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

[Sid Belzberg]

Re Sid Belzberg Post # 221 (23/8/18)

"We already have 24 7 digital monitoring independent of which party is in power."

My Response

What you say may be true. But we are here just dealing with Libertarian positions, and it is important that they clearly state that this is Libertarian policy, regardless of whether it is also a policy of all other political parties on the planet......the other parties (Canadian Liberal Government/NDP Supported) don't put it in their policy booklets! We'll try to make Libertarians do this .

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

I am very sure Dilip will tell you it is not a libertarian policy; Law enforcement is a constant of any party. Sadly with the new technologies, one of the costs is sacrificing.privacy.
That is simply a reality and not Libertarian policy. I Hope Dilip clarifies, although I can understand him not wanting to dignify what he considers trolling.

[Sid Belzberg]

Sid, what we have now is nothing compared to what Dilip is saying will be necessary. Dilip made it clear that the problem with the justice system of today is not that we need myriad laws, but rather that the pertinent facts of the cases have to be established. And he mentioned that an escalation of digital surveillance would be necessary to accomplish this.

Really think hard about how much digital surveillance a society would need in order to ALWAYS know all the pertinent facts about any complaint of violation of the Natural Law. For one thing, we need microphones recording everything we say, no matter where we are, even in a public washroom. Even sitting at a bar having a drink with someone. Even lying in bed with our significant other(s).

Literally every snippet of conversation we have MUST be recorded for possible download to the Benevolent Overseer of the Natural Law. And where we have audio recording, we must also have video.

No, sadly, the reality is it is much worst than what Dillip said.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Libertarian Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians among CT'ers here

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: As group secretary, I am attempting to extract a Statement from the recent post # 218 (23/8/18) of Pargat Perrer. Pargat is free to revise my draft here as he needs to, to make it his own, if mine fails to capture it. As well, he can post any future Statement on his own, in this format for Proposed Statements, as can any member of the group.]

Processing

If the proposed Statement is not "Challenged" as not accurately representing the Libertarian view, within one week (Deadline: Friday, 23/8/25 @ 11:59 PM EDT), then it will be "generally accepted" by Libertarians in this CT'er group, and inserted in the list of Statements generally acceptable to the Libertarians here.

[Note: At this point, in Phase I, we are attempting to achieve an accurate Libertarian policy Statement. Opposition to this Statement as not being factual/beneficial will occur during Phase II.]

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

Bob,
I thought you were better than a troll to not put words in my mouth. As Sid has rightly pointed out, digital surveillance is something for law and order, not anything specific to Libertarianism. The trolls and habitual litigators who always like to complicate simple concepts feel threatened by Libertarianism, because they know that their tendency to twist facts will be easily exposed and punished appropriately in a Libertarian system and hence they will not be able to pursue their stupid desires (unless they like going bankrupt). Sid knows that digital surveillance in a 'harm no one' system cannot be used by the government to keep on watching what you do in your bedroom, and people who gain access to it for their vile desires will be appropriately penalized...
And do not say that digital surveillance will be more needed in Libertarianism, as I point out that the opposite is true, in my post below...

[Dilip Panjwani]

No, sadly, the reality is it is much worst than what Dillip said.

Absolutely, Sid. What we are seeing today is liars (often called lawyers) use their knowledge of the thousands of contradictory laws to keep them in business, and will go out of business once they realize that they can get punished for 'legal trolling'...

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Dilip:

Statement # 8 of the Libertarians (Proposed)

I am unclear - I read your objection, but it seems that the Statement proposed does not say anything about what you are complaining about.

Dilip: "do not say that digital surveillance will be more needed in Libertarianism,"

Response: the Statement # 8 takes no position on the extent of surveillance under Libertarianism compared to other systems. You are right though, I believe, that I in one of my posts, may have made such an allegation - that is not in the Statement.

