Categorized | NSP Radio Archive

NSP – Aug 1, 2015 – Co-host: JT and Guest: Kirsten

Posted on August 1st, 2015 by Calvin

JT returns to co-host as we report on the latest developments from legal-land and Kirsten shares her recent traffic courtroom adventure in California.

Show Notes:

  • Budget cuts have led to the courts refusing to accept pretrial filings in L.A. courts.
  • Dual-role court judges and prosecutors.
  • Covering all bases within, and when filing, your paperwork.
  • Objectively documenting your own hearings.
  • How to counter when tricky judges say “if you disagree with the facts that’s alleged, then you can argue that at trial” or “jurisdiction is a trial issue.”
  • Using the unsigned plea of guilty to expose lying judges that want to claim you are refusing to plea.
  • The lack of impact amongst the liberty community when Marc discredited Scott Bales – Chief Justice Arizona Supreme court.
  • Getting ahead of their excuses.
  • Statism is one of the most radicalized religions.
  • Practice makes perfect.
  • Overcoming institutionalized statist social conditioning and cognitive dissonance, a.k.a. to statists; “oppositional defiance disorder.”
              

174 Comments For This Post

  1. Steven Says:

    Could it be that if people quit assuming what was meant when certain words are used, and started staying in honor (wanting what’s best for everyone, instead of wanting to ‘win’), Marc Stevens and all the other conspiracy theorists would be out of a job?

  2. 11:11 Says:

    @ Steven, HI. I noticed that your TalkShoe Call page, contains a quote from Romans Chapter 13. You do realize that you are promoting the opposite of its true meaning? The true meaning of Romans 13 is that the government must first be doing God’s Will, Obeying His Law, Ministering to the People, and discouraging sinful conduct and people from their society. No one is meant to obey anyone who is not doing God’s Will.

    Solomon said it this way, “When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.” Is anyone rejoicing or mourning?

    Yours, is the classical statist, evangelical, judeo-christian, christian zionist take.

    How could any sentient being living today deny that you’re dogma has led us in a large part to where we are today? What spiritually minded person can deny that government today is a curse? That we are currently in a Babylonian bondage?

    Maybe you should take a second look at your own beliefs before you come here and call us ‘conspiracy theorists’?

  3. Andy Says:

    Below is the correct link to the Onion Article: “Do You Know Why I’m Pulling You Over, Being Wildly Aggressive, And Charging You With Assault Today, Sir?”

    http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/do-you-know-why-im-pulling-you-over-being-wildly-a-50916

  4. Steven Says:

    @11:11

    What do you mean by your talkshoe call page? What do you mean by promoting?

  5. Andy Says:

    @ Steven, When I click on your name, “Steven”, the link takes me to a talkshoe page. It’s that page that you’re “promoting”. ==> imbatman57’s Community Call

    I have posted comments a few times in other articles that you responded to on marcstevens.net about you posting the imbatman57 link/URL… so you know well what 11:11 is “talking” about.

    You continue to discredit yourself.

  6. Steven Says:

    @Andy

    Are you claiming that I can read minds? What do you mean by discredit yourself?

  7. desertspeaks Says:

    @ Steven,.. POST YOUR COURT CITES that are a result of you’re REMAINING IN HONOR!
    What’s that? you don’t actually have any of those?? More bs from the lunatic fringe!

  8. Steven Says:

    @desertspeaks What do you mean by court cites? Do you believe everything you read?

  9. desertspeaks Says:

    @ steven.. is that what I asked? you sound as though you are deflecting and dancing away from my question because you GOT NOTHIN!

  10. Steven Says:

    @desertspeaks What did you ask?

  11. desertspeaks Says:

    @ steven,. apparently english comprehension isn’t your strong point.. court citations, ie dismissals that support your voodoo bs honor crap! Where you “stayed in honor” and the judge was so overcome with your honor, he dismissed the case/cases.
    Clear enough for you now??

  12. desertspeaks Says:

    I do so love it when they feign stupidity!

  13. Steven Says:

    @desertspeaks Would you rather I assume to know what you mean by the words and phrases you use? What do you mean by court citations? What do you mean by dismissals? What do you mean by judge? What do you mean by case? Could it be you assume the worst about brothers and sisters because you refuse to ask what the words and phrases used mean? Knowledge: the forbidden fruit?

  14. desertspeaks Says:

    @ steven, blah blah blah.. either post verifiable citations or be gone.. no one is going to buy your lies here!

  15. Steven Says:

    @desertspeaks What do you mean by verifiable citations? What do you mean by your lies?

  16. desertspeaks Says:

    Oh good lord it’s clint under a new id!

  17. desertspeaks Says:

    When someone doesn’t have a plausible answer to a question, they resort to steven/clint incantations to distract from the fact THEY GOT NOTHIN!

  18. desertspeaks Says:

    So much for your, HONOR!

  19. RAD Says:

    “Steven Says:
    August 2nd, 2015 at 6:18 am

    Could it be that if people quit assuming what was meant when certain words are used, and started staying in honor (wanting what’s best for everyone, instead of wanting to ‘win’), Marc Stevens and all the other conspiracy theorists would be out of a job?”

    What do you mean “honor”?

    What do you mean “conspiracy theorist”?

    Could it be that putting unfounded presumptions in the form of a loaded question is another way of making claims?

    Could it be asking a loaded question in which you presume Marc is a “conspiracy theorist” is still putting forth a claim (that Marc is a conspiracy theorist)? But just doing it in a passive aggressive, indirect manner?

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions

  20. Steven Says:

    @RAD By honor, I mean the best for everyone. By conspiracy theorist, I mean people that assume the worst about ‘other’ people.

    What do you mean by unfounded presumptions? Could it be Marc Stevens claims to believe in conspiracies?

  21. desertspeaks Says:

    @ steven. you have no honor, you can’t even keep your honor in a simple conversation! be gone fool!

  22. Steven Says:

    @desertspeaks If I offended you, would you please forgive me?

  23. desertspeaks Says:

    NO! you’re a fool.

  24. desertspeaks Says:

    fyi, i know your apology trick too.. in your mind, the INCANTATION of “please forgive me” retains your honor! Doesn’t work in the real world, only between the ears of the mentally deficient

  25. Steven Says:

    OK. Hopefully that doesn’t cause an ulcer or something…

    What do you mean by fool?

  26. desertspeaks Says:

    You are of no more consequence to me than a single grain of sand upon a beach, nothing remarkable and having no effect upon my life! I just want everyone else to know you for the liar you are!

  27. RAD Says:

    Well I know he did used to talk about the 911 inside job thing(before I really got into the show) on his show but lately he doesn’t really focus on 911 or conspiracy theories and he doesn’t preach conspiracies as a dogma. But “assume the worst”? How do you know that without just assuming/presuming?

  28. RAD Says:

    When is the last time Marc claimed to believe in a conspiracy? The only one I know of him pushing is that I know he used to talk about the 911 truth stuff but I don’t think he has hardly made much serious mention of conspiracy theories for kind of a long while.

  29. Steven Says:

    I suppose it could be a assumption or presumption, depending on how you define it 🙂

    Seems Marc Stevens, along with most people, believe there are people with ‘authority’ (guess he might claim ‘illegitimate authority’ or something like that) that are out to screw ‘other’ people over. That, seems to me to be assuming the worst.

  30. desertspeaks Says:

    reality doesn’t support your assesment

  31. desertspeaks Says:

    Notice that steven offers no proof of his claims! just his beliefs!

