The GLP Family - Love of Freedom is Our Common Thread

FREEDOM is doing anything you wish so long as:

1. It does not breach the consent of another (and hence THEIR freedom)

or

2. It does not breach a contract made of sound mind.

These are the bases of criminal (1) and civil (2) law.

Here at GLP, the very cusp of the Conspirasphere, opinions and beliefs differ widely. Arguments here are as heated as a Jerry Springer baby-daddy reunion show.

We all have our differences. We all have our childish behaviors. Even the most mature of us are guilty of lashing out at others. Personally, I've done this multiple times and I'm sorry for it.

But we are all kind people at heart. Sure, some of the ACs like to troll and "hit and run"--but, hey--it's the fucking internet. If you think GLP has got trolls, just peruse the YouTube comments (where even a cute cat video somehow turns into a profanity-ridden Christian/atheist slugfest).

GLP is one of the least-censored forums on the internet. Some of the ideas and conspiracies that appear here on any given day are so radical, so outlandish and so entertaining that you'll NEVER find them anywhere else. GLP is a bastion of imagination. And sure, where original ideas and obscure dot-connecting lead, ridicule will always follow. It's the nature of the beast.

But we remain a family. A dysfunctional one but a happy one, nonetheless.

But why...AND HOW? How in the hell do we manage to hold it together? How do we stay largely civil in this fucked up and confusing world? How do we remain a community in the face of such ideological diversity?

Well, we here at GLP have a common thread--one we hold so close and dear that we often set it aside just to argue about minutia. We LIKE to argue. C'est la vie!

But what is that common thread that ties us closely together into a cohesive community? What is it that binds such a diverse group of people into one wacky family?

It's FREEDOM--our longing for it where it is lacking and our desire to preserve it where it exists.

And GLP is wonderful and inspiring evidence that Freedom and Liberty are WORLDWIDE ideals!

Every nation with internet connections is represented RIGHT HERE. Sure, this is the "internet age" and many younger folks take it for granted. But I remember a time when communities like GLP were not even a twinkle in Trinity's eye. Worldwide meetings of the mind were something out of science fiction--something for space-age diplomats.

But here we are. More free than we've ever been.

But on the horizon, dark forces are threatening what we hold dear. They moniter us. The profile us. They are watching and waiting.

Well, I hope they are watching GLP. I hope those bastards get the message loud and clear:

WE ARE THE DEVOTEES AND PROTECTORS OF FREEDOM. WE WILL NOT STAND STILL WHILE LIBERTY IS ERODED AND DESTROYED. WE ARE A COMMUNITY AS DIVERSE AS THE WHOLE WORLD AND WE AREN'T GOING ANYWHERE!

dude, this may be because you have been drinking that you are not being aware of what you have said.. you said that racists and homophobes were not being TRULY FREE and that eventually they would come around to being so. By this you insinuate that true freedom does not encompass being racist. yet in the above post you claim that it does... yet in the bottom part you again say that it doesn't. OP you are being inconsistent. either being racist and homophobic is being true freedom or it isn't.

if it isn't, because you claim the traditional libertarian tradition says that to be so is OUTLAWED, then it is YOU who are claiming to take the rights of people away from them. specifically the freedom to breach the consent of another person and to breach a contract. you have the freedom to enforce these rules by claiming your rights and wrongs overule the freedom of another person.

To do so is to understand that you are upholding a type of civil freedom at the expense of the absolute freedom of others. Even though truly you cannot take that away - people can ALWAYS do as they wish, regardless of the rules.

So, if you claim that homophobes and racists are not upholding "true freedom" because they try to stop others from being free you must see the parallel OP to yourself claiming to stop homophobes and racists from being however the fuck they like, and therefore YOU are not upholding true or absolute freedom by your definitions either. do you see this? you are being inconsistent in this.

yes but this is a hypocrytical stance.

absolute freedom means that a person is free to breach the consent of another or the contract of a sound mind.

if you claim that you have the "right" to take someones freedom away from them to do either of the above YOU BREACH RULE 1.

You breach you own law by taking the freedom of a person away to break either of the rules.

In other words these laws are inconsistent, OP>
INHERENTLY INCONSISTENT.

For example if I say: "You do not have my consent to enforce upon me these laws."
whammo, YOU have breached law 1.

yes but this is a hypocrytical stance.

absolute freedom means that a person is free to breach the consent of another or the contract of a sound mind.

if you claim that you have the "right" to take someones freedom away from them to do either of the above YOU BREACH RULE 1.