I have tried to put forward a Statement (Including posts by Pargat) on how Libertarianism will employ audio and video surveillance; this is a topic you raised as being an important aspect of Natural Law Libertarianism (We will ignore any trolling and stick to the topic). I thought I had been moderate - I said only in "public spaces" (Pargat threw in the bedroom red herring, not me). I gave the reasons that the human rights over-ride was necessary.......you have supported that by your comments, as far as I can see - "digital surveillance is something for law and order,".

In order to be clear, if you feel my Statement mis-states the Libertarian position, then please Propose an "alternate" Statement # 8 that properly sets out the Libertarian position on public surveillance (What other political parties say there policy is on this is not relevant).

We CT'ers want to be clear what the Libertarian policy is, and we see no reason there cannot be a Libertarian Statement on this to add to the very good list so far. But it seems you (Sid has not yet spoken up against any particular part of this Statement, though you have quoted him) are not satisfied with my attempt.

So you need to take over on this issue and produce a Statement on the issue of surveillance that IS Libertarian policy. My guess is that your Statement will in all likelihood not be challenged as "not" Libertarian policy.

Thanks.

Bob (As Group Secretary)

[Pargat Perrer]

Hi Dilip:

Statement # 8 of the Libertarians (Proposed)

I am unclear - I read your objection, but it seems that the Statement proposed does not say anything about what you are complaining about.

Dilip: "do not say that digital surveillance will be more needed in Libertarianism,"

Response: the Statement # 8 takes no position on the extent of surveillance under Libertarianism compared to other systems. You are right though, I believe, that I in one of my posts, may have made such an allegation - that is not in the Statement.

I have tried to put forward a Statement (Including posts by Pargat) on how Libertarianism will employ audio and video surveillance; this is a topic you raised as being an important aspect of Natural Law Libertarianism (We will ignore any trolling and stick to the topic). I thought I had been moderate - I said only in "public spaces" (Pargat threw in the bedroom red herring, not me). I gave the reasons that the human rights over-ride was necessary.......you have supported that by your comments, as far as I can see - "digital surveillance is something for law and order,".

......

Bob, to clear things up, here is exactly what Dilip wrote in his post #176 in this thread:

"There is nothing philosophical or ambiguous about the Natural Law. It is as simple and straightforward as you can get. On the other hand, the huge number of laws we currently have, and the contradictory nature of judgements which have been possible on them, shows that ambiguity and complexity and stupidity are characteristics of what now exists, and along with the liars (lawyers) misusing the already unclear scenario, seeking justice is a nightmare now for the ordinary citizens...as you would certainly agree with me. Making things simpler and straight-forward (as with Libertarianism) is what is needed, right?"


and here is exactly what Dilip wrote in his post #188 in this thread:

"'Interpretation of the law' has been a lesser problem than the 'determination of the facts of a case', in the administration of justice. The former has always been dealt with, and will continue to be dealt with, using common sense, by the jurors and the judges. The latter is what is responsible for delays, backlog & miscarriage of justice, and hopefully digital surveillance will help with that in the future."


So post 176 says that Libertarianism will make things simpler and more straight-forward ... getting rid of the many laws we now have and replacing them with one simple Natural Law.

In other words, there will be less and less interpretation of law under Libertarianism.

Agreed?

Post 188 says what we REALLY need is to have more determination of the facts of a case than we are currently having, because he says "hopefully digital surveillance will help with that in the future".

Agreed?

So let's put these 2 statements together:

- there will be less and less interpretation of law under Libertarianism
- what we REALLY need is to have more determination of the facts of a case than we are currently having

Now can you see that Libertarianism WILL NECESSARILY BRING ABOUT increase in digital surveillance?

In fact, to achieve its objectives of having VIRTUALLY ZERO interpretation of law, Libertarianism will demand almost TOTAL digital surveillance comprised of both video AND audio recordings.

