CDZ Produce, mooch, or loot.

[BlackSand]

Those are the solutions. The problem is implementing them, because of resistance from the looters.. those in power.

"Those who steal from private individuals spend their lives in stocks and chains; those who steal from the public treasury go dressed in gold and purple." ~Marcus Porcius Cato

It is nothing new, & the typical 'solution' over the centuries has been very simple: Kill the fuckers.
Revolution has ALWAYS been an effective solution for oppressors. The people take their scythes, pitchforks, & torches, & drag out the guillotines. Only if & when those in power are afraid of the people do they make any concessions. Otherwise, they are content to leech off the people for as long as they let them.

Well ... Not arguing the effectiveness ... This is usually evaluated on an "end result" scale and in the context of history.
Where an uprising of the populace may result in more favorable overall circumstances when success is realized ... You cannot neglect to address the serious loss of life involved during the process.

Nowadays is not a decent comparison the good old days of farm equipment versus the rich.
There are those who are willing and prepared to combat on either side of the equation ... And those that would crap their britches as soon as they lose cell service.

Without ignoring the fact that the mega rich could be on a plane to Antiqua within minutes of any uprising ... Anyone left behind would be facing more than an angry mob.
A civil uprising now in America would make most conflicts look like a friendly chess game ... If it were to be successful and not squashed early on.
I mean, I get the fond idea many have towards the power they assume they have in numbers ... And their desire to see the rich go down in flames.
I have also been to many war-torn areas full of dead bodies and folks who thought they had great ideas when they started.

In any case ... Once revolt is decided to be the appropriate course of actions ... Whether you succeed or not, it is likely to be beyond your lifetime before everything gets worked out into a decent condition again.

Even if such a revolt doesn't cost you and your loved ones their life ... There is certainly no guarantee that you will get anything better than what you are revolting against.
The powerful thrive in chaos ... Cuba got Castro (just an example) ... Your chances of unseating the current power are greater than getting anything better in return.

.

 

[gipper]

Those are the solutions. The problem is implementing them, because of resistance from the looters.. those in power.

"Those who steal from private individuals spend their lives in stocks and chains; those who steal from the public treasury go dressed in gold and purple." ~Marcus Porcius Cato

It is nothing new, & the typical 'solution' over the centuries has been very simple: Kill the fuckers.
Revolution has ALWAYS been an effective solution for oppressors. The people take their scythes, pitchforks, & torches, & drag out the guillotines. Only if & when those in power are afraid of the people do they make any concessions. Otherwise, they are content to leech off the people for as long as they let them.

Well ... Not arguing the effectiveness ... This is usually evaluated on an "end result" scale and in the context of history.
Where an uprising of the populace may result in more favorable overall circumstances when success is realized ... You cannot neglect to address the serious loss of life involved during the process.

Nowadays is not a decent comparison the good old days of farm equipment versus the rich.
There are those who are willing and prepared to combat on either side of the equation ... And those that would crap their britches as soon as they lose cell service.

Without ignoring the fact that the mega rich could be on a plane to Antiqua within minutes of any uprising ... Anyone left behind would be facing more than an angry mob.
A civil uprising now in America would make most conflicts look like a friendly chess game ... If it were to be successful and not squashed early on.
I mean, I get the fond idea many have towards the power they assume they have in numbers ... And their desire to see the rich go down in flames.
I have also been to many war-torn areas full of dead bodies and folks who thought they had great ideas when they started.

In any case ... Once revolt is decided to be the appropriate course of actions ... Whether you succeed or not, it is likely to be beyond your lifetime before everything gets worked out into a decent condition again.

Even if such a revolt doesn't cost you and your loved ones their life ... There is certainly no guarantee that you will get anything better than what you are revolting against.
The powerful thrive in chaos ... Cuba got Castro (just an example) ... Your chances of unseating the current power are greater than getting anything better in return.

.

Good points. Revolting against a omnipresent ever powerful government could be very bloody with potential for many detrimental consequences. If the uprising can be kept peaceful, which is a stretch, good consequences could arise. The oligarchy (top .01%) will do all they can to instigate violence, so big gov can murder with impunity...(just my opinion based on history).