  32. RAD Says:

    He focuses on challenging evidence of this “authority” that OTHERS claim (this isn’t Marc’s claim). I don’t recall him saying “screw”, what he says is they attack using threats. The facts bear these stories out: there is a pattern where they use conditional threats like “pay or go to jail”. None of this requires hidden collusion or conspiracy. Collusion can be right out in the open. But when it is it’s not conspiracy. Marc’s material isn’t orientated or focused on secret deals or speculating on possible secret collusive partnerships/schemes. So I think conspiracy theorist is kind of misleading if not 100% unfounded. Since that really is not the focus of his material to any meaningful extent. Marc’s material stands on its own merit and doesn’t need us to defend it but slapping the label “conspiracy theorist” on it seems to me like an intellectually dishonest poison the well type argument (regardless that it was presented as a presumption in a loaded question, by presuming it in such manner you are still advancing the claim, just as a passive aggressive just- asking- questions type accusation). By the way I like your youtube channel, it’s one of my favorites. I like the Batman stuff. The new one was kind of disappointing but he does get into some interesting ideas in the other ones.

  33. desertspeaks Says:

    conspiracy theory was invented by the cia to dissuade people from believing facts and to discredit the messenger of those facts!

  34. Andy Says:

    Here’s the first comment/post to the July 4, NSP show:
    “Steven Richards Says:
    July 5th, 2015 at 5:08 am
    Could it be if someone claims to be a wise man, it surely means they don’t know?”
    Here’s the URL to that NSP show notes post: http://marcstevens.net/radioarchive/nsp20150704.html

    Here’s the second comment from there in reply to Steven Richards, aka, Steven:
    Andy Says:
    July 5th, 2015 at 6:16 am
    It could be. It depends on discovering the facts. It could also be someone that asks such a question is trolling this comment section.

    Simply put, Steven, aka, Steven Richards, the troll is back with his batman57 talkshoe link/URL.

  35. desertspeaks Says:

    anything is possible with their ilk

  36. RAD Says:

    Yeah, I think Marc used “screw” in totally a different context. In this context he uses the word “attack” pretty consistently. Seems like Marc’s positions are so solidly grounded that the critics have to go into strawman mode. I noticed Clint did this too. “So what you’re really saying…” type mischaracterization. They have no real rebuttal to anything Marc’s actually putting forward so it must be changed into something they can argue against.

  37. RAD Says:

    To calm/placate the cognitive dissonance is what I get from it.

  38. RAD Says:

    Could it be:

    ??? Steven Richards = Batman ???

  39. Andy Says:

    How many police brutality videos have I seen that are evidence that cops conspired to hide what really happened?

    The most recent conspiracy theory revealed to be conspiracy *fact* is the police that conspired to hide what really happened (ie, cover up). See the third NSP show note posted above: “The cop who served a no-knock warrant on the wrong house, which led to a grenade being thrown on a baby sleeping in a crib, falsified the affidavit to obtain the warrant in the first place.”

  40. Steven Says:

    “what he says is they attack using threats”

    Could it be he believes people are being threatened, but has no proof? Maybe if the people “being threatened” stopped assuming what words mean when used, such as ‘you’, ‘court’, ‘trial’, ‘judge’, ‘officer’, ‘pay’, ‘own’ etc, they would realize the “threats” were only in ‘their’ heads?

  41. RAD Says:

    Yeah but there is ample evidence that those who belong to this cult of government follow through on their threats that they are at least somewhat credible some of the time. You can’t just wish away 1000/yr killed by police with philosophy. That’s a real fact that has to be accounted for in the analysis otherwise it’s cherrypicking to say the violence is hypothetical. It’s not. It’s real at least some of the time.

  42. RAD Says:

    They just shot a dude in the street over a license plate. The threat is real.

  43. Andy Says:

    Steven, You’re delusional if you believe typing a question mark at the end of a statement magically turns a statement into a question.

  44. desertspeaks Says:

    steven, disinformation shill!

  45. RAD Says:

    Riddle me this Batman…
    Could it be that when you/batman/bob/whoever say “The Government is the Left Hand of God” that it’s just some mystical BS you/batman/whoever pulled out of your magic hat? What is that supposed to mean: “The Government is the Left Hand of God”? Could it be you have some religious delusional notion of the government as this heavenly savior and it’s clouding your perception? And that your religious notion of government doesn’t jibe with Marc’s fact-based claim that they are just people threatening other people to make them pay? And that these conflicting ideas cause you cognitive dissonance? Could it be?

  46. Steven Says:

    Maybe one day Marc and the rest of you on here will get over the conspiracy theories and begin enjoying life? “I guess I’ll die explaining how the things that they complain about are things they could be changing, hoping someone’s gonna care”…

  47. Steven Says:

    Opps… conspiracy theories OR beliefs that there is a ‘government’ and it’s ‘bad’

  48. Steven Says:

    “there is ample evidence that those who belong to this cult of government follow through on their threats that they are at least somewhat credible some of the time”

    Maybe that wouldn’t happen if the one being beaten or killed interacted differently… maybe it would. Some people are violent… even the ones that believe they work for ‘the state’, whatever that is…

  49. Steven Says:

    “What is that supposed to mean: “The Government is the Left Hand of God”?”

    Guess you’d have to ask the one called Batman… seems like something someone that believes in ‘the government’ would claim… lol bet he’d love hearing that

  50. Steven Says:

    “Could it be that when you/batman/bob/whoever say “The Government is the Left Hand of God” that it’s just some mystical BS you/batman/whoever pulled out of your magic hat? Could it be you have some religious delusional notion of the government as this heavenly savior and it’s clouding your perception? And that your religious notion of government doesn’t jibe with Marc’s fact-based claim that they are just people threatening other people to make them pay? And that these conflicting ideas cause you cognitive dissonance?”

    It could be. Is that what you believe?

    Could it be I believe the new model that will make the old model obsolete is staying in honor, while you still believe the new model will be anarchy?

  51. Steven Says:

    “they are just people” Agreed…

    “threatening other people to make them pay” What do you mean by threatened?

  52. Andy Says:

    Steven, you continue to verify that you’re a troll when you give hint that you may be a police-brutality apologist.

  53. Steven Says:

    What do you mean by police-brutality apologist? People get beaten and killed. Shit happens, regardless of whether or not someone’s wearing a so called badge and believes they work for ‘the state’. Could it be some people prefer to claim no responsibility for the effects that occur from how they interact with ‘others’?

  54. Andy Says:

    Steven said: “Could it be some people prefer to claim no responsibility for the effects that occur from how they interact with ‘others’?”

    That’s you in spades!

  55. RAD Says:

    “Steven Says:
    August 2nd, 2015 at 4:31 pm

    Opps… conspiracy theories OR beliefs that there is a ‘government’ and it’s ‘bad’”

    This is exactly what I’m talking about:
    http://marcstevens.net/board/thread-7957.html
    I’m talking about the concept batman pushes, government as divine, now we get sidetracked onto talking about “it’s bad”. Whether or not they use threats to force them to pay is a conclusion. One based on facts. Not based on whether or not those facts are good facts or bad facts. Our value judgements of “good” or “bad” are irrelevant in forming factual conclusions. When we start forming such conclusions of fact on our idea of “good” or “bad” that’s called “bias”.

  56. Andy Says:

    Steven, could it be that you are delusional, a troll and a fool?

  57. desertspeaks Says:

    again, notice that steven is stirring the pot.. distracting, an agent provocateur.. his claims are baseless, he is devoid of tangible factual firsthand irrefutable evidence in support of his lies.

  58. RAD Says:

    Could it be that Anarchy and staying in honor are the same thing? That treating each other as equals is the way to stay in honor and that trying to rule over others with threats, lies and violence is dishonor?

