New World Order (NWO), sometimes called the Great Reset

[Dilip Panjwani]

dilip, you continue to amaze us all with your wisdom and knowledge .... Thank you for telling us all what we know.

Sarcasm!!!!!

troll troll troll

[Bob Armstrong]

Statement # 8 (Proposed by Pargat Perrer - see Note below)

Libertarianism will employ 24/7 digital surveillance of every citizen in public spaces, including not just video but audio as well. This will help Natural Law enforcement to have the facts necessary to make discretionary decisions on whether to lay charges for breach of the Natural Law or other laws. It will also provide needed evidence for court hearings, where the issue is whether the Natural Law provided an exemption for non-compliance. This is seen as a necessary over-ride of the citizen's right of privacy and freedom from surveillance.

[Note: Group secretary attempted to extract Statement # 8 from the Post # 218 (23/8/18) of Pargat Perrer. Pargat has not suggested any revision to date.]

Processing:

a. An "Inaccuracy Challenge" (that this is not an accurate Statement of Libertarian Policy) has been launched (See below); Deadline for formal Challenge as not Libertarian policy: (See below);
b. No “Opposition Challenge” (that Statement is untenable/unworkable) has been formally launched ; some postings indicate some disagreements of some kinds, but it is not clear what is being challenged. Deadline as to “Opposition Challenge” – always open to be made.

Revision Challenge - Dilip Panjwani - Post # x, 23/8/?

Libertarianism will employ 24/7 digital surveillance of every citizen in public spaces, including not just video but audio as well. This will help Natural Law enforcement to have the facts necessary to make discretionary decisions on whether to lay charges for breach of the Natural Law or other laws. It will also provide needed evidence for court hearings, where the issue is whether the Natural Law provided an exemption for non-compliance. This is seen as a necessary over-ride of the citizen's right of privacy and freedom from surveillance for the purpose of justice and order.

[Secretary attempt to formalize Dilip's post previously seen; he can revise as necessary.]

Challenge: Added to the last sentence: "for the purpose of justice and order". It is important to give the reason rights are being over-ridden.

Processing: The proposed revision has one week to be challenged as not Libertarian policy; deadline: [Cannot locate Post] Setting Sunday, Aug. 27 @ 11:59 PM EDT.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Pargat Perrer]

.....We know that it is very very unlikely that an unvaccinated person can harm someone who is already vaccinated, by transmission. .

Dilip, you continue to amaze us all with your wisdom and knowledge .... thank you for telling us all what we know.

SARCASM!!!!!

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Pargat:

Thanks for agreeing to the protocol.......I believe it makes it clearer for all of us to understand in future. As well, your Statement in opposition will now be always matched with the Libertarian Statement, showing continuing opposition to the Libertarian position.

I will integrate your Post # 261 (23/8/20) into my future secretarial processing.

And if a Secretary can give a personal opinion - you have a good counter-statement.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Pargat Perrer]

Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians in a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board (Non-Chess Forum), ChessTalk. The CT'ers are discussing Human Self-Government and the New World Order/Great Reset problem.

Statements # 1 - # 6

Challenge - Pargat Perrer - unworkable (Post # 240 - 23/8/19 - all challenges are effectively the same point).

Support: Dilip Panjwani - Post # 250 - 23/8/19

Simple answer: Judges and police, understanding and believing in the concept of Libertarianism would be the overseers. The Jury and Judges use common-sense in interpretation of the law, though they often have to struggle with contradictory laws we all face today. How they are appointed is an issue that can be easily worked out by the writers of a Libertarian constitution, which we are not doing at this stage.

Note: Secretary attempt to draft the Support; if not satisfactory to Dilip, would he please revise, and the revision will be substituted.]

Processing Opposing Positions:

Libertarians have supported their Statements.

So the onus is now on the Challengers to draft Statements (Not questions) opposing the particular Libertarian Policy Statement objected to and setting out the alternate position, if possible. Then, moving forward, the two opposing views will always be posted together. They have one week from the date of the "Support" to do this, or we move on; deadline: Saturday, Aug. 26 @ 11:59 PM EDT.

Of course, since all Statements are technically always in process, opposing Statements may also be made in future, and will then be processed.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

Bob .... you have really over-complicated this, but I will try one last time to subscribe to your requirements .... why? I don't even know.