We need to be clear about the rich. Many rich are fine hard working people. The only ones I dislike are those in the top .01%, who use their money to buy and influence government for their benefit.

 

[usfan]

Well ... Not arguing the effectiveness ... This is usually evaluated on an "end result" scale and in the context of history.
Where an uprising of the populace may result in more favorable overall circumstances when success is realized ... You cannot neglect to address the serious loss of life involved during the process.

Nowadays is not a decent comparison the good old days of farm equipment versus the rich.
There are those who are willing and prepared to combat on either side of the equation ... And those that would crap their britches as soon as they lose cell service.

Without ignoring the fact that the mega rich could be on a plane to Antiqua within minutes of any uprising ... Anyone left behind would be facing more than an angry mob.
A civil uprising now in America would make most conflicts look like a friendly chess game ... If it were to be successful and not squashed early on.
I mean, I get the fond idea many have towards the power they assume they have in numbers ... And their desire to see the rich go down in flames.
I have also been to many war-torn areas full of dead bodies and folks who thought they had great ideas when they started.

In any case ... Once revolt is decided to be the appropriate course of actions ... Whether you succeed or not, it is likely to be beyond your lifetime before everything gets worked out into a decent condition again.

Even if such a revolt doesn't cost you and your loved ones their life ... There is certainly no guarantee that you will get anything better than what you are revolting against.
The powerful thrive in chaos ... Cuba got Castro (just an example) ... Your chances of unseating the current power are greater than getting anything better in return..

I don't really see any difference.. sure technology changes, but history just repeats itself over & over. Instead of pitchforks & torches, there are AKs & IEDs. Instead of entitled monarchs, we have entitled party heads or dictators, or legislatures.
Yes, war is hell, but it seems to be an inevitable part of the human experience. And the rich always flee the uprisings, after they have taken all they can from the people. Sometimes, though, the people have followed them & taken revenge for their oppression.
I have no idea what a civil uprising in America would look like, or what 'spark' would set it off. I just see the pattern in history, of producers tiring of being exploited by looters, & throwing off their shackles. The only slight difference is through modern banking practices, where the looting of the working class is hidden by fiscal policy smoke & mirrors. But, as the true effects of those policies are felt, the backlash will be felt, too.

Just like in Greece, where people rise up indignant that they have run out of other people's money, dependency breeds anger & resentment, if the free stuff stops flowing. Just like bears in yellowstone, who turn over cars & attack people if they are not fed like they had become accustomed, humans behave no differently.

Revolution & regime changes are standard fare for human existence. We usually trade one tyrant for another, all promising affluence & easy living, off of everybody else. That is the Great Fiction that Bastiat wrote about in the 1800s, & it repeats itself like everything else. The American experiment has been unusual.. in that an actual democratic republic, with citizen representatives has been the status quo for 200 yrs. But that era seems to be over, as the treasury is plundered by looters, & moral relativism sweeps the nation.

 

[warf]

The people are so divided and full of ideological propaganda that there will be no effective pushback from that front.

We have the means to make this country into anything we wish. But too few voters have enough real information to do anything but vote for the next charismatic self server with enough backing to present really good ads.

Like Pogo says,"We have met the enemy and he is us!"

 

[usfan]

The people are so divided and full of ideological propaganda that there will be no effective pushback from that front.

We have the means to make this country into anything we wish. But too few voters have enough real information to do anything but vote for the next charismatic self server with enough backing to present really good ads.

Like Pogo says,"We have met the enemy and he is us!"

Is that Pogo in your avatar?

 

[gipper]

It is the 21st century....time to get rid of government by elites. Let robots do it.

 

[BlackSand]

The government cannot fix the mess it has made.
The laborer will never be as rich as the business owner until they are the business owner.
To piss and whine about what we should do ... Will never get you as far as cinching up your belt and doing what you should do.

If you want to own your production ... Then provide what is necessary to produce it ... And own it.
If you are tired of being oppressed ... Then quit surrendering to the oppression you keep demanding.

The problem nowadays is that people are more willing to wait for someone else to agree with them ... Or provide what is necessary to succeed ... Instead of taking the risk of losing comfort and abject failure in order to accomplish better goals for themselves.