You breach you own law by taking the freedom of a person away to break either of the rules.

In other words these laws are inconsistent, OP>
INHERENTLY INCONSISTENT.

For example if I say: "You do not have my consent to enforce upon me these laws."
whammo, YOU have breached law 1.

And yet if you disagree to abide by the above rules, then you are breaching either consent or contract. You have broken the law.

CONSISTENCY.

some things we can do as a society to bring some of the love of freedom back

1- consider that everything has a place in the universe and only do what you would want the universe to do to you
2- quit living in labels and associations
3- stop living off the backs of others
4- out of sight should not mean out of mind
5- use logic

if we applied these concepts slavery debt and kicking the can to somebody else would not be an option

And yet if you disagree to abide by the above rules, then you are breaching either consent or contract. You have broken the law.

CONSISTENCY.

what law? one must agree to abide by them to be charged with being consistent to them.

if one does not agree to them one is not being inconsistent to them.

Also, I should mention that these are "natural" laws. By refusing to abide by them, you will face "natural" consequences.

If your reputation includes breaching consent and/or contract, then God (or whatever) help you.

Breach my consent, I will breach yours.

Breach a contract, I will extract the value in another way.

Live by unaccountability, then it will be applied to you as well.

CONSISTENCY.

If you are not subject to laws, then you are not a party to law--you are an outlaw. You are fair game to anyone and everyone. If someone breaches your consent or contract, then it is up to you to extract your pound of flesh. You are not a part of law. You are a savage. You are free to live by the law of the wild. Enjoy it. But don't get too comfortable...

no the are NOT natural laws, they are man made laws.

if you say that they are natural laws seriously... you can't do that with any serious evidence but your own belief in "God" or a "higher power". What you are judging them by here is some kind of obviated 'karma' or metaphysical 'as you do so will be done to you' that should be policing the situation. Point for you to consider: that doesn't always pan out, mate. To believe that it does is a fairytale, one held up tenuously by your societal 'laws' here. Chaos, death, destruction, hooligan freedom and such is a favourite of the universal psyche on the whole.

And by you assuming that if one doesn't live by the above laws them they automatically live "unaccountably".. that is an assumption. You think that the only way to live is the bullshit that society has put up to control itself? what someone MAY do is live by a set of their OWN rules which are their own to have, and rule upon as they see fit. It's called SELF RULE. What that means is that YOU and no one else has the overbearing ability to enforce your rules and laws upon me unless I agree to that.

The point being is that this is yours and some other person's view of what good societal law should be

THEIR OPINION ON IT ONLY.

And what I would draw your attention to is that you were concerned with being consistent. By having a rule which says that you can enforce your rule and law upon someone against their will means that YOU HAVE VIOLATED YOUR OWN LAW.
whether that is to a savage or not, you have still violated your own law and have hence been inconsistent.
you cannot escape your own inconsistency here. That is that basis for your laws - the enforcing of a law and a behaviour regardless of the consent of the person and in so doing you are yourself an outlaw to your own laws.

what you have to see is that chaos is intrinsic to even the most basic attempts to control it. And when it comes down to it, controlling it is something that society is not very good at doing, and neither OP, are you. .. because at base, your own inconsistency has you by the balls.

I am not being inconsistent. I abide by law. I am a party to it. If rules 1 or 1 are broken, I will follow through per the law. I will do whatever I see fit to repay the damages and nothing more.

Chaos is a farce. Chaos is dependent on "initial states" (themselves a farce) and disregard a dynamic state (easily observable).

Chaos is a farce. Chaos is dependent on "initial states" (themselves a farce) and disregard a dynamic state (easily observable).

Great thoughts op

its not exactly the waltons
maybe more the simpsons
but very informative, friendly & inquisitive once you connect with the real glp. I think you can only do this with an account. Acs are missing out for less than the price of netflix.

i have made some cool friends here & laugh out loud a lot

i have learnt so much & when i am not acting the maggot cos I had a few (how i get my red also), I can put another topic under my belt

I think glp is great

What about this simple obvious inconsistency are you unable to grasp?