  59. desertspeaks Says:

    Steven says ”
    Steven Says:
    August 2nd, 2015 at 4:26 pm
    Maybe one day Marc and the rest of you on here will get over the conspiracy theories and begin enjoying life? “I guess I’ll die explaining how the things that they complain about are things they could be changing, hoping someone’s gonna care”…

    but he offers no proof of his claims, nothing, he “like every government agent” just expects you to believe his lies just because he believes them! No difference!

  60. RAD Says:

    He can’t even specify what the “conspiracy” is. He just uses the term as a pejorative poison the well. People who call themselves government attack other people by making conditional threats. We don’t have to believe in any sort of conspiracy to reach this conclusion. No one had to make a secret deal or conspire in any way for this claim/statement to be verified. All we have to prove is:
    1. There are people who identify themselves as government agents. Do the facts support this or do we need to invent a conspiracy (secret collusive scheme) to believe this?
    2. They (the people in element #1 of claim) use conditional threats like “pay or go to jail”. Again, no one has to make a secret deal in order for this to be true. There is no conspiracy being alleged. Either the facts support it or they don’t.

  61. Steve Says:

    What happened to the program? I downloaded it and as Ol’ Constanza would say… “Nothing, I got nothing”. It was silent from beginning to end.
    Anyway you can repost the one with sound? I’m sure it was a technical screw up. Thanks.

  62. Andy Says:

    @ Steve, I downloaded the 192kbps – 48kHz – stereo [full podcast] [ 176.05 MB ] file and it played fine from start to finish. I just downloaded the smaller file [29.49 MB] and it’s also playing fine.

    Perhaps a silly question; are your speakers muted and or the volume turned up?

  63. desertspeaks Says:

    played fine here, maybe it’s a CONSPIRACY!

  64. Steven Says:

    “Whether or not they use threats to force them to pay is a conclusion. One based on facts.”

    What do you mean by threats? If someone threatens ‘you’ and you assume they’re talking to you, and assume to know what the words they’re using mean, such as ‘pay’ (or go to ‘jail’), who’s to bless and who’s to blame?

    “Could it be that Anarchy and staying in honor are the same thing?”

    Maybe it depends on how you define the terms? I believe they’re completely different, but what do I know? I believe people staying in honor are able to enjoy the moment, but anarchist will only be able to enjoy the moment if they succeed in taking away the option to believe that ‘the state’ exists…

  65. Jeff Says:

    “Moops”. lol. internet says it was was an actual misprint from a Jeopardy board game. I know you always wanted to know this!

  66. Andy Says:

    Steven said: “I believe people staying in honor are able to enjoy the moment, but anarchist will only be able to enjoy the moment if they succeed in taking away the option to believe that ‘the state’ exists”

    My moments of enjoyment have nothing to do with whether you believe a state exists. My enjoyment is in no way predicated on what you believe.

    Say you’ve stayed in honor and a cop shoots you, do you enjoy the moment of being shot, hoping the paramedics arrive before you bleed to death?

    Can you explain how 19-month-old Bounkham “Bou Bou” Phonesavanh lying in his crib wasn’t in honor, and if he was in honor, how could he have enjoyed the moment of a flashbang grenade blowing a hole in his chest? (see the third NSP show note above for more on that and the conspiracy fact to cover up what really happened.)

    Steven, could it be that you are delusional, a troll and a fool?

  67. Steven Says:

    “Say you’ve stayed in honor and a cop shoots you, do you enjoy the moment of being shot, hoping the paramedics arrive before you bleed to death?”

    What do you mean by “a cop”? Do you mean a brother or sister that believes they work for ‘the state’? If so, could it be sometimes we fuck up, whether we believe we work for ‘the state’ or not?

    “Can you explain how 19-month-old Bounkham “Bou Bou” Phonesavanh lying in his crib wasn’t in honor, and if he was in honor, how could he have enjoyed the moment of a flashbang grenade blowing a hole in his chest?”

    Are you claiming the one that threw the flashbang was solely responsible? Could it be the parents interacted with someone before the incident, in a way that caused the incident?

    It could be that I’m delusional, a troll and a fool. Is that what you believe? I believe I’ve been called worse… 🙂 I’ve found that ‘explaining how the things that they complain about, are things they could be changing’ seems like being an asshole/delusional/troll/fool to most people. Do you believe that I should ‘make a change’, and if so, in what way?

  68. Andy Says:

    Steven (aka, Steven ?Richards) said: “It could be that I’m delusional, a troll and a fool. Is that what you believe? ”

    It’s not what I believe. It’s what I know.

    “Are you claiming the one that threw the flashbang was solely responsible?

    Yes. I’ve not read, seen, nor heard of anyone having forced the cop to throw the grenade.

    “Could it be the parents interacted with someone before the incident, in a way that caused the incident?”

    You didn’t answer my question. Instead you replied with a diversion to evade answer the question which you even quoted.

    “Can you explain how 19-month-old Bounkham “Bou Bou” Phonesavanh lying in his crib wasn’t in honor, and if he was in honor, how could he have enjoyed the moment of a flashbang grenade blowing a hole in his chest?”

    Like I said, it’s not that I believe you’re delusional, a troll and a fool. Rather, it’s that I know you are delusional, a troll and a fool.

  69. Andy Says:

    Correction of the above typo: Steven (aka, Steven Richards) said:

  70. Andy Says:

    Drone politics ==> I was just doing my job, just following orders, doing what I was programed to do.

  71. Andy Says:

    Andy said: “Say you’ve stayed in honor and a cop shoots you, do you enjoy the moment of being shot, hoping the paramedics arrive before you bleed to death?”

    Steven said: “What do you mean by “a cop”? Do you mean a brother or sister that believes they work for ‘the state’? If so, could it be sometimes we fuck up, whether we believe we work for ‘the state’ or not?”

    You didn’t answer my question. Instead you replied with a diversion/misdirection (a magicians slight of hand trick) to evade answering the question. Do you enjoy the moment of being shot, hoping the paramedics arrive before you bleed to death?

  72. Steven Says:

    Yep. I’d enjoy the moment very much. Does that help?

    Why bring up the question of enjoying being shot?

  73. Steven Says:

    How can anyone answer any question honestly until there’s an agreement on what the terms being used mean?

  74. Andy Says:

    Steven said: “How can anyone answer any question honestly until there’s an agreement on what the terms being used mean?”

    What, general dictionary definitions aren’t sufficient for you?

    When you wrote: “Yep. I’d enjoy the moment very much.” — Did you answer the question honestly?

    I mean, we hadn’t agreed on terms so I guess that would mean you couldn’t answer the question honestly, right? But somehow you were able to reply and didn’t need agreement on terms/definitions. You used general dictionary definitions for your reply and had no need whatsoever for my agreement on terms when you typed your reply.

    I gotta laugh. I’m picturing a stranger asking you what time it is and you reply: what do you mean by time?

    enjoy: To receive pleasure or satisfaction from. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/enjoy

    Apparently you have a different definition of enjoy. That, or you’re a masochist with a death wish.

  75. Steven Says:

    “general dictionary definitions aren’t sufficient for you?”

    Did you write something called ‘general dictionary’? If not, are you claiming you want someone ‘else’ to define the words you use?

    Are you not going to define the word ‘cop’, then?

  76. Andy Says:

    Steven, did you answer my question honestly?

    “Say you’ve stayed in honor and a cop shoots you, do you enjoy the moment of being shot, hoping the paramedics arrive before you bleed to death?”

    “Yep. I’d enjoy the moment very much.”

    Did you answer the question honestly? When you judge whether your actions are honest or dishonest, is your judgement predicted on my agreement to the meaning of terms?

    “Are you not going to define the word ‘cop’, then?”

