Because you refused to follow through with your definition of a good faith discussion. You ignored my question just as you have ignored it in this latest post.
Great. Please honor the original request and define the terms you used, as you yourself have asked so many others to do.
I appreciate that you now will admit you have not been responsive. I have tried to get you to participate in a fair and equal manner, but you keep insisting I should answer your questions under the flag of good faith, while you avoided doing the same per your admission above.
I still want to have a good faith discussion with you, and we can start one (haven’t started yet) when we agree upon what that is.
All you have to do is agree to answer my questions since you expect me to answer yours. Seems very fair to me. I assume you want to deal with me in a fair and equitable manner. If you do not, you can continue to avoid offering me the same courtesy you are demanding from me. I think that makes it obvious to all observers which party was acting in good faith and which was not.
So we’re going to ignore yet again.
I’ll say.
Seems like you have found a nice refuge from the question you don’t want to answer in the ol’ “I’m not going to answer your question because I’ve responded to your question with questions and you won’t answer those. So you’re not being fair. I want to have a fair discussion.”
Okay I’ll play. Do you agree to answer my questions?
I’ve answered your questions up to that point, but I’m afraid if I can’t get an agreement from you to actually honor the same commitment you’re asking of me, I see no reason why I should agree to it.
I will agree to answer your questions if you agree to answer mine. So either do so, or provide a reason you think I should agree to answer your questions without the same agreement from you.
Ok, I’m done going in circles for one day.
Thanks for playing James. Have a good morning, and remember, there is no state, no constitution, no congress and no president. 
Too bad you can’t define your terms. Or even agree to honor the simple request you make of others. (I guess this would make a second example of that, wouldn’t it.)
I can define them, I just won’t define them to you. I defined one of those terms to Z yesterday.
Like I said, thanks for playing. 
I don’t know if I want a racist who hates poor people in the White House.
Wow. After all that. All I did was make the simple request that you define your terms. I wanted to know what you meant, so I asked you to explain what you meant. And after a full page of dialog, it comes down to “I can do that. I just don’t want to.”
Do you believe making someone go through this much back and forth simply to get you to do something as simple and reasonable as to define the terms you used, so they can understand what you mean, is consistent with your definition of good faith discussion? And more importantly—and I suppose this question is more for the audience to reflect on—is it the behavior of someone who is truly interested in discussion? Someone who is truly interested in trying to “pull others deeper to his message”?
LS,
When you bring up Lysander Spooner, which work are you specifically referencing? No Treason?
I would also ask you to clarify what you mean by “doesn’t exist.” Do you mean that there is no entity or institution called “Congress” or that there is an entity or institution called “Congress” but it does not retain any special powers or privileges beyond the common man?
“Great! Our work is done!”
LOL!
+1
“If you put a gun to my head, does it make any difference what my preference is?”
What answer would come out of your mouth?
You’re doing the same thing JJ did, and you will end up with the same results. You guys aren’t going to bully me into answering questions for which I have already given an answer, satisfactory or not.
I don’t understand the relevance of this question. even If he gives you an answer what useful info does it give you aside from what someone is willing to say just to survive because there’s a gun to his head.
I’d rather hear what someone has to say given friendly circumstances thus yielding the most honest answer.
Andrew, I am sorta burnt out on what I consider to be a very obvious and simple set of statements, so you’ll have to forgive me for being brief.
Yes, No Treason. But not No Treason exclusively. I have to anchor to Ron Paul stuff in order to communicate with the Paulians.
I prefer delusion to doesn’t exist.
Obviously there is an entity/concept called Congress, we’re all referring to it by name. The delusion is that there exists a Congress, or a Constitution, or a President, or an election as commonly understood.
“Obviously there is an entity/concept called Congress, we’re all referring to it by name. The delusion is that there exists a Congress, or a Constitution, or a President, or an election as commonly understood.”
So does this work at keeping from paying taxes to these nonexistent entities? Or does money not exist either?
Well gee after you’re little conversation with JJ I feel as though I can hardly bring this back but whatev.
Yes, there are multiple realities. Just as if I put down something in front of two people, one said it was good, the other said that it was bad. Both of them are correct so long as they are stating what they believe. Preferences are subjective, the reason why most people don’t realize that reality is totally subjective as well is because of the fact that people perceive similar things. But how I think of something does not matter as long as it works with that which I perceive. The idea of an objective or observer less reality is absolute none sense, for instance the existence of the colorblind helps to show how reality was subjective. A color blind person and a color seeing person can look at the same thing and they would perceive it differently, neither version of reality is necessarily correct or false. If you saw the whole world as nothing but odd blobs and moving orbs of nonsense, but you learned how to manipulate your environment then this would not matter, you would have no way of knowing that others, who perceived things normally, were perceiving the world in a different way and that their reality was different.
If an individual believes that there is a god then in their reality there is such a thing as a god, however this will not necessarily mean that their perceptions will match up with this.
If I am simply come up with grand delusions and you can show that I am wrong please do so, I was not happy when I came to these conclusions.
So there is a president, to those who believe in his legitimacy, there is a constitution, that one I don’t even understand why you’re arguing, there is a set of rules and laws put down on a piece of paper what matters is whether or not there is an active constitution, one that is followed by those in power. Private property is actually probably more ambiguous and less “real” than anything dealing with the U.S. government.
Inasmuch as there exists a “stop sign” on your local corner, there exists a Congress.
Of course, these are all reducible to expectations, but so are terms like “huband” and “wife”; yet, I very much doubt liberty student can get by with cheating when he says, “There is no wife!”
To quote Calvert:
…[T]here is, strictly speaking, no separate animal that we can identify as an institution. There is only rational behavior, conditioned on expectations about the behavior and reactions of others. When these expectations about others’ behavior take on a particularly clear and concrete form across individuals, when they apply to situations that recur over a long period of time, and especially when they involve highly variegated and specific expectations about the different roles of different actors in determining what actions others should take, we often collect these expectations and strategies under the heading institution…
It depends. What makes this woman who claims to be his wife really his wife?