If you have a law that says you are not allowed to breach the consent of another and yet you enforce that law upon someone in breach of the consent of that person then you are yourself breaking that law.

the way this kind of thing gets out of it is to say that a law maker is above and beyond that law. not a party to it. immune to it. or in simple [very simple] terms a hypocrite and inconsistent. you can NOT escape this truth of the situation, mate.

what I'm not saying is that there aren't good ways around it, but I'm not going to argue for them here: that's your job.
for you to argue here why it is OK for you to be inconsistent, is your task. so why is it ok for YOU, OP?

What about this simple obvious inconsistency are you unable to grasp?

If you have a law that says you are not allowed to breach the consent of another and yet you enforce that law upon someone in breach of the consent of that person then you are yourself breaking that law.

the way this kind of thing gets out of it is to say that a law maker is above and beyond that law. not a party to it. immune to it. or in simple [very simple] terms a hypocrite and inconsistent. you can NOT escape this truth of the situation, mate.

what I'm not saying is that there aren't good ways around it, but I'm not going to argue for them here: that's your job.
for you to argue here why it is OK for you to be inconsistent, is your task. so why is it ok for YOU, OP?

I'm not being inconsistent.

I'm not being inconsistent. One may do as they wish. However, should they break rule 1 or 2, then then are subject to justifiable consequence. Consequences can be said to be justified.

Take a gazelle leg from a lion's mouth and you will be subject to the law of the wild. Take my property and suffer the same. You are free to do it, but I am justified in taking back what's mine (or the like).

I would also like to add another way that this is "gotten around"...
By claiming that the other party onto whom you would enforce your laws against their consent are not afforded the right to have a will or a consent, thereby there is nothing to violate. It is to say that they are 'sub human' and therefore one is free to violate them because they are not considered to have any will or consent at all or any worth considering. In this action the person's free will is removed or denied so that no free will can be violated. um, what? that is blatantly retarded.

so the two ways one can get out of being inconsistent in this case is to say that either 1. they are above the law and are immune to them, being able to break them at will, or, 2. That anyone who would not agree consensually to the enforcement of these laws upon them are to be considered as having no will or consent to actually violate i.e. they are not to be considered human.

You make good points here. I certainly won't deny it. But I see you understand me and my points more than I thought.

If one is not a party to criminal law, then they are free to be a party to the Law Of the Wild (LOW).

If one is not a party to civil law, then they are free to be party to the LOW.

There is no place else to go. Civilization is an agreement. If you are not party to the agreement, then you are uncivilized (which is fine and well).

But you are outside those two very simple laws. You are a "savage" (again, fine and well). You are subject to the justice of savages, the LOW.

That is your choice. Freedom is yours.

You argue that it is inconsistent to hold an offender of criminal/civil law accountable in such a way that it breaches their consent.

But it's not.

They operate outside criminal/civil law. They operate under the LOW. And so does their punishment.

That's consistent.

by upholding and enforcing law 1 you are being inconsistent.
"one may do as they wish HOWEVER if they break the laws then they get whats coming" .. well then by this rule of your own creation, YOU break law 1 by seeking to enforce it upon people AGAINST THEIR CONSENT. Thereby YOU are subject to the 'natural' consequence of this which is being hypocritical and inconsistent. And as far as you have been stating on this thread, inconsistent is what you are seeking with great importance NOT TO BE.

justified means nothing, except by claiming it under some 'outside' law. In reality, in WILD, what happens happens, justified OR NOT.

I appreciate the argument but we'll have to postpone the remainder. I've gotta work in a couple hours. Must sleep.

dude, let me tell you what you're missing: it's not about where THEY are... it's about where YOU are.
You are inconsistent because YOU are WITHIN your own laws, which you break by violating the consent of another person by enforcing upon them your laws, which they do not consent to. And they don't live 'in the jungle' they live RIGHT HERE.
Where they are is irrelevant anyway. Whether THEY are inconsistent or not is not at issue, the issue is whether YOU are being inconsistent or not.

it is not against the system of LAW YOU are setting up here to violate people's consent but that does not mean that it is not inconsistent... what you are doing here is pushing the inconsistency under the rug and claiming that the law doesn't apply because the people at question aren't actually people [as such] PEOPLE ARE FUCKING PEOPLE< MATE< IN ALL CASES> if they're not.. then where the fuck are you living? eh? The 18th century?

And you are within your own laws, and your laws state that it is against the law to violate someones consent... and you do that by enforcing upon someone a law that they do not consent to. You cannot just simply REMOVE them from your field... in order to remove them they must be in your field to begin with.. you can't just sweep this under the carpet, not in any metaphysical sense here.