This is in no way fully developed; this is rather just an introduction to the concept and topic.
Why I’m deciding to undergo this theoretical journey instead of just accepting what is popular, I do not know. Why one idea is popular while the other isn’t, I do not know. But I do know my history, and how I have “deferred” ideas to others, and how this has become a problem for me (creating adverse affects), and I do know from experience that I am more logically strenuous than most, and I have theories about people that say things like “Not all people are like that, you know” (it’s just a bullying tactic used to prevent people from questioning their ability to critically think, because it makes them feel uncomfortable), and thus, these are some of the reasons, as well as some of the greatest thinkers in history (mainly Murray Rothbard (more here)), as to why this piece was created in the first place.
I’m not here to “convert” you: I’m probably not going to answer every single criticism that you have. I want to develop my own ideas personally, and if I’m in the wrong, then God will sort me out. But I am no longer going to trust “the consensus”, as experience has taught me just how factually incorrect “the consensus” is, and I have no desire to “teach” the consensus, but rather I would rather have my own peace of mind, perhaps as a minority of one, than to believe the same old cliches that do not make sense to me. Once again, I am not going to elaborate on any of this, and it is not my attempt to convince you of any of this: this is simply the development of my own ideas, and any anger felt towards me is unjustified, as you have no legitimate reason to be angry at me for my development of these ideas. I have not harmed anyone, and I am not advocating for the harm of peaceful people, but rather I am going on the process that few people go down for various reasons, and that is the road of critical thinking instead of repetition and tradition. This piece is only for me and no one else, so I’m probably not going to approve of any comments on this piece, because I don’t care what you have to say about my thoughts. That wasn’t the purpose of this piece. This piece was simply created only for me, and the reason I’m publishing it is solely to gain attention to myself for marketing purposes, because I’m sure it will trigger thought-provoking discussions and the like. This piece was written and conceived of solely because of my benefit, but, as all things that I do, I want to release it for marketing purposes. That being said, here are my elementary thoughts on the topic below, and hopefully, you understand the purpose of all of this and understand how to respond: at least, how to respond directly to me. I care not for what your personal thoughts are about this piece; whether they be commendatory or condemnatory. Thank you for understanding, if you in fact can and do completely understand the purpose of this piece. Here it exists below, in its entirety:
I agree with you that there must be some system of rules and enforcement of said rules. So perhaps my term “anarchy” was a bit misunderstood. Of course, in any system, you are going to have “bad guys” trying to do bad, and peaceful people must have some way of handling said guys. In other words, there must be some type of “rules” and enforcement of said rules. In that sense, anarchy does not refer to the fact that there are no rules and that there is no enforcement of said rules, because that would, in fact, be impossible: either the “good people” will make the rules or the “bad people” will make the rules. So the issue in question is, either, “Which system is the most ethical?” (and “ethical” must mean “peaceful“), or “Which system is the most evil?” (an evil person wouldn’t phrase it this way, but of course, any “evil” person wanting a government to benefit themselves by perpetrating “evils” upon another, even if he tries to argue that they aren’t evil, is still advocating an “evil” system). The effective definition of “anarchy” is “no government”: not “no rules”, because even in an “anarchical” system, there must be some definition of property rights: either “private” property rights or “communes“, which are rules. The issue in question is how those rules are created and enforced. Therefore, anarchy cannot mean “no rules”, because that would be impossible, but rather it is a description of how rules must be created and enforced, and in practice, it says that the method of creating and enforcing rules by “government” in the way that it is done through voting, the monopoly of force, and violation of property rights are “unethical“, with the definition of “ethics” meaning “peaceful“, if we’re going to have any coherent understanding and meaning for what “ethics” are supposed to represent. So allow me to elaborate on the two systems below: the “anarchical” system and the “government” system.
In a government system, taxation is a must, which is immoral and unethical. This is because of the nature and justice of property rights: if each man owns his body, as any sane person must accept, then each man owns his labor. What good is it to say that a man owns his body but not his labor? The two are inseparable. If a man owns his labor, he must own the product of said labor, or else to say that “he owns his labor but not the product of his labor” is just a justification for slavery, which very few would evilly advocate. Therefore, this must be our basis for freedom, and, therefore, our basics for “ethics.” Either men are born free, and have natural rights to not have violence perpetrated against themselves or their property, or they do not. This is known as the “philosophy of ethics.”