    Is a cop a criminal? Define criminal. An individual that initiates force, threat of force or coercion against another individual or their property. Look, it doesn’t matter who the criminal is that shoots you despite you having stayed in honor.

    Criminals are homo sapiens, thus we (they and I) are of the same species. Criminals are not my brothers and sisters.

  77. Andy Says:

    Steven said: “Could it be that if people quit assuming what was meant when certain words are used, and started staying in honor (wanting what’s best for everyone, instead of wanting to ‘win’), Marc Stevens and all the other conspiracy theorists would be out of a job?”

    What do you mean by the term, could?
    What do you mean by the term, it?
    What do you mean by the term, be?
    What do you mean by the term, that?
    What do you mean by the term, if?
    What do you mean by the term, people?
    What do you mean by the term, quit?
    What do you mean by the term, assuming?
    What do you mean by the term, what?
    What do you mean by the term, was?
    What do you mean by the term, meant?
    What do you mean by the term, when?
    What do you mean by the term, certain?
    What do you mean by the term, words?
    What do you mean by the term, are?
    What do you mean by the term, used?
    What do you mean by the term, and?
    What do you mean by the term, started?
    What do you mean by the term, staying?
    What do you mean by the term, in?
    What do you mean by the term, honor?
    What do you mean by the term…

    You get the idea.

    Steven said: “wanting what’s best for everyone, instead of wanting to ‘win’”

    A voluntary/anarchistic society is win-win. Meaning, it’s best for everyone. Obviously, it’s a win for individuals that aren’t criminals. A criminal may not process it as a win for himself/herself but so long as he/she stops committing crimes his/her voluntary interactions with others means he/she won’t be killed by someone acting in self-defense.

  78. Steven Says:

    So you’re claiming a so called cop is a criminal, and that criminals “initiate force, threat of force or coercion against another individual or their property”? If so, have you ever asked a so called cop who ‘you’ is he/she was seeming to threaten? What do you mean by ‘their property’?

    “Did you answer the question honestly?”
    Who knows? Maybe I can ‘answer’ more accurately when we get to the bottom of what you mean by ‘cop’, or ‘criminal’?

    “When you judge whether your actions are honest or dishonest, is your judgement predicted on my agreement to the meaning of terms?”

    Could it be you lost me? But who was phone?

    “A voluntary/anarchistic society is win-win. Meaning, it’s best for everyone”

    How’s that working for you? Enjoying the moment?

  79. Steven Says:

    “You get the idea”

    What idea?

  80. Andy Says:

    Steven said: “What idea”

    Steven, you feigning stupidity suits you well, don’t you agree?

    I said: “A voluntary/anarchistic society is win-win. Meaning, it’s best for everyone”

    Steven said: “How’s that working for you? Enjoying the moment?”

    My voluntary interactions with others is working great as I enjoy those moments.
    Criminals initiating force, threat of force and coercion against me I’m not enjoying whatsoever.

    You being a statist apologist it’s near certain that you believe I should stay in honor with criminals; isn’t that right? How about criminals stay in honor with me and leave me alone when I tell the to leave me alone; you disagree with that, right?

    The golden rule applies: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

  81. Steven Says:

    Not going to elaborate on what idea you were referring to then?

    “Criminals initiating force, threat of force and coercion against me I’m not enjoying whatsoever.”

    If you’re referring to so called cops, if one said ‘you pay or you go to jail’, would you assume to know what the words being used mean and believe you’re being threatened, or would you ask ‘if you’re talking to me, what do you mean by pay and/or jail?’

    “How about criminals stay in honor with me and leave me alone when I tell the to leave me alone”

    Are you claiming you ‘should’ dictate how ‘others’ interact with you?

  82. Andy Says:

    Steven said: “have you ever asked a so called cop who ‘you’ is he/she was seeming to threaten?”

    When I was eight years old staring into the barrel of a cop’s gun it was clear to me who the cop was threatening to shoot. There was no “seeming to threaten” about it. I was threatened. And when the cop proceeded to throw me on the hood of his car he initiated violence against me. Nothing seeming about that either.

    If you don’t comprehend that perhaps I should add idiot to delusional, troll and fool; what do you think?

  83. Steven Says:

    What happened before the gun being pointed at you and before being thrown on the car?

  84. Steven Says:

    Nevermind. I’m sure you were completely ‘innocent’ and did nothing dishonorable. and i’m sure the so called cop did what he did because he believed he worked for ‘the state’ and not because he was human and humans sometimes make mistakes…

  85. Andy Says:

    Andy said: “You being a statist apologist it’s near certain that you believe I should stay in honor with criminals; isn’t that right? How about criminals stay in honor with me and leave me alone when I tell the to leave me alone; you disagree with that, right?”

    Steven said: “Are you claiming you ‘should’ dictate how ‘others’ interact with you?”

    What part of “leave me alone” leads you to believe I want any interaction with the individual I told to leave me alone? You, with your intellectual dishonesty intentionally misconstrued it to imply that I want to dictate how others interact with me.

  86. Andy Says:

    Steven said: “I’m sure you were completely ‘innocent’ and did nothing dishonorable.”

    That’s absolutely correct.

    Steven said: “and i’m sure the so called cop did what he did because he believed he worked for ‘the state’”

    That too is absolutely correct. He was a political drone, just doing his job, just following orders, just as he was programmed to do.

    Steven said: “and not because he was human and humans sometimes make mistakes.”

    Tell that to the few survivors a Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was, just a mistake. Please forgive me for near instantly incinerating eighty thousand innocent men, women and children. Just call it a mistake and any malevolent act, no matter how heinous, it may be forgiven — because afterall, it was a mistake. Tell it to Eric Garner’s family and friends. Tell it to all the rape victims. It was all a mistake, and you should forgive the person that rapped you.

  87. Andy Says:

    I don’t dictate how any individual should interact with me. Criminals dictate how their victims should interact with them. Give me your money or your life, says the robber. Pay me or go to jail (aka, be kidnapped and put in a cage), says the political drone. Mr. government type (politician, judge, bureaucrat, LEO, etc) if I did business as you and forced people to give me money, would you consider me a criminal?

  88. Steven Says:

    ‘What part of “leave me alone” leads you to believe I want any interaction with the individual I told to leave me alone?’

    What do you mean by ‘leave me alone’? Are you claiming ‘others’ ‘should’ be forced to not interact with you if you say so? ‘Should’ there be ‘penalties’ also for not obeying?

  89. Andy Says:

    Honor Killing — from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing

    “An honor killing is the homicide of a member of a family by other members, due to the perpetrators’ belief that the victim has brought shame or dishonor upon the family, or has violated the principles of a community or a religion, usually for reasons such as refusing to enter an arranged marriage, being in a relationship that is disapproved by their family, having sex outside marriage, becoming the victim of rape, dressing in ways which are deemed inappropriate, or engaging in homosexual relations.[1][2][3][4][5]”

  90. Andy Says:

    @Steven, what exactly do you mean by the term, “stay in honor”?

  91. Steven Says:

    stay in honor = the best for everyone (instead of trying to win), communicate clearly (aka ask for words and terms to be defined if unsure of what’s meant), usually preface claims with ‘i think’ or ‘i believe’ if not clear without, and if it seems i offended someone ask ‘if i offended you, would you please forgive me?’

  92. Andy Says:

    Steven said: “Are you claiming ‘others’ ‘should’ be forced to not interact with you if you say so?”

    Absolutely not. That said, if you put your hands on me and I tell you, “leave me alone, get your hands off me”, and you don’t remove your hands from my body I may break your hands in the process of removing them from my body.

    Steven, do you think it’s okay for you to put your hands on me without my permission? Do you think it’s okay for anyone to shove a broom handle or billy club/baton/night stick up your butt hole without your permission?