It is not a "red herring" to suggest this will involve surveillance in people's bedrooms. A lot of criminal activity is hatched in bedroom conversations! So if we need to catch all cases of people hatching criminal plots, we need to surveil them IN THIER BEDROOMS and everywhere else they go.

How is any of this trolling? It is cut and dried analysis of what Dilip Panjwani is proposing for the future. His own words damn him.

Accusations of trolling are just diversionary tactics, please recognize them for what they are.

Sid hates it when others attack the messenger instead of the message .... but he does it himself, and he applauds Dilip for doing it as well.

Such hypocrisy from Sid and Dilip! Please recognize that, Bob.

Dilip Panjwani:
"hopefully digital surveillance will help with that in the future".

Word for word quote.

[Pargat Perrer]

Bob, to clear things up, here is exactly what Dilip wrote in his post #176 in this thread:

"There is nothing philosophical or ambiguous about the Natural Law. It is as simple and straightforward as you can get. On the other hand, the huge number of laws we currently have, and the contradictory nature of judgements which have been possible on them, shows that ambiguity and complexity and stupidity are characteristics of what now exists, and along with the liars (lawyers) misusing the already unclear scenario, seeking justice is a nightmare now for the ordinary citizens...as you would certainly agree with me. Making things simpler and straight-forward (as with Libertarianism) is what is needed, right?"


and here is exactly what Dilip wrote in his post #188 in this thread:

"'Interpretation of the law' has been a lesser problem than the 'determination of the facts of a case', in the administration of justice. The former has always been dealt with, and will continue to be dealt with, using common sense, by the jurors and the judges. The latter is what is responsible for delays, backlog & miscarriage of justice, and hopefully digital surveillance will help with that in the future."


So post 176 says that Libertarianism will make things simpler and more straight-forward ... getting rid of the many laws we now have and replacing them with one simple Natural Law.

In other words, there will be less and less interpretation of law under Libertarianism.

Agreed?

Post 188 says what we REALLY need is to have more determination of the facts of a case than we are currently having, because he says "hopefully digital surveillance will help with that in the future".

Agreed?

So let's put these 2 statements together:

- there will be less and less interpretation of law under Libertarianism
- what we REALLY need is to have more determination of the facts of a case than we are currently having

Now can you see that Libertarianism WILL NECESSARILY BRING ABOUT increase in digital surveillance?

In fact, to achieve its objectives of having VIRTUALLY ZERO interpretation of law, Libertarianism will demand almost TOTAL digital surveillance comprised of both video AND audio recordings.

It is not a "red herring" to suggest this will involve surveillance in people's bedrooms. A lot of criminal activity is hatched in bedroom conversations! So if we need to catch all cases of people hatching criminal plots, we need to surveil them IN THIER BEDROOMS and everywhere else they go.

How is any of this trolling? It is cut and dried analysis of what Dilip Panjwani is proposing for the future. His own words damn him.

Accusations of trolling are just diversionary tactics, please recognize them for what they are.

Sid hates it when others attack the messenger instead of the message .... but he does it himself, and he applauds Dilip for doing it as well.

Such hypocrisy from Sid and Dilip! Please recognize that, Bob.

Dilip Panjwani:
"hopefully digital surveillance will help with that in the future".

Word for word quote.

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.

Yes, facts of the cases are still needed, for cases where INTENT needs to be determined, but the justice system can never be perfect when it comes to intent without the incorporation of total and complete digital surveillance.

Thus it is up to voters to decide if they feel PERFECT justice is worth the price of TOTAL surveillance.

[Dilip Panjwani]

- there will be less and less interpretation of law under Libertarianism

Now can you see that Libertarianism WILL NECESSARILY BRING ABOUT increase in digital surveillance?

In fact, to achieve its objectives of having VIRTUALLY ZERO interpretation of law, Libertarianism will demand almost TOTAL digital surveillance comprised of both video AND audio recordings.