You apparently want me to provide a Challenging statement(s) which cannot be questions. But Bob, the questions I asked are extremely necessary to be asked ... because as you know, "the devil is in the details". But ok, let's not ask any questions.



Dilip's answer to my questions about who are the Overseers and how are they appointed / regulated says this:

"Judges and police, understanding and believing in the concept of Libertarianism would be the overseers. The Jury and Judges use common-sense in interpretation of the law, ..."

I bolded the term "common-sense" and you will now see why.

My Challenger statement to ALL of the statements of the Libertarian viewpoints (statements #1 thru #6) is as follows, in 2 parts folllowed by a Summary Statement:

Part 1:
There is no such thing as universal common-sense. Since a common-sense interpretation of the Natural Law ("do no harm to others, except in fair competition") is always subject to personal bias as to what exactly common-sense IS, there can be no consistent and irrefutable, indisputable interpretation of the Natural Law. Consequently, any attempt at one-size-fits-all Libertarianism will lead to alienation / protests / violence / overthrow of the system. Even the vaunted Judges and Police will be at each other's throats, because they have differing views of common-sense. This is the nature of humanity as evidenced throughout human history."

Part 2:
There is no such thing as a universal definition of "fair competition". Therefore even where common-sense is not in dispute (if that could ever be the case, which Part 1 disputes), still disputes will inevitably arise over what constitutes exceptions under the Fair Competition clause. Lawyers will endlessly argue about possible exceptions, which current legal systems try to encapsulate under the living, evolving system of laws and sub-laws, which Natural Law counter-intuitively sets out to abolish.

Summary Statement:
Therefore, the very idea of a single one-size-fits-all Natural Law is illogical and is doomed to failure.

[Pargat Perrer]

Simply an impossible task... to create a separate law for each and every possible action, in each and every possible situation, each and every individual may take in the future...
Liars (lawyers) may want you try to do it ad infinitum, as it would increase their business with all the complicated laws resulting from the endeavor.

And similarly, a universal Natural Law and interpretation of it using "common sense" is equally impossible. But at least with the system we have now, there is a way to navigate through the existing laws and try and find a precedent ... and if none exists, then we create one AND DOCUMENT IT IN A LAW.

You really have a problem with lawyers, and I can understand, but you tar them all with the same brush. What you fail to recognize is that there are good lawyers, who try and create a legal system that is fair.

At the same time, you paint a picture of benevolent Judges and Police who are always interpreting common-sense in a universal manner. How insane of you to imagine that. It has never happened in human history ... nothing even close.

The denigration of lawyers and the elevation of Judges and Police to universal exceptionalism has an alternate political characterization: Fascism. Do you, Dilip, admit to being a Fascist?

Speaking of wolves in sheep's clothing which Bob A. has brought up in this thread, it does seem that Libertarianism as characterized by Dilip is really Fascism in sheep's clothing.

Bob A. has admitted quite readily to being a Democratic Marxist ... maybe Dilip you can take his cue and admit your leanings with as much zeal. More likely, you will shout shrilly: "TROLL! TROLL! TROLL!"

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians in a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board (Non-Chess Forum), ChessTalk. The CT'ers are discussing Human Self-Government and the New World Order/Great Reset problem.

Statement # 3

The Natural Law is: All is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society. If one wants to harm oneself, though illogical, one is free to do so.

Processing: Revision proposed (Post # 174 - 23/8/13); being processed; deadline: Sunday, 23/8/20 @ 11:59 PM EDT.

Support for Statement: Bob Armstrong Post # 259 - 23/8/20 (As Participant)

The sentence on self-harm is indeed Libertarian policy, and should not be removed. Dilip Panjwani (Post # 249 - 23/8/19) has now confirmed this (Though he prefers a re-wording with which I agree).

Proposed Revision 1:

The Natural Law is: Thou shalt not harm others, except in fair competition. So, all is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society, except in fair competition. If one wants to harm oneself, though illogical, one is free to do so.

Challenge (that this is inaccurate re Libertarian Policy): Pargat Perrer, Post # 240 - 23/8/19:

The last sentence should be removed. No Libertarian here, nor other person, has raised as an issue self-harm.

[Note: Secretary's effort to put into formal form the post of Pargat; if not satisfactory, will he please post a revision and we will amend his Challenge.]