  93. Andy Says:

    Steven said: “stay in honor = the best for everyone…”

    Best for everyone is that all interactions are voluntary interactions. Because, in everyday life, that’s what anarchism comes down to. Are you claiming that “the best for everyone” is that some interactions with ‘others’ ‘should’ be by way of initiation of force/violence, threat of violence/force and coercion?

  94. Steven Says:

    ‘Are you claiming that “the best for everyone” is that some interactions with ‘others’ ‘should’ be by way of initiation of force/violence, threat of violence/force and coercion?’

    I’m happy with the way things are… unlike some people 🙂

    Should or shouldn’t? Who cares?

    Threats and initiation? Could it be the ones you’re referring to only exist in the mind you’re using? 😉

  95. Andy Says:

    Steven said: “I’m happy with the way things are.”

    That says it all because many, if not most people that come here to marcstevens.net aren’t happy about certain events; meaning, they’re very dissatisfied with the initiation of violence, threat of violence and coercion that is occuring essentially every second of every day the world over by men and women calling themselves gvernment; government types claiming their killings, thefts and lies are legitimate.

  96. Steven Says:

    “many, if not most people that come here to marcstevens.net aren’t happy”

    You don’t say? I’m completely shocked…

    “initiation of violence, threat of violence and coercion”

    Maybe if you repeat it enough times, it will become true? Could it be you’re mistaken? Could it be the so called initiation of violence, threat of violence and coercion you’re referring to only exists in the minds used by people that believe in such things?

  97. RAD Says:

    “Could it be the parents interacted with someone before the incident, in a way that caused the incident?”

    That’s an interesting conspiracy theory. But you know what they say about you conspiracy theorists.

  98. RAD Says:

    “Could it be the so called initiation of violence, threat of violence and coercion you’re referring to only exists in the minds used by people that believe in such things?”

    The evidence is too persuasive. I think if you haven’t looked into it or choose to deny the evidence then you can pretend it’s not there. It’s not happening to you right now. That’s great. I hope it never does. But at the same time, there’s a lot of people who aren’t living on the planet you can’t ask that question to because they got a bomb dropped on their head by Obama’s toy robots. Sorry bro you are going into holocaust-denier type denialism. Is Nagasaki a big magic show that was created as an illusion? WTF do you think all the missiles are for? Oh, wait, maybe they’re imaginary. What do you think the stockpiles of nukes are a delusion?!?!
    I’m glad that you’re glad a nuke isn’t falling on you right this minute. And if pretending it’s never happened to anyone else helps you live in the moment by blocking out the facts from your awareness then great. This is what I was asking about in the post the consequences of belief. Maybe you are better off in your make believe world where the tanks and bombs are a big fable in your mind. Maybe the consequences of denialism is that you are genuinely happier as a result. And if so I’m genuinely glad for you and respect it. I really wonder if such type of make belief does have good consequences for the believer. If ignorance is bliss then who am I or anyone else to try to steal that bliss?

  99. Andy Says:

    A person can chose to ignore certain aspects of reality but the person cannot avoid the consequence of ignoring those aspects of reality.

  100. Andy Says:

    Andy said: “…many, if not most people that come here to marcstevens.net aren’t happy about certain events; meaning, they’re very dissatisfied with…”

    Steven quoted Andy leaving out key context: “many, if not most people that come here to marcstevens.net aren’t happy”… He omitted this=> about certain events; meaning, they’re very dissatisfied with the initiation of violence, threat of violence and coercion that is occurring essentially every second of every day the world over by men and women calling themselves government; government types claiming their killings, thefts and lies are legitimate.

    Steven isn’t truly interested in understanding the meaning of terms. For if he was intellectually honest he wouldn’t have chosen to omit the meaning I gave.

  101. Andy Says:

    Andy said: “initiation of violence, threat of violence and coercion”

    Steven said: “Maybe if you repeat it enough times, it will become true? Could it be you’re mistaken? Could it be the so called initiation of violence, threat of violence and coercion you’re referring to only exists in the minds used by people that believe in such things?

    It already is true and has been true for a very long time. No, I’m not mistaken. And the answer to your third question is, no.

    America’s Largest Street Gang, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSCCH6qEIFE

  102. Andy Says:

    desertspeaks said: “Oh good lord it’s clint under a new id!”…”When someone doesn’t have a plausible answer to a question, they resort to steven/clint incantations to distract from the fact THEY GOT NOTHIN!”

    Here’s Steven’s reply to, “initiation of violence, threat of violence and coercion” Steven said: “Maybe if you repeat it enough times, it will become true?”

    Clint Richardson said the same thing during the so-called debate.

  103. desertspeaks Says:

    Stop feeding into his “stevens” desperate desire for attention, he was ignored as a child and now begs for any kind attention! It doesn’t matter to him what kind of attention he gets “negative or positive” he just wants someone to notice him!

    He obviously has no evidence supporting his lies because no such evidence exists or he would have produced it..

  104. RAD Says:

    I think the bicameral mind can actually hallucinate things in reverse. I mean not only put imaginary entities into the mind but also even block the consciousness from apprehending the perceptions the person may be exposed to.

  105. summer apple Says:

    RAD, I admire you for having an open mind while while at the same time, it seems you keep your integrity intact.

  106. summer apple Says:

    A closed mind learns nothing.

  107. summer apple Says:

    Oh – and thank you Marc, for making it easier for all to access the forum.

  108. Andy Says:

    @ RAD, have you read The origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind, by Julian Jaynes?

    @ summer apple: Can you say the same about Steven as you have of RAD, and, what is your assessment of Steven?

  109. Andy Says:

    Steven said: “Could it be that if people quit assuming what was meant when certain words are used, and started staying in honor (wanting what’s best for everyone, instead of wanting to ‘win’), Marc Stevens and all the other conspiracy theorists would be out of a job?”

    Steven said: “I’m happy with the way things are.”

    Show note #21 above: “Part of becoming an adult is ridding ourselves of our contradictory positions.”

  110. Steven Says:

    Are you claiming I’m unhappy because people believe conspiracy theories? I believe I used to be unhappy because I believed conspiracy theories, so I believe I can empathize, or at least sympathize with conspiracy theorists, but why would their beliefs effect ‘my’ happiness?

    I just hope the one I call son never gets into the shit… but I doubt he will 😉

  111. Steven Says:

    Might not have been the conspiracy theories themselves that made me unhappy, actually it was probably just wanting the world to be different than it was…

  112. Andy Says:

    “Part of becoming an adult is ridding ourselves of our contradictory positions.”

    Grow up Steven.

  113. summer apple Says:

    Marc, I spoke too soon. I noticed the: “If you want to join the forum, you must email me a username so I can create the account. This is to stop the flood of spambots”.

    So I clicked on the link you provided and it took me to the “About” page. Your email is marcstevens@mail.com, right?

  114. RAD Says:

    It is simply not rational to choose what to believe based on how it makes you feel. [emotion] therefore x is not a rational argument. But thanks for sharing your emotions with us. There’s really no rational conclusions to draw from it as far as any of the subject matter of the show so it’s kind of off-topic and irrelevant to Marc’s material.

    “Could it be the parents interacted with someone before the incident, in a way that caused the incident?”

    Right here you are alluding to a conspiracy theory. The incident was a drug raid. You are implying drug dealing, which is a type of conspiracy(unless someone deals drugs to themselves, they need a co-conspirator). Who cares if you believe it or not or if it makes you happy or not. It’s not the point – the point is you alleged a conspiracy at least by allusion if not explicitly. I’m happy for you that you’re so happy, that’s great.

    “summer apple Says:
    August 3rd, 2015 at 11:31 pm

    RAD, I admire you for having an open mind while while at the same time, it seems you keep your integrity intact.”