This is what one would expect a troll to write (by definition, deliberately posting misinterpretations, misquotations, exaggerations, misleading, irrelevant, offensive or other disruptive posts).
Nobody said there will be less interpretation of the law in Libertarianism, etc. What was said is that interpretation of the law has always been a small problem in jurisprudence, and as always, it will continue to be dealt with using common sense even in Libertarianism.
Also, digital surveillance is likely to help miscarriage of justice in jurisprudence in the future, whatever the governing system which may exist.

And btw, digital surveillance does not mean somebody constantly watching you in your bedroom; in the future, it could be intelligently and discretely applied in jurisprudence in a way that is acceptable to all (except the criminals who do not want any truth to be revealed against them).

Bob, so long as you keep the trolling out of your statements, you are fine...thanks!

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Dilip:



I have done nothing here except to try to help Dilip set out his Libertarian principles. I have been objective and fair. I have never personally attacked any CT'er participating here. If so, please post the post #. So I appreciate it being said that I do not troll.

If you say I have failed to capture the essence of Libertarianism in one of my proposed Statements for Libertarianism, and, as group secretary, I ask you to revise the Statement to be satisfactory to you (My Post # 230, 23/8/18), you IGNORE me and rant on about stuff posted by Pargat Perrer, and which make no appearance in my draft Statement.

I am getting confused about what your agenda now is here.......you seemed to appreciate the first 7 Statements that I put into Statement form for you; now you seem to be attacking me.

If you are well-intentioned, which I believe you are, you will either accept my Statement # 8, you will tweak/revise it to eliminate what you don't like, or you will provide a good alternate Libertarian Statement on the use of audio/visual surveillance.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Pargat:

Pargat Perrer - Post # 231 -23/8/18 - "Such hypocrisy from Sid and Dilip! Please recognize that, Bob."



My Response:

Pargat, you can call whomever you wish a "troll". You can post whatever judgments you wish, subject to libel law.

However..........I am group secretary - it is not up to me to judge participants. I am simply a "facilitator". For the benefit of the group, I try to put into good form, as readable, executive summary Statements, the declarations of participants here.

Secondly, you go on and on in the posts above about what you think Dilip's Libertarian position is. Yet you make no formal "Challenge" to the Statement as being an inaccurate Statement of Libertarian policy. Yes, you say that surveillance will not only be in "public spaces", but in the bedroom and everywhere in our private spaces. Yet you will not make the effort for this group of CT'ers to even do us the courtesy of making a slight amendment to the Statement, and posting the revision. And it seems you otherwise accept my rendition of the Libertarian position. What is going on here? If you think it is "whitewashing" Libertarianism, produce the more accurate Statement......if accepted by this CT'er group, then we will thank you.

I am NOT a Libertarian; I am a Democratic Marxist.

But, as group secretary, I have put my partisan politics on the shelf, and have tried, quite successfully I believe, to put myself in the other's shoes, and think as they do. So what do you want of me as Group Secretary, Pargat?

Is there anyone in this CT'er Group who supports my position, as a group member, that our producing generally accepted Statements on Human Self Government, and on Libertarianism, and I've now been asked to make some Statements generally acceptable to Democratic Marxists in this CT'er Group, is a very worthwhile project?

Or does the whole group feel pursuing my project here (I originated this thread on 22/12/5) is a total waste of your time. If so, why have you been coming, and making responses, for over 8 months now? If so, I have lots of other things to do with my time than to be a totally volunteer secretary here. I don't waste my time either.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements Generally Accepted by this CT'er Group, so far, on Human Self-Government

Statement # 1.

World-wide, in the past, people have had a structure of government imposed on them by a minority.

Support – Bob Armstrong - Post # 117 – 23/7/21:

“The Statement does not refer to a societal minority imposing its government on a societal majority. This statement refers to the fact that in the family of earliest man, the male set the rules for his female partner(s) and children - a minority of one. Later in groups, it was a "chief", or a "king"......it is individuals determining a government structure for all. Then, for example in the United Kingdom, the wealthy nobles, barons, dukes, etc. force the King to share power with them, a minority (The Elite), and then laws got promulgated satisfactory to them (Not much consideration of the welfare of the majority). The first Statement refers to pre-democracy times.”