Processing: Support for the existing Statement must be posted by the deadline of Saturday, 23/8/26 @ 11:59 PM EDT. Similarly for anyone "supplementing" the Challenge. Otherwise the Statement will be revised as requested.

Support for Statement: Bob Armstrong Post # 259 - 23/8/20 (As Participant)

The sentence on self-harm is indeed Libertarian policy, and should not be removed. Dilip Panjwani (Post # 249 - 23/8/19) has now confirmed this (Though he prefers a re-wording with which I am in agreement).

Proposed Revision 2 (Of Revision 1):

The Natural Law is: Thou shalt not harm others, except in fair competition. So, all is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society, except in fair competition. If one does something which even the vast majority thinks is harming him/herself and illogical, one is free to do so.

Challenge to Proposed Revision 1 (that this is inaccurate re Libertarian Policy): Dilip Panjwani, Post # 249 - 23/8/19

Sid and Neal and IM O'Donnell may well be absolutely right, though in the minority, that a young healthy person should not take modRNA vaccines... and no one has the right to force them to do so. (We know that it is very very unlikely that an unvaccinated person can harm someone who is already vaccinated, by transmission). The other examples are MAID even in the absence of a terminal dying state, and abortions which every woman has a right to in Canada (with all the scientific evidence we have to date indicating that the fetus does not have 'individual consciousness', but is just a part of the mother's body).

[Note: Secretary's effort to put into formal form the post of Dilip and his Statement # 3 2nd revision; if not satisfactory, will he please post a revision and we will amend his Challenge.]

Processing: Support for the existing Statement must be posted by the deadline of Saturday, 23/8/26 @ 11:59 PM EDT. Similarly for anyone "supplementing" the Challenge. Otherwise the Statement will be revised as requested.

Support for Revision 2 - Bob Armstrong Post # 259 - 23/8/20 (As Participant)

I have always believed Libertarians felt an individual was entitled to do self-harm, under their view of "Freedom". This is why I had independently, as a Participant, originally included a Statement on this when drafting our original Statement # 3. And, I am satisfied with Dilip's proposed Revision 2 of Statement # 3.

However I am not in agreement with part of Dilip's reasons for challenge. I specifically claim that "a young healthy person should take modRNA vaccines, if necessary to ward off/minimize intensity of a particular illness". But I do agree that they have the freedom not to be forced into taking them.......however.........they may then suffer personal negative consequences due to the need to protect society at large (They may become sick and be a possible transmitter to those who are still vulnerable [No immunity at that point]).

I agree with Dilip's position on MAID.

I agree with abortion, but I reserve judgment on Dilip's assertion that from conception to birth, "the fetus does not have 'individual consciousness', but is just a part of the mother's body".

Bob A (As Participant).

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians in a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board (Non-Chess Forum), ChessTalk. The CT'ers are discussing Human Self-Government and the New World Order/Great Reset problem.

Statements # 1 - # 6

Challenge - Pargat Perrer - unworkable (Post # 240 - 23/8/19 - all challenges are effectively the same point).

Support: Dilip Panjwani - Post # 250 - 23/8/19

Simple answer: Judges and police, understanding and believing in the concept of Libertarianism would be the overseers. The Jury and Judges use common-sense in interpretation of the law, though they often have to struggle with contradictory laws we all face today. How they are appointed is an issue that can be easily worked out by the writers of a Libertarian constitution, which we are not doing at this stage.

Note: Secretary attempt to draft the Support; if not satisfactory to Dilip, would he please revise, and the revision will be substituted.]

Processing Opposing Positions:

Libertarians have supported their Statements.

So the onus is now on the Challengers to draft Statements (Not questions) opposing the particular Libertarian Policy Statement objected to and setting out the alternate position, if possible. Then, moving forward, the two opposing views will always be posted together. They have one week from the date of the "Support" to do this, or we move on; deadline: Saturday, Aug. 26 @ 11:59 PM EDT.

Of course, since all Statements are technically always in process, opposing Statements may also be made in future, and will then be processed.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Re Revision 2 (Proposed) to Statement # 3

Dilip - Thanks for confirming the Challenge as drafted by me is acceptable to you.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians in a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board (Non-Chess Forum), ChessTalk. The CT'ers are discussing Human Self-Government and the New World Order/Great Reset problem.