.

 

[Liminal]

These are the basic ways humans survive. We either produce our own necessities of life, by working for them, we leech off of someone else's labors, or we take them from others by force. A healthy society must have a large number of industrious, hard working producers to provide the network of necessities: sustenance & protection. When a society breaks down, & too many moochers or looters run rampant, the producers cannot work hard enough to provide for them, or they become tired of being exploited & rebel against the system (or lack thereof) that has arisen.

1. If you are a responsible producer, you will have a constant battle to fend off moochers & looters. Hopefully, you will live in a time & place where your life & property are protected with sound collective agencies, provided for that purpose by all the producers. But, if moochers & looters gain control of the protection agencies, they will use them against you, & you will be exploited until you & the other producers revolt & cast out the moochers & looters. This is a constant pattern throughout human history, & will no doubt continue in the future.
2. If you are a moocher, you run the risk of wearing out those you mooch from. It is not a dependable method of survival, as you rely on the generosity of the producers, or the benevolence of the looters to share with you from their plunder.
3. If you are a looter, you rely on having superior power or deception to intimidate & fleece the working producers. But if they pool their resources & defeat you, you might be killed in the struggle. It is also an unreliable way to survive.

Producing, with the force of law to protect your labors, has traditionally been the best & most reliable method of human survival. When a culture has a strong base of producers, they tend to be stronger, wealthier, & better suited to survive. Moochers & looters tend to be short lived, as the working producers tire of the excess, useless baggage, & reorganize the system to better serve themselves.

The challenge is for the producers to craft a system of protection, but not let it be controlled by moochers & looters, as they will use the system to plunder the producers. Typically, the producers just stage a revolution from time to time, and the leaders of the revolutions promise to provide peace & justice for the working producers to live & raise their families. They promise to make minimal demands on the property of the producers. But they always degenerate back into a mooching, looting system where law becomes an instrument of plunder, not justice.

The only solution is for the producers to keep a tight rein on the system, provide checks & balances, & a rotating workforce of public servants, so none of them become entrenched & entitled in an elite power structure. This was the attempt of the American experiment, & it worked for a while, until those who got used to power used this power to plunder the producers, as they have been doing increasingly for the last few decades.

So an ideal system for a productive, healthy society is this:
1. Minimal demands for the agency of justice. Minimal taxes so the producers keep more of their labors.
2. Swift, efficient justice to deter looters, foreign or domestic.
3. Maximum freedom for the producers to enjoy the fruits of their labors, which provide the most opportunity, prosperity, & abundance for all.
4. Checks & balances in the justice system, so that moochers or looters do not gain control.
5. Rotating citizen representatives, managing the system so moochers or looters do not gain control.
6. Strict laws to punish corruption in the collective agencies.

These things will cost the producers the least, while maximizing what they have earned & worked for. This is a recipe for a healthy, prosperous culture. But whenever moochers & looters gain control of the collective institutions, they use govt power to plunder the producers, & build a system of dependency & injustice, until it collapses under its own corruption.

Any thoughts or rebuttals? Am i missing anything?

This sounds like it was written by a mildly retarded libertarian.

 

[gipper]

These are the basic ways humans survive. We either produce our own necessities of life, by working for them, we leech off of someone else's labors, or we take them from others by force. A healthy society must have a large number of industrious, hard working producers to provide the network of necessities: sustenance & protection. When a society breaks down, & too many moochers or looters run rampant, the producers cannot work hard enough to provide for them, or they become tired of being exploited & rebel against the system (or lack thereof) that has arisen.

1. If you are a responsible producer, you will have a constant battle to fend off moochers & looters. Hopefully, you will live in a time & place where your life & property are protected with sound collective agencies, provided for that purpose by all the producers. But, if moochers & looters gain control of the protection agencies, they will use them against you, & you will be exploited until you & the other producers revolt & cast out the moochers & looters. This is a constant pattern throughout human history, & will no doubt continue in the future.
2. If you are a moocher, you run the risk of wearing out those you mooch from. It is not a dependable method of survival, as you rely on the generosity of the producers, or the benevolence of the looters to share with you from their plunder.
3. If you are a looter, you rely on having superior power or deception to intimidate & fleece the working producers. But if they pool their resources & defeat you, you might be killed in the struggle. It is also an unreliable way to survive.