Statement # 2.

Over time, electors have democratically accepted the government structure proposed at the time, usually some variant of earlier forms of government (Who are "electors" has evolved over time).

Support – Bob Armstrong – Post # 122 – 23/7/24:

“The statement does not say that the people democratically accepted the government structure "imposed"! It says the government structure "proposed".

The general sentiment that people, in a democracy, "vote for the party of their choice" is true. The elector has become, now, in a democracy, responsible for the society from then on (Assuming it remains a democracy). In a democracy, everything is subject to the will of the majority. Electors around the world have voted to adopt capitalism, social democracy, socialism, Democratic Marxism, Communism and Fascism.....by electing parties with these various policies, the people are voting for the structuring of their government.

There is also, almost world-wide, the acceptance of "representative" government - this is being democratically adopted.”

Statement # 3.

Some societies have had imposed on them, or chosen by election, a dictatorship (Rule by the One). However, some societies have chosen by election, a democracy (Rule by the Majority).

Support – Bob Armstrong – Post # Post # 129 - 23/7/31

Democracy means Rule by the Majority. But the point of the post is that that some societies are not democratic. They have not adopted "rule by the majority". They have adopted by election, or had imposed on them, dictatorships (Rule of the One).

Statement # 4.

People have passed "Constitutions" and developed Courts in order to have human rights respected and to prohibit the tyranny of the majority.

Support - Dilip Panjwani (Post # 111 - 23/7/15)

“... even a cursory peek at histories of nations will reveal multiple examples of 'tyranny of the majority'; it exists even today...”

Statement # 5.

People (A majority of the local government, at least) have the right to agree with each other on a government structure for themselves and can join hands to act jointly to govern themselves, and act in a way they feel "benefits themselves and humanity", so long as there is a respect for basic human rights.

Support - Dilip Panjwani (Post # 111 - 23/7/15):

“...the sad part about representative democracies is that the politicians who get elected do not serve the majority...they make fools of the majority (and minority), and sometimes it takes more than one term for the electors to realize that they are being hoodwinked, and then they elect a different party which hoodwinks them in a different way. The so-called majority does not rule, but decides which of the political parties they are less mad at. If only people could govern themselves, ........, where they may join hands with like-minded co-citizens in certain ways, that would be as close to Utopia as one can get...”

Statement # 6

“Direct” democracy is preferable to “Representative” Democracy, if implementable. Usually, direct democracy has been practiced in small, local political units. But with today's technology, direct democracy voting can be used within larger political units.

Statement # 7 (Proposed by Bob Armstrong - Post # 198 - 23/8/16)

Since people should be able to focus on higher activities of life (Philosophy, the Arts, Politics, etc.), automation will be a key factor in making this happen. It can free people from lower, less rewarding, work and life tasks. So some citizens will be able to dedicate more time to public life and government, and how to improve it.

Processing - no Challenge to date; deadline: Wed., 23/8/23 @ 11:59 PM EDT.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements Generally Accepted by this CT'er Group, so far, on Libertarianism


Libertarianism


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.




Wikipedia - The Libertarian Party is a political party in the United States that promotes civil liberties, non-interventionism, laissez-faire capitalism, and limiting the size and scope of government.

Founder: David Nolan
Founded: December 11, 1971, Colorado Springs, Colorado, United States
Headquarters: Alexandria, Virginia, United States

Statements (To date)

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.

Statement # 2

But the main problem in current society is the "absolute enforcement" of law (Zero tolerance), even when such enforcement is illogical. An example might be giving a citizen a traffic ticket for going through a Stop Sign at midnight when no other pedestrian or vehicle is in sight. The laws are to be honoured in "spirit", though not always in the "letter".

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.