    Thanks I think you and the other regular posters on here have that same kind of approach because I think it’s kind of the implicit “value” Marc has taken and exemplified, and it’s probably what draws us to the interest in the show. The Socratic type of skeptical, logical fact-based reasoning is kind of the core of NSP philosophy imo. Part of taking a skeptical, look-at-the-facts approach is actually accepting the facts as they are given to us rather than filtering them by what facts make us happy or sad etc. Simply denying the facts that make us feel unhappy is not skepticism.

  115. RAD Says:

    “Andy Says:
    August 4th, 2015 at 12:10 am

    @ RAD, have you read The origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind, by Julian Jaynes?”

    Not really, I read about the theory on the forum post and I looked into the theory. Just started getting into it. In my opinion though it matches up with this government stuff, the way these statists have this externalized “entity” they are apparently hallucinating with the bicameral mind. Like they will say stuff like “The state argues…” “The State will attempt to prove” “New York claims…” where their reasoning is just dictated to them by this externalized supernatural entity they mentally project with magical hallucinatory thinking rather than by rational argument. I see it the same phenomena as:
    “…the bicameral individual was guided by mental commands believed to be issued by external “gods””

  116. RAD Says:

    Statists literally hallucinate that there is this supernatural “being” called “the state” which is commanding them. They just normally do not perceive it as supernatural since the hallucination is so “real” to them. I have had statists tell me they have actually seen the “Entity” called “The United States”. Ask a statist sometime if there is an “entity” called the “united States” and if they’ve ever seen it, how they know etc. They will insist it’s real and not imaginary and sometimes will actually claim they have personally seen it.

  117. Steven Says:

    “It is simply not rational to choose what to believe based on how it makes you feel”

    Agreed. Makes me wonder whether people buy into the ‘people are being threatened with violence’ belief system because it makes them feel like just an innocent victim… or if not, why? Granted, it was nice, for awhile, to point the finger at someone/something else, but part of growing up is getting over that BS.

    “A man only begins to be a man when he ceases to whine and revile, and commences to search for the hidden justice which regulates his life. And he adapts his mind to that regulating factor, he ceases to accuse others as the cause of his condition, and builds himself up in strong and noble thoughts; ceases to kick against circumstances, but begins to use them as aids to his more rapid progress, and as a means of the hidden powers and possibilities within himself.”

    “Right here you are alluding to a conspiracy theory. The incident was a drug raid. You are implying drug dealing, which is a type of conspiracy(unless someone deals drugs to themselves, they need a co-conspirator). Who cares if you believe it or not or if it makes you happy or not. It’s not the point – the point is you alleged a conspiracy at least by allusion if not explicitly.”

    Could it be instead of conspiracy theory, I was ‘alluding’ that the parents interacted dishonorably with a so called authority? They probably believed, like most people seem to, that ‘the state’ ‘threatens people with violence’, and that’s pretty much a surefire way to go into dishonor.

    “Part of taking a skeptical, look-at-the-facts approach is actually accepting the facts as they are given to us rather than filtering them by what facts make us happy or sad etc. Simply denying the facts that make us feel unhappy is not skepticism.”

    If someone assumes who ‘you’ is, and/or assumes what the word ‘pay’ and the word ‘jail’ mean if/when someone says ‘you pay or go to jail’, perhaps the denial is that there are assumptions being made? Perhaps the denial is the possibility that the words ‘you’, ‘pay’ and ‘jail’ could mean something other than what the one assuming to know believes?

  118. Andy Says:

    Steven Said: “Perhaps the denial is the possibility that the words ‘you’, ‘pay’ and ‘jail’ could mean something other than what the one assuming to know believes?”

    I gotta laugh. I’m picturing a stranger asking you what time it is and you reply: what do you mean by time?

  119. Steven Says:

    Do you believe there would be something wrong with asking that question?

  120. Andy Says:

    You didn’t ask a question. You made a statement. I repeat what I wrote above. “Steven, You’re delusional if you believe typing a question mark at the end of a statement magically turns a statement into a question.”

    Much more revealing that you’re truly delusional and not in mere denial is that you believe that initiation of force, threat of force and coercion don’t exist.

    Andy said: “initiation of violence, threat of violence and coercion”

    Steven said: “Maybe if you repeat it enough times, it will become true?

  121. Steven Says:

    Maybe now I believe it conveys what I mean more clearly to ask ‘would the threat and/or initiation of violence exist even if, instead of assuming to know what is meant by the words “you”, “pay” and “jail”, you asked what is meant?’

  122. Andy Says:

    I can’t make heads or tails of what you just wrote. It’s reads like gibberish to me.

  123. Steven Says:

    Instead of assuming ‘you pay or go to jail’ is a threat, would it even be a threat at all if you asked what is meant by ‘you’, ‘pay’ and ‘jail’?

  124. Andy Says:

    @Steven, Yes, it is a threat and worse. People are kidnapped and put in cages by criminals. Their threats are carried forward to acts of violence. The criminals make “good” on their threats. Those are the facts and how things are. You’re happy with that, you said so yourself: “I’m happy with the way things are” http://marcstevens.net/radioarchive/nsp20150801.html#comment-83609

    [url=http://marcstevens.net/radioarchive/nsp20150801.html#comment-83609]”I’m happy with the way things are”[/url]

  125. Steven Says:

    People assume they’re being threatened, then it turns out that they are being threatened, possibly because they assumed they were being threatened… where’s the problem? could it be there are no problems, only solutions?

  126. Andy Says:

    Steven said: “could it be there are no problems, only solutions?”

    No.

  127. desertspeaks Says:

    keep feeding the moron!

  128. Andy Says:

    I’m doing my best to have him highlight his delusions. 😉

  129. summer apple Says:

    desertspeaks, Deep breaths…..

    Steven, Sometimes it is impossible to know why someone is posting certain things. Is it because he/she is searching for answers or is it bc he/she is just being an ass-hole (emotionally responsive).

    That said, I know what it is to be the ass-hole. I think we all do.

  130. desertspeaks Says:

    Andy,
    good luck with that, but you’ll need a lot more than luck!

  131. NonEntity Says:

    summer apple sed: “That said, I know what it is to be the ass-hole. I think we all do.”
    —-
    I saw you looking at me when you said that! You coulda at least sed it sotto voce. :p

  132. desertspeaks Says:

    summer is channeling rodney king in a “can’t we all just get along” type of hug..
    I’m pretty sure she means well but sometimes, it just doesn’t work!

  133. Andy Says:

    Desert, it’s proven to be quite fruitful thus far.

    I mean, I’m *not* trying to get him (Steven) to recognize his delusions (though that wouldn’t be a bad thing for him if he did). Which brings to mind something Marc said in his talk at the 2009 New Hampshire Liberty Forum. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nrp5pFMbYx0

    Marc was speaking of “government” types pretending to be judges, prosecutors, police end etc, and importantly, that they don’t know they’re pretending. Here’s the kicker, “When has consciousness of your actions been an element of schizophrenia…Does a schizophreniac know he’s not Napolean?”

    Is a delusional person conscious of his/her delusions being delusions?

  134. Andy Says:

    Desert said: “summer is channeling rodney king in a “can’t we all just get along” type of hug..
    I’m pretty sure she means well but sometimes, it just doesn’t work!”

    Bumper sticker: Hug a Statist Today

    That might actually be effective — get people thinking.

  135. summer apple Says:

    desertspeaks, I love your passion. Channel it in a direction that will make the most impact.

  136. summer apple Says:

    Non, Full Definition of SOTTO VOCE

    1
    : under the breath : in an undertone; also : in a private manner
    2
    : very softly — used as a direction in music.