Then, if we accept that men are born free, and have rights to person and property, then we can apply this to modern areas, and say that taxation is a violation of this most basic concept of self-ownership. I’ll get into the practicalities later, but the ends do not justify the means. Either we have to accept self-ownership, and what that means, or we do not believe in self-ownership. There’s no way around this.
Thus, taxation effectively means that the government owns us (or rather that a majority owns a minority that it wants to own because of the democratic process, but even this does not ensure that the government will always do what even the majority wants, which is another stab to the phrase that the government exists “by the people” and “for the people.” Politicians can very easily do things that a majority of people do not want them to do, as we can see historically in countries such as the USSR), which is a violation of the nature of man: to be free. Anarchy does not include that. Perfect anarchy would be no rulers using force whatsoever, and in fact no force at all, which is impossible, but is still theoretically pertinent. Government must rely on taxation, and in fact if the world was perfect, there’d be no government at all, and all would be anarchy. In other words, there is such a thing as a “perfect anarchy” in theory, but there is no such theory for government, as if there was perfection, there would be anarchy, since government would be unnecessary. But even though the world isn’t perfect, that does not justify the state and the violent use of appropriation that violates property rights (I’ve discussed the nature of property rights in an above paragraph). Under anarchy, if people did select violent rulers, then there would no longer be anarchy: there would be a “government.” Therefore, anarchy cannot include leaders voted who are able to use violent force against others. This does not mean that rules and enforcement of said rules cannot be created, however. Once again, we must revert back to the theory, and then we must discuss the practical execution of said theory: once we accept the fact of self-ownership, we must invalidate the concept of government, but this does not fill in the need for rules and enforcement of said rules. So what are the means that must be used in order to peacefully establish rules and enforcement of said rules without the political process?
Once again, first, we must understand that the government exists through illegitimate means: taxation. This is a violation of the right to the product of your labor. You must accept this, even if you don’t have an alternative, because otherwise, you have violated the idea of self-ownership, and thus, do not believe in self-ownership, and the only alternative to self-ownership is slavery. It does not matter how much you “compensate” the slave: the issue is whether or not you have the right to initiate violence against another for your purposes. If you don’t, then you believe in self-ownership, and my analysis of taxation applies. If you do believe that you have the right to initiate violence against others, then you have no concept of rules whatsoever, so any said “belief” or discussion of said rules is invalid, as any system of “rules” must exist to sustain life; the initiation of force is the antithesis of sustaining life.
So what would be the alternative? If we need rules and enforcement of said rules, but taxation from government violates any definition of ethics, how will rules and enforcement of said rules be created ethically? I’ll explain to you how the system could come into place, what that system would be like, and then I’ll compare the current mode of government with my theoretical system of rules and enforcement of said rules.
First of all, if an anarchy did elect rulers, then the anarchy would create government, which is still an invalidation by my analysis. Just because an anarchy elects a government does not legitimate the existence of government in and of itself, nor does it invalidate anarchy. An evil system coming into existence from a better system does not validate said evil system. Why anarchies turn into governments does not invalidate anarchism as an ethical political ideal, either. The government must be abolished by my definition: an anarchical democratic “election” does not validate the existence of government. A failure to answer the question “How would you prevent a government?” does not illegitimize the theory that there shouldn’t be one, as how are we going to stop all murders in the world? How are we going to prevent them all? Does the fact that we can’t prevent them all illegitimize the idea that we shouldn’t allow for murder to occur? This is the most very basic logic that you must understand for any coherent conversation to take place.
Once you have accepted the idea that just because something is impossible does not mean that it isn’t a “good idea” (such as the fact that it would be great for no murder and no rape to occur in the world, even though there always will be), then we may continue.
Now that we have discussed theory, let’s get into some practice: even if people did select violent rulers, first of all, that wouldn’t be anarchy: that would be a “government”, even if it was a dictatorship. And this is important because of what I’ve discussed above, which hopefully, remains clear. Second of all, what’s the difference between that and what we have today? If you are dismissing the idea of anarchy because “violent leaders will be elected”, doesn’t that invalidate your argument for government? Aren’t governments “violent leaders”? On the most basic level, you must accept my discussion of taxation above, but even if you invalidate your own argument by not doing so (as then you would accept the fact that government are “violent leaders”, and thus your argument against anarchy because of “violent leaders” becomes invalidated).