Producing, with the force of law to protect your labors, has traditionally been the best & most reliable method of human survival. When a culture has a strong base of producers, they tend to be stronger, wealthier, & better suited to survive. Moochers & looters tend to be short lived, as the working producers tire of the excess, useless baggage, & reorganize the system to better serve themselves.

The challenge is for the producers to craft a system of protection, but not let it be controlled by moochers & looters, as they will use the system to plunder the producers. Typically, the producers just stage a revolution from time to time, and the leaders of the revolutions promise to provide peace & justice for the working producers to live & raise their families. They promise to make minimal demands on the property of the producers. But they always degenerate back into a mooching, looting system where law becomes an instrument of plunder, not justice.

The only solution is for the producers to keep a tight rein on the system, provide checks & balances, & a rotating workforce of public servants, so none of them become entrenched & entitled in an elite power structure. This was the attempt of the American experiment, & it worked for a while, until those who got used to power used this power to plunder the producers, as they have been doing increasingly for the last few decades.

So an ideal system for a productive, healthy society is this:
1. Minimal demands for the agency of justice. Minimal taxes so the producers keep more of their labors.
2. Swift, efficient justice to deter looters, foreign or domestic.
3. Maximum freedom for the producers to enjoy the fruits of their labors, which provide the most opportunity, prosperity, & abundance for all.
4. Checks & balances in the justice system, so that moochers or looters do not gain control.
5. Rotating citizen representatives, managing the system so moochers or looters do not gain control.
6. Strict laws to punish corruption in the collective agencies.

These things will cost the producers the least, while maximizing what they have earned & worked for. This is a recipe for a healthy, prosperous culture. But whenever moochers & looters gain control of the collective institutions, they use govt power to plunder the producers, & build a system of dependency & injustice, until it collapses under its own corruption.

Any thoughts or rebuttals? Am i missing anything?

This sounds like it was written by a mildly retarded libertarian.

This is the CDZ forum. Please refrain from personal attacks and post something of substance.

 

[usfan]

This sounds like it was written by a mildly retarded libertarian.

This is the CDZ forum. Please refrain from personal attacks and post something of substance.

..besides, i have never been accused of being 'mild' about anything..

 

[Liminal]

This sounds like it was written by a mildly retarded libertarian.

This is the CDZ forum. Please refrain from personal attacks and post something of substance.

..besides, i have never been accused of being 'mild' about anything..

Your deep thoughtful analysis of the human condition is as substantial as it is entertaining. I wonder how people reconcile ideas like that with Christianity? The least of these are evidently best described as moochers and looters.

 

[usfan]

The government cannot fix the mess it has made.
The laborer will never be as rich as the business owner until they are the business owner.
To piss and whine about what we should do ... Will never get you as far as cinching up your belt and doing what you should do.

If you want to own your production ... Then provide what is necessary to produce it ... And own it.
If you are tired of being oppressed ... Then quit surrendering to the oppression you keep demanding.

The problem nowadays is that people are more willing to wait for someone else to agree with them ... Or provide what is necessary to succeed ... Instead of taking the risk of losing comfort and abject failure in order to accomplish better goals for themselves..

The 'govt' never fixes anything. They are only good at destruction & exploitation, & will take whatever they can, because govt is a magnet to corruptible personalities.. aka, 'looters'. It is only the deterrence of fear & backlash that keeps them in line. Those who lust for power need the overriding fear of the people to keep them in line, as Law is not enough. They will pervert Law, as they have always done, as an instrument of plunder.
All of 'govt' is just a group project, to accomplish a goal. In the American experiment, it is to secure freedom & provide Justice from both foreign & domestic aggressors. Minimal resources are needed from the working producer for that goal, but by slow perversion, the looters have increased & expanded their duties, micromanaging the worker, & taking his labors for stupid & wasteful bureaucratic fantasies.

It is not enough to just declare, 'i am free. I am master of my own fate. I am lord over all i survey.' If hordes of looters & moochers are fleecing your property constantly, you have a legitimate gripe, so why should you not pool your resources with other oppressed producers, to rid your collective of this injustice?