    Good to know you NonEntity.

  137. RAD Says:

    1 “They probably believed, like most people seem to, that ‘the state’ ‘threatens people with violence’,”

    2 “and that’s pretty much a surefire way to go into dishonor.”

    Got any facts whatsoever to base either of these 2 claims upon or are you purely making assumptions here? Are you “assuming the worst” and making accusations with no factual knowledge knowledge of the matter, or do you have such knowledge? If so, what would the facts be which support your claims? Anything?

  138. RAD Says:

    Well now that I think about it, I think I accept claim #2. Believing the state exists I think does cause people to act dishonorably generally.

  139. RAD Says:

    It’s actually men and women who call themselves government who threaten others with violence. The state is the deity of their religion.

  140. desertspeaks Says:

    summer
    you passive aggressive group hugger! 😛

  141. summer apple Says:

    desert, You seem very intent on hurting people. Is that your intent? What is your intent, exactly? Has someone hurt you?

  142. summer apple Says:

    I don’t like hugging. Anyone.

  143. desertspeaks Says:

    summer
    I wasn’t aware of your antisocial tendencies or your inability to interpret humor..
    I shall in future, refrain from communicating with you to avoid any miscommunication!

  144. summer apple Says:

    desert, my “antisocial tendencies” tend to come out when faced with antisocial people like yourself.

  145. desertspeaks Says:

    lashing out, what fun!

  146. summer apple Says:

    desert, lashing out could also be seen as defending one’s self. You seem to be quick to judge but slow to comprehend what I am saying.

  147. desertspeaks Says:

    Yeah and I clearly stated that you don’t grasp humor, which is blindingly evident at this point.. talk about no comprehension!

  148. desertspeaks Says:

    Just let it go, move on with your life!

  149. summer apple Says:

    I grasp humor just fine. F’n jerk.

  150. desertspeaks Says:

    Obviously not, and you’ve now resorted to profanity.. that high ground suddenly isn’t so holy

  151. RAD Says:

    Could it be throwing a grenade on a sleeping baby isn’t violent if the baby’s parents believe states are violent?

  152. summer apple Says:

    RAD, You are referring to: “The cop who served a no-knock warrant on the wrong house, which led to a grenade being thrown on a baby sleeping in a crib, falsified the affidavit to obtain the warrant in the first place”.

    “Could it be throwing a grenade on a sleeping baby isn’t violent if the baby’s parents believe states are violent”? It could be perceived that way. People believe anything.

    desert, I do not claim to stand on any holy ground.

  153. RAD Says:

    trying to summarize the proposition Steven is putting forth:

    “Can you explain how 19-month-old Bounkham “Bou Bou” Phonesavanh lying in his crib wasn’t in honor, and if he was in honor, how could he have enjoyed the moment of a flashbang grenade blowing a hole in his chest?”

    Are you claiming the one that threw the flashbang was solely responsible? Could it be the parents interacted with someone before the incident, in a way that caused the incident?

    Could it be the so called initiation of violence, threat of violence and coercion you’re referring to only exists in the minds used by people that believe in such things?

    Could it be instead of conspiracy theory, I was ‘alluding’ that the parents interacted dishonorably with a so called authority? They probably believed, like most people seem to, that ‘the state’ ‘threatens people with violence’, and that’s pretty much a surefire way to go into dishonor.

  154. NonEntity Says:

    Profanity?

    F’n A! 😉 Much more effective than actual data and reason. Booyah.

  155. Andy Says:

    RAD said: trying to summarize the proposition Steven is putting forth:

    Steven said: “@RAD By honor, I mean the best for everyone.”

    Steven stated that position at least three times. He put it in his first comment, the first comment at the top, and then he stated it a few more times.

    I put forth that staying in honor, meaning, what is best for everyone, is voluntary interactions — anarchy = having no one rule over you, no ruler(s); standing firm on the non aggression principle (NAP). That’s what is best for everyone.

    The NAP is violated with “pay or go to jail” and the NAP is violated with the initiation of force/violence, threat of force/violence and coercion.

    Steven divorces himself from reality, meaning, he goes delusional, when he asserts that the initiation of force/violence, threat of force/violence and coercion exist only in the mind.

    Steven quoted me: ““initiation of violence, threat of violence and coercion” and he replied saying: “Maybe if you repeat it enough times, it will become true”

    It’s clear to me that Steven is either delusional or intellectually dishonest. I tend to think the higher probability is that he’s delusional because it seems he actually believes what he writes. If he doesn’t believe what he writes then he’s intellectually dishonest.

    On the other hand, I can make a case for him being intellectually dishonest with this back-and-forth he and I had: (Keep in mind that Steven is big on defining the meaning of terms, as shown in several of his above comments.)

    ______________________________________

    Andy Says:
    August 3rd, 2015 at 2:29 pm
    Steven said: “stay in honor = the best for everyone…”

    Best for everyone is that all interactions are voluntary interactions. Because, in everyday life, that’s what anarchism comes down to. Are you claiming that “the best for everyone” is that some interactions with ‘others’ ‘should’ be by way of initiation of force/violence, threat of violence/force and coercion?

    ———
    Steven Says:
    August 3rd, 2015 at 2:40 pm
    ‘Are you claiming that “the best for everyone” is that some interactions with ‘others’ ‘should’ be by way of initiation of force/violence, threat of violence/force and coercion?’

    I’m happy with the way things are… unlike some people 🙂

    Should or shouldn’t? Who cares?

    Threats and initiation? Could it be the ones you’re referring to only exist in the mind you’re using? 😉

    ——–
    Andy Says:
    August 3rd, 2015 at 3:13 pm
    Steven said: “I’m happy with the way things are.”

    That says it all because many, if not most people that come here to marcstevens.net aren’t happy about certain events; meaning, they’re very dissatisfied with the initiation of violence, threat of violence and coercion that is occurring essentially every second of every day the world over by men and women calling themselves government; government types claiming their killings, thefts and lies are legitimate.

    ——-
    Steven Says:
    August 3rd, 2015 at 3:21 pm
    “many, if not most people that come here to marcstevens.net aren’t happy”

    You don’t say? I’m completely shocked…

    “initiation of violence, threat of violence and coercion”

    Maybe if you repeat it enough times, it will become true? Could it be you’re mistaken? Could it be the so called initiation of violence, threat of violence and coercion you’re referring to only exists in the minds used by people that believe in such things?

    ——-
    Andy Says:
    August 3rd, 2015 at 5:12 pm
    Andy said: “…many, if not most people that come here to marcstevens.net aren’t happy about certain events; meaning, they’re very dissatisfied with…”

    Steven quoted Andy leaving out key context: “many, if not most people that come here to marcstevens.net aren’t happy”… He omitted this=> about certain events; meaning, they’re very dissatisfied with the initiation of violence, threat of violence and coercion that is occurring essentially every second of every day the world over by men and women calling themselves government; government types claiming their killings, thefts and lies are legitimate.

    Steven isn’t truly interested in understanding the meaning of terms. For if he was intellectually honest he wouldn’t have chosen to omit the meaning I gave.
    ______________________________________

    Either way it bodes poorly for Steven. For his sake, he’d be better off being intellectually dishonest because if he is delusional that could get him seriously injured or killed by people that call themselves government or other common criminals. Whereas, if he is intellectually dishonest, he can acknowledge that when he is staring down the barrel of a gun that he is being threatened.

    Steven would believe that the reason the person is pointing the gun at him is because Steven was not in honor. Steven won’t acknowledge that the person pointing the gun at him is the one that’s not in honor. In other words, it’s Steven’s fault that the person is pointing the gun at him.