Statement # 3

The Natural Law is: All is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society. If one wants to harm oneself, though illogical, one is free to do so.

Processing: Revision proposed (Post # 174 - 23/8/13); being processed; deadline: Sunday, 23/8/20 @ 11:59 PM EDT.

Proposed Revision 1:

The Natural Law is: Thou shalt not harm others, except in fair competition. So, all is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society, except in fair competition. If one wants to harm oneself, though illogical, one is free to do so.

Challenge (that this is inaccurate re Libertarian Policy): Pargat Perrer, Post # 240 - 23/8/19:

The last sentence should be removed. No Libertarian here, nor other person, has raised as an issue self-harm.

[Note: Secretary's effort to put into formal form the post of Pargat; if not satisfactory, will he please post a revision and we will amend his Challenge.]

Processing: Support for the existing Statement must be posted by the deadline of Saturday, 23/8/26 @ 11:59 PM EDT. Similarly for anyone "supplementing" the Challenge. Otherwise the Statement will be revised as requested.

Proposed Revision 2 (Of Revision 1):

The Natural Law is: Thou shalt not harm others, except in fair competition. So, all is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society, except in fair competition. If one does something which even the vast majority thinks is harming him/herself and illogical, one is free to do so.

Challenge to Proposed Revision 1 (that this is inaccurate re Libertarian Policy): Dilip Panjwani, Post # 249 - 23/8/19

Sid and Neal and IM O'Donnell may well be absolutely right, though in the minority, that a young healthy person should not take modRNA vaccines... and no one has the right to force them to do so. (We know that it is very very unlikely that an unvaccinated person can harm someone who is already vaccinated, by transmission). The other examples are MAID even in the absence of a terminal dying state, and abortions which every woman has a right to in Canada (with all the scientific evidence we have to date indicating that the fetus does not have 'individual consciousness', but is just a part of the mother's body).

[Note: Secretary's effort to put into formal form the post of Dilip and his Statement # 3 2nd revision; if not satisfactory, will he please post a revision and we will amend his Challenge.]

Processing: Support for the existing Statement must be posted by the deadline of Saturday, 23/8/26 @ 11:59 PM EDT. Similarly for anyone "supplementing" the Challenge. Otherwise the Statement will be revised as requested.

Bob A (Group Secretary).

Sounds fine, Bob.

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians in a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board (Non-Chess Forum), ChessTalk. The CT'ers are discussing Human Self-Government and the New World Order/Great Reset problem.

Statement # 3

The Natural Law is: All is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society. If one wants to harm oneself, though illogical, one is free to do so.

Processing: Revision proposed (Post # 174 - 23/8/13); being processed; deadline: Sunday, 23/8/20 @ 11:59 PM EDT.

Proposed Revision 1:

The Natural Law is: Thou shalt not harm others, except in fair competition. So, all is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society, except in fair competition. If one wants to harm oneself, though illogical, one is free to do so.

Challenge (that this is inaccurate re Libertarian Policy): Pargat Perrer, Post # 240 - 23/8/19:

The last sentence should be removed. No Libertarian here, nor other person, has raised as an issue self-harm.

[Note: Secretary's effort to put into formal form the post of Pargat; if not satisfactory, will he please post a revision and we will amend his Challenge.]

Processing: Support for the existing Statement must be posted by the deadline of Saturday, 23/8/26 @ 11:59 PM EDT. Similarly for anyone "supplementing" the Challenge. Otherwise the Statement will be revised as requested.

Proposed Revision 2 (Of Revision 1):

The Natural Law is: Thou shalt not harm others, except in fair competition. So, all is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society, except in fair competition. If one does something which even the vast majority thinks is harming him/herself and illogical, one is free to do so.

Challenge to Proposed Revision 1 (that this is inaccurate re Libertarian Policy): Dilip Panjwani, Post # 249 - 23/8/19

Sid and Neal and IM O'Donnell may well be absolutely right, though in the minority, that a young healthy person should not take modRNA vaccines... and no one has the right to force them to do so. (We know that it is very very unlikely that an unvaccinated person can harm someone who is already vaccinated, by transmission). The other examples are MAID even in the absence of a terminal dying state, and abortions which every woman has a right to in Canada (with all the scientific evidence we have to date indicating that the fetus does not have 'individual consciousness', but is just a part of the mother's body).