 

[Liminal]

Well ... Not arguing the effectiveness ... This is usually evaluated on an "end result" scale and in the context of history.
Where an uprising of the populace may result in more favorable overall circumstances when success is realized ... You cannot neglect to address the serious loss of life involved during the process.

Nowadays is not a decent comparison the good old days of farm equipment versus the rich.
There are those who are willing and prepared to combat on either side of the equation ... And those that would crap their britches as soon as they lose cell service.

Without ignoring the fact that the mega rich could be on a plane to Antiqua within minutes of any uprising ... Anyone left behind would be facing more than an angry mob.
A civil uprising now in America would make most conflicts look like a friendly chess game ... If it were to be successful and not squashed early on.
I mean, I get the fond idea many have towards the power they assume they have in numbers ... And their desire to see the rich go down in flames.
I have also been to many war-torn areas full of dead bodies and folks who thought they had great ideas when they started.

In any case ... Once revolt is decided to be the appropriate course of actions ... Whether you succeed or not, it is likely to be beyond your lifetime before everything gets worked out into a decent condition again.

Even if such a revolt doesn't cost you and your loved ones their life ... There is certainly no guarantee that you will get anything better than what you are revolting against.
The powerful thrive in chaos ... Cuba got Castro (just an example) ... Your chances of unseating the current power are greater than getting anything better in return..

I don't really see any difference.. sure technology changes, but history just repeats itself over & over. Instead of pitchforks & torches, there are AKs & IEDs. Instead of entitled monarchs, we have entitled party heads or dictators, or legislatures.
Yes, war is hell, but it seems to be an inevitable part of the human experience. And the rich always flee the uprisings, after they have taken all they can from the people. Sometimes, though, the people have followed them & taken revenge for their oppression.
I have no idea what a civil uprising in America would look like, or what 'spark' would set it off. I just see the pattern in history, of producers tiring of being exploited by looters, & throwing off their shackles. The only slight difference is through modern banking practices, where the looting of the working class is hidden by fiscal policy smoke & mirrors. But, as the true effects of those policies are felt, the backlash will be felt, too.

Just like in Greece, where people rise up indignant that they have run out of other people's money, dependency breeds anger & resentment, if the free stuff stops flowing. Just like bears in yellowstone, who turn over cars & attack people if they are not fed like they had become accustomed, humans behave no differently.

Revolution & regime changes are standard fare for human existence. We usually trade one tyrant for another, all promising affluence & easy living, off of everybody else. That is the Great Fiction that Bastiat wrote about in the 1800s, & it repeats itself like everything else. The American experiment has been unusual.. in that an actual democratic republic, with citizen representatives has been the status quo for 200 yrs. But that era seems to be over, as the treasury is plundered by looters, & moral relativism sweeps the nation.

Throwing off their shackles? Hmmm, lets see, where have I heard that phrase before? It'll come to me later.

 

[usfan]

Your deep thoughtful analysis of the human condition is as substantial as it is entertaining. I wonder how people reconcile ideas like that with Christianity? The least of these are evidently best described as moochers and looters.

I see mooching & looting as equal opportunity oppressors. Scoundrels come from all philosophical opinions, & are certainly not limited to a single belief system.

 

[Liminal]

Your deep thoughtful analysis of the human condition is as substantial as it is entertaining. I wonder how people reconcile ideas like that with Christianity? The least of these are evidently best described as moochers and looters.

I see mooching & looting as equal opportunity oppressors. Scoundrels come from all philosophical opinions, & are certainly not limited to a single belief system.

You can't seem to figure out if you're a libertarian or communist. You don't seem to have any idea what you believe or why, just a random scree of ill considered opinions. But it certainly is fun having this little window into your stream of consciousness.

 

[usfan]

You can't seem to figure out if you're a libertarian or communist. You don't seem to have any idea what you believe or why, just a random scree of ill considered opinions. But it certainly is fun having this little window into your stream of consciousness.