So once again, you must either accept the idea of self-ownership (anarchy), or not. If you say that “practically, it can’t exist”, then you do not believe in the concept of self-ownership, and thus believe in slavery. There’s simply no rational way around this. Even if our “masters” do “good things” for us, such as building the roads, that does not mean that we still don’t have masters: even the slaves were fed to keep themselves alive for their masters. And if you try to say that “We elect them to do what we want”, it must necessarily come at the expense of someone else who doesn’t want said thing to happen (see the concept of “self-ownership” above), as all laws will apply to everyone, whether you want them to or not. And the fact that something “affects everybody” does not validate the idea, as a nuclear war would “affect everybody.” And if you say that “Well, roads are a good thing whereas nuclear war isn’t,” then would it be ok for the government to take money away from everyone and provide them with chocolate? What if someone was allergic? If it “affected everybody”, would it still be justified? What if some people wanted to save their money to buy a stereo, but they couldn’t because they kept receiving chocolate from their taxes? Would it be justified? If it is justified, then you do not believe in self-ownership (see above). Also, there’s no way to guarantee that someone will receive an amount of chocolate proportionate to the amount of taxes that he paid, which is another invalidation of said system: if I was “taxed” enough to buy, say, 100 pounds of chocolate, and only received 10 pounds, and someone else was taxed enough to only receive 10 pounds, but received 50, then this is a further example of a violation of property rights (with the first example above). The fact that I’m eating the chocolate that I have received from my taxes does not validate the taxes in the first place. Maybe I would’ve bought chocolate, or maybe I would’ve bought something else. But the fact that I’m eating the chocolate does not mean that the initial taxation was moral. I’m either getting taxed and eating the chocolate, or getting taxed and not eating the chocolate, so I might as well eat the chocolate. My eating of the chocolate does not justify the initial taxation, nor does it make me a hypocrite. Even if I’m eating the chocolate that came from someone else’s taxes, I’m not a hypocrite because if my money was initially stolen from me for said chocolate, then the least I could receive would be the chocolate. This also does not validate the initial taxation. I may have bought something besides chocolate with the money that turned into taxes, but even if I bought chocolate, and the exact same amount of chocolate that I received through my taxes: in other words, even if the amount of chocolate that I bought was the same amount as the amount that I received from the government, and even if the amount taxed was the same amount that I paid, or even if the amount taxed was less than the amount that I paid, the initial taxation was not justified because of the concept of self-ownership mentioned above.
Also, there’s no way to know if someone is receiving the proportionate amount to what they are giving, thus, their property rights are continually being violated because of this reason, with the first reason coming from the initial threat for not paying the taxes in the first place, regardless of what they are being spent on (see above). Everyone’s rights are being violated because of the initial collection of the taxes, but some people are getting less of a return from their taxes than others (either because of the amount paid, or the percentage of their income being paid, or how much they dislike what the taxes are being spent on). Even if something is being bought from taxes that some people want, that something is something that someone else doesn’t want, so someone must be a slave (remember the definition of “slavery” above, and how taxation applies to the violation of property rights, and why property rights are important in the first place): all are slaves, in the first place because of the initial threat of force and the violation of property rights, but this becomes exacerbated because no one receives a 100% return from the taxes that they pay (because there’s no way to keep track of how each dollar taken from someone is spent, so you can’t say that they are getting a return for their money because there’s no way to keep track of their money). But the logic in support of taxation is very similar to this: if you wanted little old ladies to be fed, would you feel it acceptable if someone pointed a gun to your head and demanded as much money from you as he wanted in order to feed the old ladies, even if it was more than you wished to give him, and threatened to lock you up in a cage (but still feed you) if you refused to pay, or shoot you if you resisted too much? Why not? Isn’t what the thief is promising to do worth it? Don’t old ladies need to be fed? Don’t the ends justify the means? What if everyone (literally everyone else but you) within a specific land area said “Yes, you should be required to give the man the money to give to the old ladies.”? Would it be more acceptable then? And if majorities (the above was even everyone else but you, but this applies to even smaller majorities as well) within a given land area are justifications for something being enacted or not, then why doesn’t slavery exist by the same logic? If the majority of people within a specific land area voted to make blacks slaves again, would it be acceptable? If it wouldn’t be, then you can’t use “democracy” as an argument, because it isn’t one. You can’t say that “democracy” is what makes a system “ethical” or not. You can’t make “democracy” an argument for whether or not something is acceptable. “Democracy” is not an argument: you must define why a specific advocation used by democratic means is legitimate, but you can’t use “democracy” as an argument in and of itself, because otherwise, it would apply to above. “Democracy” is not what makes an advocation “valid” or not: there must be something else to describe if something is valid or not. You must understand this incredibly simple logic.