    It’s a scene played out many times on television and in movies. A criminal punches or shoots a non-violent person and says, “see what you made me do.”

    Also there’s his Gish Gallop: “The Gish Gallop is the debating technique of drowning an opponent in such a torrent of small arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer or address each one in real time. More often than not, these myriad arguments are full of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments— the only condition is that there be many of them, not that they be particularly compelling on their own. “ ~ http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

    It appears that Steven (aka, Steven Richards) is a “cloned” Clint Richardson. , http://marcstevens.net/radioarchive/nsp20150613.html

  156. summer apple Says:

    NonEntity, F’n a right. Sometimes I just want to let someone know how I feel. F data and reason sometimes, Spock. (I can be contradictory – I know)

    RAD, you said, “Could it be the so called initiation of violence, threat of violence and coercion you’re referring to only exists in the minds used by people that believe in such things”?

    I can’t speak for Steven, but yes – actions come after thoughts.

  157. desertspeaks Says:

    i felt your big ol box of crazy from here!

  158. desertspeaks Says:

    I am confused though, you throw data and reason out the window when it suits YOUR purpose,. But when I demand data and reason, somehow I’m unreasonable!
    Yup that box of crazy is an industrial sized box!

  159. Andy Says:

    Damit! In an above post I put a link/URL to the rationalwiki website and there’s a message atop my post/comment that reads: “Your comment is awaiting moderation.” I hate it when that happens.

  160. summer apple Says:

    Andy, I have tried posting links too, and I get the same thing.

    desert, What information do you “demand” from me? Please refresh my memory.

  161. summer apple Says:

    desert, Don’t start conversations that you do not plan on finishing, please.

  162. desertspeaks Says:

    i have neither the time nor the inclination to discuss your big ol box of crazy..
    My demand was for clint/steven not you.. your recall abilities leave much to be desired as well!

  163. NonEntity Says:

    Desert, I just love your expression: “your big ol box of crazy.” 😉

  164. Steven Says:

    “Steven would believe that the reason the person is pointing the gun at him is because Steven was not in honor. Steven won’t acknowledge that the person pointing the gun at him is the one that’s not in honor. In other words, it’s Steven’s fault that the person is pointing the gun at him.”

    Could the difference between you and I be that I would rather consider the possibility that I’ve messed up, so maybe I can do things differently in the future, instead of being ‘certain’ that I’ve done nothing to even contribute to a seemingly shitty situation?

    Speaking of messing up, maybe I did so by asking if the threats only existed in the minds you’re using. Maybe a ‘better’ question to ask would be: could it be the threats only exist if you believe they do? In other words, obviously the threats exist if you believe they do. If you fail to assume you’re being threatened, and instead ask what certain words or phrases mean, ask to speak with the one claiming you made a claim, and if someone seems offended ask ‘if I’ve offended you, would you please forgive me?’, would a threat ever exist?

  165. desertspeaks Says:

    steven, I do so hope you enjoy your delusion!

  166. Andy Says:

    I said all I need to say in this above post. August 6th, 2015 at 6:54 pm http://marcstevens.net/radioarchive/nsp20150801.html#comment-83996

    For anyone interested, the post was a day late being posted so you may not have seen it.

  167. summer apple Says:

    Steven, You said, “…I would rather consider the possibility that I’ve messed up, so maybe I can do things differently in the future”. Me too.

  168. desertspeaks Says:

    we can hope!

  169. Steven Says:

    @summer apple
    Glad someone ‘else’ here sees things like that; I believe it’s very empowering.

  170. desertspeaks Says:

    delusion meets big ol box of crazy..

  171. Andy Says:

    Like it’s some sort of original idea for a person to consider the possibility that they may have messed up so that maybe they can do things differently in the future. You know, question yourself. Which 2400 years ago Socrates was a big advocate of. What is totally off limits for some people is to question the authorities that call themselves government. Never question their authority because that heightens the risk of being beaten down or shot.

    That the “government” has no duty to protect, a fitting slogan to replace “protect and serve” on police cars would be, “Shoot first, ask questions later.”

  172. Inigo Montoya Says:

    This was yet another excellent show! I thought the July 25 show was fantastic, and this one is just as great!

    I would like to see comments from more people on each show. How do we get more attention here? I try to promote on social media as much as possible. Any idea what the ‘ratings’ are? How many people are we reaching?

    Marc mentioned that some might find this topic ‘repetitive’, yet I get more muances every time I listen to a new show. Though I ‘get it’ already, I hear something that crystalizes the concepts a little more each time. The discussion with Kirsten was really enlightening. I hope Kirsten can call back with more details of her discussions with the members of the law firm where she works. Her account of the interchange with the 80 year old lawyer, who did not know where the evidence was that the law applied was classic!

    I also enjoyed the exploration of government as religion. When we open our eyes, as Marc mentioned, we see the bright shiny edifices of the State Religion in the shiny cathedrals called courts and City Halls, Congress, Westminster, etc.. There is really no difference between these and the Parthanon, Luxor Temple, or the Great Pyramids. Those obviously served the same purpose — shock & awe — in their day.

  173. Inigo Montoya Says:

    For those who might question the idea that cops generally present themselves as outright thugs, I suggest the following Twitter hashtags.

    #FilmThePolice
    #Copblock
    #CopWatch
    #PoliceBrutality

    Or take a look at the Peaceful Streets Project, Police The Police, Copblock.org, Copwatch, Photography is not a Crime…and many others.

  174. daniel Says:

    Mark, I will say it again. You are speaking similar words than was spoken by the prophets of God. You might be ignorant of this fact, but in your own words you are speaking the Gospel of Christ – which is a way of peace, truth, self-rule and anarchy. In this show, again you referred to the State being a god with the lawyers acting in the capacity of the priestly class of the civil religion. You are clearly discussing the fraud/ duress/ violence of the kingdoms of this world, the kingdoms of Cain. The Bible mentions of Christ when he was commanded by the Pharisees to silence the crowd praising him, that God will cause the stones to shout out if the people were silenced. You might resist my opinion, but you could be one of the stones that God causes to speak his truths so that men may repent of their wicked ways, since the modern church has been co-opted and silenced. You are one of the few men that I listen to because you are speaking truths that resonate with my soul

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

: Tune-in to the LIVE No STATE Project broadcast as we report on the weekly happenings in legal-land and current events. You may call-in to the show at (218) 632-9399 passcode is 2020#, or Skype-in, with your thoughts on tickets, tyrants, assessments, activism, anarchy, agorism, or, of course; any and all criticisms. If you are being attacked by those with arbitrary titles and shiny badges, or if you have an interesting observation or criticism; then feel free to call-in to the LIVE show at (218) 632-9399, or you'll need to contact Marc on Skype by searching for username: frankrizzo3, and he can add you to the NSP skype group chat where you can engage in some courtroom role-play exercises to refine your litigation skills and boost your confidence if you have a court hearing coming up. Also, here is a comprehensive list of the many ways you can interact with the No STATE Project broadcast and community.

Wednesday, 6-7pm EST: Tune-in to the new No STATE Project midweek commercial-free video-stream now broadcast via youtube.com. You can join Marc live, or contact Marc to ask a question if you cannot make it on live. You can find archives of the Wednesday broadcast here on the website and on YouTube.

If you want to join the forum, you must email me a username so I can create the account. This is to stop the flood of spambots.





Contact update: If you email me a wall of text, then I probably will not read it. If you email me telling me to call you right away I won't. You'll have to set up a phone consult so we can set an appointment.

Mailing address has changed as of 1 October 2016. The new mailing address is: G.M. 1496 N. Higley Rd., Suite 102-37 Gilbert, Arizona 85234.






Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter


Advertise Here