Well, my personal political opinions are revealed in the posts & threads i post in, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. ..although i understand that many people like to divert any uncomfortable discussions to personal distractions. But you can pigeonhole me, if you want... just don't call me 'mild'...

So, are you a looter, then? Do you need to deflect from the topic to avoid the pointed nature of this discussion? How do looters justify their actions? Do they feel entitled to what others have worked for? How do they do this? It would seem to me there would be a twinge of conscience for them, taking what others have worked for to satisfy their own agendas.

It is clear *why* they do it. Because they can. Most humans, if given the choice between easy living, & hard work will choose the easy path. But why do the producers enable them?
Bastiat put it like this:

The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are "just" because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it. Slavery, restrictions, and monopoly find defenders not only among those who profit from them but also among those who suffer from them.
Thus, if there exists a law which sanctions slavery or monopoly, oppression or robbery, in any form whatever, it must not even be mentioned. For how can it be mentioned without damaging the respect which it inspires? Still further, morality and political economy must be taught from the point of view of this law; from the supposition that it must be a just law merely because it is a law.

So out of 'respect' for the Law, people will suffer injustice & even support unjust laws, that violate the basic rights of man. People naturally want order, & look to a collective force to keep it. They know that there are occasional injustices, because of the nature of man. But when the injustices begin to become a constant pattern.. when Law becomes more of an instrument of plunder, instead of providing fair justice, the citizens *should* become indignant & demand reform.

So it seems that the producers enable the looters with their unquestioning respect for Law, even if it has become perverted. What will it take to open the eyes of the working man, to resist the exploitation of the looting class?

 

[Liminal]

You can't seem to figure out if you're a libertarian or communist. You don't seem to have any idea what you believe or why, just a random scree of ill considered opinions. But it certainly is fun having this little window into your stream of consciousness.

Well, my personal political opinions are revealed in the posts & threads i post in, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. ..although i understand that many people like to divert any uncomfortable discussions to personal distractions. But you can pigeonhole me, if you want... just don't call me 'mild'...

So, are you a looter, then? Do you need to deflect from the topic to avoid the pointed nature of this discussion? How do looters justify their actions? Do they feel entitled to what others have worked for? How do they do this? It would seem to me there would be a twinge of conscience for them, taking what others have worked for to satisfy their own agendas.

It is clear *why* they do it. Because they can. Most humans, if given the choice between easy living, & hard work will choose the easy path. But why do the producers enable them?
Bastiat put it like this:

The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are "just" because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it. Slavery, restrictions, and monopoly find defenders not only among those who profit from them but also among those who suffer from them.
Thus, if there exists a law which sanctions slavery or monopoly, oppression or robbery, in any form whatever, it must not even be mentioned. For how can it be mentioned without damaging the respect which it inspires? Still further, morality and political economy must be taught from the point of view of this law; from the supposition that it must be a just law merely because it is a law.

So out of 'respect' for the Law, people will suffer injustice & even support unjust laws, that violate the basic rights of man. People naturally want order, & look to a collective force to keep it. They know that there are occasional injustices, because of the nature of man. But when the injustices begin to become a constant pattern.. when Law becomes more of an instrument of plunder, instead of providing fair justice, the citizens *should* become indignant & demand reform.

So it seems that the producers enable the looters with their unquestioning respect for Law, even if it has become perverted. What will it take to open the eyes of the working man, to resist the exploitation of the looting class?

How can I be a "looter" when I've been a "responsible producer" for so many years? Your superficial theories are all apparently premised on baseless opinions and false choices.

 

[usfan]

How can I be a "looter" when I've been a "responsible producer" for so many years? Your superficial theories are all apparently premised on baseless opinions and false choices.

I don't know anything about you. But your distractions with personal shots seem to be the tactic of a deflector, who doesn't want to discuss the topic.

 

[Josf]

I too prefer to shine the light of accurate accounting on those who choose to divert attention away from the topic for discussion and onto individual, personal, character issues, or assassination attempts.

"So it seems that the producers enable the looters with their unquestioning respect for Law, even if it has become perverted. What will it take to open the eyes of the working man, to resist the exploitation of the looting class?"