“Constitutionally limited” governments are no exception to the violation of self-ownership (effectively, you must either argue for anarchy, dictatorship, or “constitutional limitation”). Also, whether the taxation comes through a “democratic-republic” or a dictatorship threatening people with force is of no consequence: both are unethical, because taxation is unethical, and any initiation of violence whatsoever, including violence against one’s property, is unethical and cannot be advocated under any circumstances. THIS INCLUDES A DICTATOR BEING ELECTED IN A PREVIOUSLY “ANARCHICAL” SOCIETY. Whether one obtains power by the threat of the initiation of violence OR obtains power by vote and then ENFORCES its power by the initiation of violence, its power is illegitimate for “ethics“, mentioned above. Just because BOTH will “default to violent force” does not mean that ONE form of violent force (government) is more ethical than the other one. That’s an ignorant, illogical statement if I’ve ever heard one. It sounds very similar to the idea that the government has “rights” that the people don’t have, such as “legally” killing peaceful (but law-breaking, as in the case of people growing drugs in their home who have their homes broken into late at night and justifiably believe that they are getting broken into, and thus grab their guns in legitimate self-defense, and find police officers screaming at them when they are in a disillusioned state from having just woken up, and having no idea if said person is a robber or not when they first encounter said person screaming at them to “GET ON THE GROUND!” (but even if it is the police, their entrance is unjustified)) people and robbing them, which is a fallacious statement. Neither use of violent force can be advocated, but the difference is that government exists because of violence, whereas violence is merely an aspect (even if an inevitable one) of anarchy. When humans were created, they were created in an anarchical system. They then put into place government, which had to exist through violent means and of which had to violate property rights. Anarchy did not inherently exist because of the violent violation of property rights. This is the crucial distinction between the two. Anarchy was not created because of the violent violation of property rights (with “property” including one’s right to his own person). With government, violence is typically needed to return to anarchy, but the violence is retaliatory against the initiation of violence, not the initiation of violence, as is the case with government. This is one of the obvious distinctions between the two (if not the most important distinction between the two).
“In Anarchy, anybody could do anything, there is no law or process.” False. In anarchy, private systems of rules would come into being. The difference is that the process used would be different, and there would be competition among rulemakers and those enforcing the rules, so that in theory, you could “buy services” from any rule-making agency and any rule-enforcing agency, provided that you didn’t sign a contract that prohibited you from doing such. In other words, you would have private lawmakers and a private judiciary groups, as well as private “enforcers.” You would also have just violent thugs who wanted to get to the top of the food chain by using violence instead of transacting.
Let me put it to you this way, and then I’ll elaborate on both systems:
In “perfect anarchy“, you’d have perfect peace. There is no such thing, even theoretically, as a “perfect government.” Of course, “perfect anarchy” is impossible because of violent people. Therefore, how would peaceful people in anarchy deal with violent people? I’ll deal with how peaceful people would deal with violent people under anarchy, and then I will discuss the final point: the point that completely went over your head, and that is the idea that any system of peace is predicated upon the fact that there are more peaceful people than non-peaceful people, although under a government, even a smaller number of non-peaceful people can create more destruction than a number larger than the previous number of “government” under anarchy because of the monopoly of violence: because their monopoly is legal and because of the types of weapons that they can develop because of their monopoly (which no competitive agency would allow them to develop through threat of a retaliation if there was an initiation of violence using the developed weapons: similar to a concept of “mutually assured destruction”, except that threat would arrive much sooner because if there was more competition among self-defensive weapons (I’ll get to groups that want to initiate violence in the first place in a second), there’d be less incentive to stockpile weapons of mass destruction with plans to initiate violence against others, because retaliation would occur against you much sooner if there was more competition among weapons-of-mass-destruction makers. Of course, you’d have some that would be willing to take that chance, and who would make the weapons anyway, knowing that they could be retaliated against if they used the weapons. This is the point that I was trying to make that flew over your head, and this was the idea that “any peaceful society must rely on the fact that there are more peaceful people than non-peaceful people: no peaceful society can exist if this isn’t the case, except in the case of a government, where even if the majority of citizens are peaceful, the government could still initiate violence against them, thus making the society subject to violence, and thus, not “peaceful.” This same thing can occur under anarchy as well. Under a government, you have to hope that the leaders are peaceful as well as the citizens: if the citizens are peaceful but the leaders aren’t, then you are still subject to a violent way of living. Under anarchy, the same number of “violent” people cannot cause as much destruction as the same number of people under a government because of the monopoly of violence: the threat of retaliation keeps people from developing weapons of mass destruction in the first place. At least some of the people: and if some people are going to develop the weapons anyway, then once again, the logic of the “chocolate” applies: self-defensive weapons that do not violate the rights of others must be used. This means that if someone retaliates with a nuclear weapon against someone else who initiated the use of a nuclear weapon, then unless the retaliator did not affect a peaceful person with their weapon, then they must be punished as well. Once again, we are in theory: we will get to “practice” later.
