh criticism. I agree with Leo in the main features. Invaluable work.)

It IS possible to get out of a trap. However, in order to break out of a prison, one first must confess to being in a prison. The trap is man's emo­tional structure, his character structure. There is little use in devising sys­tems of thought about the nature of the trap if the only thing to do in order to get out of the trap is to know the trap and to find the exit. Everything else is utterly useless: Singing hymns about the suffering in the trap, as the enslaved Negro does; [or draw a utopia of "good government" in the trap like Leo does;] or making poems about the beauty of freedom outside of the trap, dreamed of within the trap; or promising a life outside the trap after death, as Catholicism promises its congregations; or confessing a semper ignorabimus as do the resigned philosophers; or building a philosophic system around the despair of life within the trap, as did Schopenhauer; or dreaming up a superman who would be so much differ­ent from the man in the trap, as Nietzsche did. until, trapped in a lunatic asylum, he wrote, finally, the full truth about himself - too late .... The first thing to do is to find the exit out of the trap. Wilhelm Reich quote

With the rise of democracy, the identification of the State with society has been redoubled, until it is common to hear sentiments expressed which violate virtually every tenet of reason and common sense such as, "we are the government." The useful collective term "we" has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the reality of political life. If "we are the government," then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also "voluntary" on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden is obscured by saying that "we owe it to ourselves"; if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is "doing it to himself" and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred. Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have "committed suicide," since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part. One would not think it necessary to belabor this point, and yet the overwhelming bulk of the people hold this fallacy to a greater or lesser degree. Murray Rothbard quote

The question is not what I read about my "other side", but what you read about your "other side". I was brought up with this shit and indoctrinated. And I believed it. I believed in the monetary system. I believed in the legal system. I didn't believe in the stories about the so-called "social question", but I didn't have an answer. I believed the news on television. I went to church on Sundays. I believed almost all the scaremongers. For a long time I was a hopeless case, a poor product of the ruling culture, until it drove me into years of burnout, because I didn't know why at all. And then I noticed what was withheld from me.

Leo's response to the original Youtube comment was: JS answered: Me: The escape into the ignorance of complexity in favor of government is the escape from metaphysics, which exposes the state as mafia, the deification of the state. Augustine already knew that. What is the state other than a gang of robbers? What we call "laissez faire" is the most original state of all social and economic relations without a monopoly on the use of force. You don't need ideology for that. You can't use ideology to actually refute that. Of course, the individual is limited in his being. The word "freedom" traditionally strains that. But as Goethe already said: "Here I am entirely human, here I may be". Matthew 6 24 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money. 25 “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? 26 Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. 34 Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own. So what are the criminals calling for?

@Quicksilver It's not a question of time or numbers. If, for example, it is possible to remove the possibility of taxation by means of crypto-technology or whatever the state may be, then everything will change. And look how angry they are all here. They would then have to channel their anger into something other than violence.

Krishnamurti at United Nations - 1985 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-i5Ohhbhkn4 Text: https://jkrishnamurti.org/content/why-cant-man-live-peacefully-earth?fbclid=IwAR3BAgIxyFgty-yVyuS7fd0fwXJr9K2UHk05-OYqKcVYFlrxhwcuVW4ep9w