[Note: Secretary's effort to put into formal form the post of Dilip and his Statement # 3 2nd revision; if not satisfactory, will he please post a revision and we will amend his Challenge.]

Processing: Support for the existing Statement must be posted by the deadline of Saturday, 23/8/26 @ 11:59 PM EDT. Similarly for anyone "supplementing" the Challenge. Otherwise the Statement will be revised as requested.

Bob A (Group Secretary).

[Dilip Panjwani]

I am re-posting and editing my Post # 244 (23/8/19) - It is incomplete and ambiguous. So Dilip (Post # 252 - 23/8/19) thinks I am the Challenger. Here is what the post intended:

Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians in a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board (Non-Chess Forum), ChessTalk. The CT'ers are discussing Human Self-Government and the New World Order/Great Reset problem.

Statement # 1

Governments at all levels pass too many laws. Many are more restrictive than necessary, and some are just unnecessary. This unduly restrains the freedom of the individual, which is the paramount concern of society.

Challenge (Libertarian position is unworkable): Pargat Perrer - Post # 240 - 23/8/19

What is "more restrictive than necessary"? Who decides, and what is the mechanism of the decision, what exactly is meant by 'restrains the freedom of the individual'?

These are terms that need laws to be codified! Which goes against the very nature of Libertarianism, therefore Libertarianism is an ILLOGICAL construct!

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

Note: I made the same omission in a number of my posts putting Pargat's Objections into standard format; I have now gone back and completed them.

Bob,
You are the one who is doing this project and have to exercise some common-sense. If you wish to know what exactly is meant by what I said earlier, i.e. 'Any restrictive law which goes beyond prevention of harm to others is unnecessary', please consult the dictionary for the meanings to make it clearer for you, and let PP do the same. And also, in a post earlier today (#250), I have already responded to what you and PP want to know about the other statements.
Thanks.

[Bob Armstrong]

I am re-posting and editing my Post # 244 (23/8/19) - It is incomplete and ambiguous. So Dilip (Post # 252 - 23/8/19) thinks I am the Challenger. Here is what the post intended:

Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians in a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board (Non-Chess Forum), ChessTalk. The CT'ers are discussing Human Self-Government and the New World Order/Great Reset problem.

Statement # 1

Governments at all levels pass too many laws. Many are more restrictive than necessary, and some are just unnecessary. This unduly restrains the freedom of the individual, which is the paramount concern of society.

Challenge (Libertarian position is unworkable): Pargat Perrer - Post # 240 - 23/8/19

What is "more restrictive than necessary"? Who decides, and what is the mechanism of the decision, what exactly is meant by 'restrains the freedom of the individual'?

These are terms that need laws to be codified! Which goes against the very nature of Libertarianism, therefore Libertarianism is an ILLOGICAL construct!

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

Note: I made the same omission in a number of my posts putting Pargat's Objections into standard format; I have now gone back and completed them.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians in a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board (Non-Chess Forum), ChessTalk. The CT'ers are discussing Human Self-Government and the New World Order/Great Reset problem.

Statement # 1

Governments at all levels pass too many laws. Many are more restrictive than necessary, and some are just unnecessary. This unduly restrains the freedom of the individual, which is the paramount concern of society.

what is "more restrictive than necessary"? Who decides, and what is the mechanism of the decision, what exactly is meant by 'restrains the freedom of the individual'?

These are terms that need laws to be codified! Which goes against the very nature of Libertarianism, therefore Libertarianism is an ILLOGICAL construct!

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

Bob, why is it so difficult for you to understand that any restrictive law which goes beyond prevention of harm to others is unnecessary? Being a lawyer, are you so threatened by this simplicity that you are baselessly calling it illogical?

[Dilip Panjwani]

And of course, it should be added that the solution of the non-Libertarians -- the people who do not want increased digital surveillance -- is to continue to formulate and create laws to cover ever more and more situations and create precedent, and to prosecute those laws.

Simply an impossible task... to create a separate law for each and every possible action, in each and every possible situation, each and every individual may take in the future...
Liars (lawyers) may want you try to do it ad infinitum, as it would increase their business with all the complicated laws resulting from the endeavor.