For all intents and purposes, any “peaceful” society cannot use the initiation of violence as a means to a “peaceful” end, because that nullifies the “peace” in the first place. Under a government, you could have, say, 60% of the population “evil” and 40% “good”, and under democracy, the 60% would dominate the 100%. PURE democracy: this isn’t discussing a republic (although the self-ownership principle, once again, applies to ALL forms of government, and a republic has just as much of a chance, if not MORE of a chance, of “tyranny” (evil perpetuated upon a majority, although ANY perpetuation of evil against ANYONE is evil, and is a tyranny upon the individual, but tyranny usually involves not only the type of injustice perpetuated, but the number of people upon whom the evil is being perpetuated) than a pure democracy. This is because of how things like the Electoral College are determined: as we have seen, one can lose in total number of votes, but win because of the arbitrary numbers assigned to the “electoral college” (the numbers which are chosen by “leaders” chosen by illegitimate (unpeaceful) means). This can be worse than a pure democracy. Under a democracy, a majority can vote to perpetuate evil upon the minority (but that is assuming that the politicians do what even the majority wants, which is another important issue). So that perhaps 51% of the people perpetuate evil upon the other 49%. But under a republic, a candidate can win the majority, but lose the actual election. This has the potential to perpetuate evils upon even more of the people than under the democratic system. “Constitutional limits” were discussed above.
Now that we’ve discussed more theory, let’s discuss more practice. Once again, under anarchy, there must be more peaceful people than violent people for there to be a “peaceful” society (which usually means a “majority” of peace). This does not need to be the case under a government. But now let’s discuss how rules and enforcement of said rules could work under anarchy (which, as the definition that I have stated above, effectively means “no government” as it is currently created, as a society without any “rules” would prove impossible, as I stated above). How would anarchy create the rules and enforcement of said rules? Once again, this is assuming that the majority of people are peaceful, as if the majority of people in a society aren’t peaceful, then it matters not whether there is a government or not. And I’ve discussed what happens when the majority of people under a government are peaceful. Now, let’s discuss anarchy. Remember: no “peace” can exist if the majority is unpeaceful, regardless of the “system”, and under government, a smaller number of people can perpetuate a larger amount of violence than can occur through anarchy. This is because of the legal monopoly of violence, as well as the number of people “in charge” being a smaller number than could occur through anarchy (which exists because of the democratic illusion of “voting“).