The idea that a crime can be a law is a possible case of aiding, abetting, lending moral, and lending material support to criminals, if in fact there was rule of law, and if in fact there was due process afforded to everyone, then lawful facts could be found in a lawful manner in that case. If, on the other hand, there was no effective means by which victims of criminals (under the color of law criminals, or just plain old overt criminals) are effectively defended, meaning chaos, or meaning so called anarchism (negative meaning since anarchism has at least two opposite meanings), or meaning rule by tyrants, or meaning rule by criminals, or meaning might makes right, or meaning divine (false) right of kings, or meaning rule by deception, threat of aggressive violence by criminals upon targeted victims, or meaning rule by aggressive violence by criminals upon innocent victims in time and place, if that is the kind of law in force, a criminal version of law, a counterfeit version of law put in place by criminals who do so with malice aforethought, then the rules obeyed without question are criminal rules, which include the rule that anyone can do anything at any time to anyone, just don't get caught by another criminal: if that is the case then typically the innocent body count rises in proportion to the dwindling supply of producers producing anything worth stealing.

Producers who produce anything worth stealing, so as to then afford the thieves the power they need to steal more, are always the targets of criminals when the criminals run out of fellow criminals to steal from. In fact the natural order of natural laws dictates that there must first be a producer before there can be anything worth stealing.

So group A can be producer, and there is only one, until someone else contacts the one and only producer.

If the contact to producer A is involuntary, meaning contact by willful deception intending to deceive producer A, with malice aforethought, so as to transfer something worth something from producer A, then there is a commonly understood word for that form of contact.

Crime

That crime is also called a commonly understood word, in English, so as to accurately discriminate that crime from other crimes.

Fraud

If on the other hand the contact made by the one contacting the producer, with malice aforethought, so as to gain at the expense of the producer in the group of one, and this time the contact involves a threat of aggressive violence upon the producer, and if the producer is powerless, defenseless, and the threat is demonstrated as a clear and present danger, then that is also a crime, and there is another word for that crime, or many possible words depending upon the precise nature of the criminal act.

Extortion

Calling it mooching, or calling it looting, is to me like begging the question, who in any case is the individual, named, victim, in that individual case, and who is the individual, named, and accurately identified, accused perpetrator, presumed to be innocent, until proven guilty, by some due process that is due, and afforded, to all, without exception?

Or

What is law?

If you have no answer, whatsoever, then that fact may be known by someone working to expand their criminal market share of the limited number of available supply of ready victims who may have something worth stealing.

Here is one of many competitive answers to the question "What is law?":

RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER 1 U.S. 236 1788 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

"It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue."

Had the criminals failed in the perpetration of their crime to take over the working federation in America there then would be rule of law in America, and rule of law could be demonstrated thereby, in any case.

 

[BlackSand]

So out of 'respect' for the Law, people will suffer injustice & even support unjust laws, that violate the basic rights of man. People naturally want order, & look to a collective force to keep it. They know that there are occasional injustices, because of the nature of man. But when the injustices begin to become a constant pattern.. when Law becomes more of an instrument of plunder, instead of providing fair justice, the citizens *should* become indignant & demand reform.

So it seems that the producers enable the looters with their unquestioning respect for Law, even if it has become perverted. What will it take to open the eyes of the working man, to resist the exploitation of the looting class?

Some of that is easy to answer ...

It no longer makes a difference when the people become indignant and demand reform ... Because they are already indignant and demanding reform.
They have overplayed their hand in demanding reforms consisting of unsubstantiated desires that cannot bear the weight of fulfillment.
To demand justice for all is a wonderful thing ... The problem comes when millions of people have a different idea of what justice is ... And want to cut out their little notch to suit their desires.

Indignant people rule the day ... They just cannot accomplish their goals as far as government is concerned.
It is not complicated ... It is easier to pop something in the microwave and sit down in front of the television.
The producers are all pissed off they haven't done what is necessary to achieve their own goals and desires ... And they can sit there and rot if they expect for anything to be given to them ... That is not how you achieve anything worthwhile.

Perhaps a better question would be ... Why don't the people who have achieved their goals turn around and babysit someone else until they get off their rear ends and do what they should be doing?

To which the best answer would be ... Why the hell would I while you are stabbing me in the back?

.