Statement # 4

The Natural Law operates to bring common sense to law enforcement and to maximize the Freedom of the Individual. Thus, in certain circumstances (As in the traffic example above), the Natural Law overrides the actual relevant law, to provide an exception to the following of the law.

Statement # 5

Those in society charged with enforcement of law (Such as the police), have discretion to recognize the operation of the Natural Law in certain circumstances, and treat the conduct of the individual as not illegal. Thus they will not lay any charge against the individual.

Statement # 6

Where, by the conduct of the individual, someone breaks a law, and the Natural Law does not apply (There has been harm to another/society), the police/government can lay a charge and bring the individual before the court.

Statement # 7

The court shall verify the breaking of the law, and impose a penalty. Penalties should usually involve a "Compensation Payment" of some kind to the harmed individual/society at large. This will assist in deterring actions in society that are harmful to others/society.

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: As group secretary, I am attempting to extract a Statement from the recent post # 218 (23/8/18) of Pargat Perrer. Pargat is free to revise my draft here as he needs to, to make it his own, if mine fails to capture it. As well, he can post any future Statement on his own, in this format for Proposed Statements, as can any member of the group.]

Processing: No formal "Challenge" to date; some postings indicating disagreements of some kinds, but not clear what is being challenged; Deadline for Challenge as not Libertarian policy: Fri., 23/8/25 @ 11:59 PM EDT

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Pargat Perrer]

This is what one would expect a troll to write (by definition, deliberately posting misinterpretations, misquotations, exaggerations, misleading, irrelevant, offensive or other disruptive posts).!

No misquotations, no exaggerations, I have posted your EXACT WORDS. Do you now deny what you have posted?

Offensive? Yes, to YOU because you are offended that someone has your motives correctly figured out.

Nobody said there will be less interpretation of the law in Libertarianism, etc. .....

YES you have said this! You describe Natural Law as one simple law : do no harm to others, except in fair competition. THIS IS WHAT YOU POSTED!

And you said that all the myriad laws that we currently have will be (under Libertarianism) eliminated.

What is one simple law versus a myriad of laws? IT IS LESS INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW.

ARE YOU NOW DENYING WHAT YOU POSTED?

And btw, digital surveillance does not mean somebody constantly watching you in your bedroom; in the future, it could be intelligently and discretely applied in jurisprudence in a way that is acceptable to all (except the criminals who do not want any truth to be revealed against them). .....

...intelligently and discretely applied in jurisprudence ....

TECHNOBABBLE! SAY SOMETHING UNDERSTANDABLE! WTF ARE YOU SAYING? YOU ARE DELIBERATELY OBFUSCATING!

Anyone with eyes to see can realize this, you are a wolf in sheep's clothing.

[Pargat Perrer]

Hi Pargat:

Pargat Perrer - Post # 231 -23/8/18 - "Such hypocrisy from Sid and Dilip! Please recognize that, Bob."



My Response:

Pargat, you can call whomever you wish a "troll". You can post whatever judgments you wish, subject to libel law.

However..........I am group secretary - it is not up to me to judge participants. I am simply a "facilitator". For the benefit of the group, I try to put into good form, as readable, executive summary Statements, the declarations of participants here.

Secondly, you go on and on in the posts above about what you think Dilip's Libertarian position is. Yet you make no formal "Challenge" to the Statement as being an inaccurate Statement of Libertarian policy. Yes, you say that surveillance will not only be in "public spaces", but in the bedroom and everywhere in our private spaces. Yet you will not make the effort for this group of CT'ers to even do us the courtesy of making a slight amendment to the Statement, and posting the revision. And it seems you otherwise accept my rendition of the Libertarian position. What is going on here? If you think it is "whitewashing" Libertarianism, produce the more accurate Statement......if accepted by this CT'er group, then we will thank you.

I am NOT a Libertarian; I am a Democratic Marxist.