Once again, we must discuss how peaceful anarchy would occur (as there can be no such thing as “peaceful government”). Under peaceful anarchy, other peaceful people would offer protection services for the peaceful people as well as develop rules; either the enforcement companies would establish the rules, or private rulemakers would set up rules and offer contracts to patrons about what rules they would create, and the rulemakers and the enforcers would establish contracts so that rulemakers and enforcers would each be in agreement, and you would have competition in rules. For instance, most would make a rule against killing people (once again, we’re talking about the peaceful people under anarchy), and there would be enforcement agencies deciding on how to handle murderers: some would imprison them at different lengths, some would execute them, and perhaps some wouldn’t even punish them at all. If an enforcement agency decided not to punish murderers, then only murderers are going to buy services from that enforcement company: most people are going to steer clear from that company, and they will go out of business (once again, if they are the peaceful type: if they aren’t, then they wouldn’t have gone into business to begin with, which will be my final point that I make). The thing to understand is that this system, as the previous, relies on the fact that there are more peaceful people than less. No system can work when this is the opposite. So if there are more peaceful people than less, then they will create and enforce rules which maintain that peace. This does not violate the right of people’s property, as it does not rely on the threat of violence if one does not pay. There is no such thing as a “peaceful government”, as I’ve stated above, but there can be such a thing as a “peaceful protection agency” who doesn’t receive funds unless you voluntarily decide to give said company your funds. This is assuming that they are peaceful: if they aren’t, then, once again, we have the problem of whether or not the majority of a “society” are peaceful, but in anarchy, it takes more violent people to perpetuate the same amount of violence (if that amount is even possible) as can occur under a government. This is yet another clear distinction between anarchy and government, as are the taxation examples mentioned above.
So, in short, you have to assume that most of the people under anarchy would be peaceful: if you don’t make this assumption, then no system can effectively pass any “peaceful” test. It takes more people under anarchy to cause destruction than it does under a government, and even so, the amount of destruction is less than a government can create because of their monopoly of force, as well as the type of weapons that they develop, and because there isn’t as much competition and threat of retaliation from other people, they’re more likely to build the weapons for initiation purposes in the first place: the more threat of retaliation, the less likely one is to initiate their usage.
If every individual person developed nuclear weapons, of course, there’d be a lot of risk of accidents, and those affected by the accidents would want to retaliate, and that would be their right, provided that it didn’t affect a third party who is uninvolved. Of course, this is difficult, if not impossible when it comes to nuclear weapons, so most peaceful people would not want to own nuclear weapons, and would hire protection agencies with the nuclear weapons in case there was a potential aggressor somewhere. And if the protection agency was an aggressor, first of all, they probably wouldn’t be “in business”: they wouldn’t waste their time “offering” services and instead would just take the money, with threat of force, like the government currently does, and we have the fact that any peaceful society relies on the fact that there are more peaceful people than non-peaceful people. This is precisely what governments currently do. But let’s take one final example, and then I will conclude my point:
Let’s say that you had a business that did create weapons of mass destruction for destructive purposes and wanted to take over (which would violate the anarchic principles, but nonetheless): that they offered services, people paid into those services, and the business wanted to, for another example, enslave blacks, and thus you had a company which was paid money to enslave blacks. What would occur then?
Once again, any society relies on the fact that there are more peaceful people than non-peaceful people, and under anarchy, it takes more people to create the same, if not even less amounts of damage than under a government. This is because there’s no competition for government, therefore, they pay no price for doing wrong. They have a monopoly on “defense”, and therefore do not pay as much of a price as private defenders would have to do so if they were providing defense for profit. Under the anarchical system, once again, you’d have violence, but the violence would not be as destructive and widespread as occurs under a government. Government, even though it must use violent means to obtain its funding, has no incentive to limit conflict. They don’t operate on the “profit” motive, so they have no incentives. A private defense company would have the “profit” motive, and thus would not create weapons simply for the offensive. If they did do that, then they wouldn’t be a company in the first place, and would instead just be the violent thugs in the first place. You could have a company that would begin as profit-oriented, who would then turn to a “thug” operated system, but then companies who are making money for private defense would have a profit incentive to eliminate the “thug” operated system, who would be paid for doing so. This system, once again, relies on the fact that there are more “good” people than “bad” people. But the key difference is the profit motive: the means of obtaining funding provides more of an incentive to eliminate conflict than to create conflict, and, as all systems, are predicated on the fact that there must be good people more so than more bad people. However, the destruction caused “per bad person” is smaller with anarchy than with government (because governments “own” more people than can occur under anarchy because of the “consent” factor which manipulates people into thinking that “voting” is a “peaceful” process (it ultimately leads to violence, however)), whereas with anarchy, you will still have “mafia”-type scenarios, but they will not have as much power as a government could because of the natures of how these institutions come into being. There’s a reason that governments are the most powerful organizations throughout history, and why they are the institutions that have caused the most destruction in the world: not something like “The Mafia”.
I have more to say about this, but it’s taken me hours to write this, and I believe I’m done with the subject for the night. I believe I’ve gotten my basic premises across, at least, if you can understand what I am saying.
(The following links were not part of the initial writing).