But, as group secretary, I have put my partisan politics on the shelf, and have tried, quite successfully I believe, to put myself in the other's shoes, and think as they do. So what do you want of me as Group Secretary, Pargat?

Is there anyone in this CT'er Group who supports my position, as a group member, that our producing generally accepted Statements on Human Self Government, and on Libertarianism, and I've now been asked to make some Statements generally acceptable to Democratic Marxists in this CT'er Group, is a very worthwhile project?

Or does the whole group feel pursuing my project here (I originated this thread on 22/12/5) is a total waste of your time. If so, why have you been coming, and making responses, for over 8 months now? If so, I have lots of other things to do with my time than to be a totally volunteer secretary here. I don't waste my time either.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

I did not and am not calling anyone a troll. I AM BEING CALLED A TROLL BY DILIP, REINFORCED BY SID.

I did not call you a Libertarian.

Please do not make false accusations against me and thus destroy your non-partisan status for which I admire you.

As for my challenges to your statements generally accepted on LIbertarianism, they are forthcoming.....

[Pargat Perrer]

Statements Generally Accepted by this CT'er Group, so far, on Libertarianism

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: Who decides, and what is the mechanism of the decision, 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!




[

B]Statement # 2[/B]

But the main problem in current society is the "absolute enforcement" of law (Zero tolerance), even when such enforcement is illogical. An example might be giving a citizen a traffic ticket for going through a Stop Sign at midnight when no other pedestrian or vehicle is in sight. The laws are to be honoured in "spirit", though not always in the "letter".

Challenge: Who decides, and what is the mechanism of the decision, what is honoured and not honoured? WHO IS THE OVERSEER OF THE NATURAL LAW? HOW IS THE OVERSEER APPOINTED? HOW IS THIS OVERSEER REGULATED?

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.

Challenge: Who decides, and what is the mechanism of the decision, what is 'harmful to others/society'? WHO IS THE OVERSEER OF WHAT IS HARMFUL TO OTHERS / SOCIETY? HOW IS THIS OVERSEER APPOINTED? HOW IS THIS OVERSEER REGULATED?

By the way Bob .... no one, not even Dilip, posted in this thread to my knowledge that harming oneself would be legal under Libertarianism. I don't know where you got that from. Just an FYI, not an issue we are debating here, but you might want to remove that statement about harming oneself.

Statement # 4

The Natural Law operates to bring common sense to law enforcement and to maximize the Freedom of the Individual. Thus, in certain circumstances (As in the traffic example above), the Natural Law overrides the actual relevant law, to provide an exception to the following of the law.

Challenge: Who decides, and what is the mechanism of the decision, what exactly is 'common sense' and what 'maximizes the freedom of the individual'? WHO IS THE OVERSEER OF WHAT MAXIMIZES THE FREEDOM OF THE INDIVIDUAL? HOW IS THIS OVERSEER APPOINTED? HOW IS THIS OVERSEER REGULATED?

The maximizing of the freedom of the individual is ANARCHY, in which there are no laws at all.

Statement # 5

Those in society charged with enforcement of law (Such as the police), have discretion to recognize the operation of the Natural Law in certain circumstances, and treat the conduct of the individual as not illegal. Thus they will not lay any charge against the individual.

Challenge: Who decides, and what is the mechanism of that decision, what constitutes 'discretion' of the police? WHO IS THE OVERSEER OF POLICE DISCRETION? HOW IS THIS OVERSEER APPOINTED? HOW IS THIS OVERSEER REGULATED?

Statement # 6

Where, by the conduct of the individual, someone breaks a law, and the Natural Law does not apply (There has been harm to another/society), the police/government can lay a charge and bring the individual before the court.

Challenge: Who decides, and what is the mechanism of the decision, that 'the Natural Law does not apply?' WHO IS THE OVERSEER OF THE APPLICATION OF NATURAL LAW? HOW IS THIS OVERSEER APPOINTED? HOW IS THIS OVERSEER REGULATED?