Part of Society? - For Akzle

**HenryDorsetCase** · 2nd November 2012, 10:20

Mr Akzle needs to do some reading.

In the meantime, because he is "outside of society" doubtless he will appreciate Patti Smith:

[youtube]DLIkM4wvcC8[/youtube]

You want transgressive? You want honest? try using the word "nigger" in the title of a rock song on your second album released 1978.

But I dont know anything about your musical taste Mr Akzle. Hopefully it is more developed than your political discourse. Thank you also for your comment about me not being a "real lawyer". Leaving aside the ad hominem part of that (to which, you might have noticed, I have unsubtly responded above), I have referred your concerns to the New Zealand Law Society, and told them that you dont think I am a real lawyer and accordingly I have asked for a refund of my practising certificate fees. I have also contacted my insurers for a PI premium refund, and advised my staff. So thanks for pointing it out.

twat.

**schrodingers cat** · 2nd November 2012, 11:05

Originally Posted by SMOKEU

Admitting that you grow buds on a public forum is not a sensible idea.

Mr A will just tell the popo he's not part of their society. They'll nod sagely and walk away.

No rules man!

**Maha** · 2nd November 2012, 11:33

Originally Posted by 007XX

Bi it is then... No worries though, so am I.

I would have been too, but Drew went all 'One Direction' on me...

**007XX** · 2nd November 2012, 11:46

Originally Posted by Maha

I would have been too, but Drew went 'One Direction' on me...

Oh I wouldn't be so sure about that love... Hate to break it to you, but I think he was just trying to let you down easy there

**007XX** · 2nd November 2012, 12:12

Originally Posted by Akzle

hey, i'm in town. i can "intrigue" you all night long if ya want...

(but i'm intimidated by your bike, so be gentle with me)

Ha... that's cute, but hardly appealing at all. I outgrew the "bad boy" stage a long time ago.

[/QUOTE]1- mocking the mockers. there's no such thing as foreigners. that's a fiction. [/QUOTE]

Better.
[/QUOTE]
2- i interact with police on a semi-regular basis, and always rock my plenipotentiary adjudicunt shit. works outright about 50% of the time.
and if you hit up some youtube videos you'll see that "sovereign men" do fairly well in open court. we don't play in the crown courts, because they're fucked up. (conflict of interest, unlawful, i'm not part of the "law society" either, etc)
we convene courts de jure, generally under common law rights. very few judges want to go on record saying they deny you your common law rights.

(ps, i don't actually "deal" marajuana. just grow, smoke and share it, there's not often money involved) [/QUOTE]

You redeemed yourself with the no dealing. However, the first part of that paragraph demonstrate why you are dangerous to the rest of people around you. You justify your actions based on your "right" to not fit in with the rest of society. What if your actions are harmful to the rest of us? Is it still acceptable for you to carry them out?
Believe it or not, I happen to have a few "sovereign men and women" as friends. But extremists with their own set of rules always end up being nefast to the likes who prefer to live within a society making compromises.

a nation is ideally made up of like minded individuals who strive to live together . Whether the system is optimum for this to happen or not, we all have to live together and agree upon common rules to avoid chaos and get along (Thou shalt not steal, etc)

Do you get where I'm going with this? I'm not doubting you do cos I certainly don't think you're stupid. Maybe just a little obstinate.[/QUOTE]
3- you're right. ish. but again, if i were elsewhere, the middle east say, i'd be packing an AK47 and voicing my opinion in some kind of street rioting type behaviour, executing politicians. asides from "i aint got enough money or a big enough boat to go anywhere else",
i do enjoy the relative freedom of these islands. the means to argue by my mind rather than my gun cabinet.
[/QUOTE]

Once again, with that approach, how are you part of the solution rather than of the problem?
In these countries, it has been well proven that the supply in sick fucktards as head of states is plentiful. Like the Chimera, you cut one head and two will sprout out just as vicious as the previous one.

And arguing is pointless, however having a healthy debate is something the creators of the concept of democracy enjoyed tremenduously. Whether you like it or not, being in a society that gives you the right to speak your mind and defend your opinion is a privilege and it should be appreciated as such.

It is a privilege worth fighting for, and something I think you might be taking for granted.

**HenryDorsetCase** · 2nd November 2012, 12:42

I think the thing that irks me about Mr Akzle's position can be boiled down to this:

Mr Akzle's position (as I understand it) is "I am not part of New Zealand society: your rules do not apply to me, your laws and customs and government and all that other garbage are fiction. I am apart from the rest of you."

So, at first blush, that seems like at least an arguable position: participation is voluntary, this is a democracy, and I am a free person and I can do what I want.

And to quote Mr Shakespeare "Aye, but there's the rub": In making that pronouncement, then doing nothing further, the contradiction is revealed. Because by engaging with it, you are participating in it, while saying you are not part of it.

It seems to me to be the classical case of cognitive dissonance: this is a psychological condtion wherein people hold two muaually exclusive or contradictory beliefs, and yet profess both to be true. Basically a demonstration that if sincere, Mr Akzle is mentally ill. My view is that Mr Akzle appreciates the intellectual dishonesty of his position, but chooses not to engage with it.

Shirley, if Mr Akzle was sincere in his belief about a "society of one" for want of a better description, then disengaging entirely would be the intellectually honest approach. Find some land somewhere, and using nothing other than own hands, mind and labour, build, trade, and defend your own "patch". And you can't do it in the fictional New Zealand, because, mate, we're already here, and we claim it. And between us, we own more guns than you. "Us" of course in this context meaning the rest of New Zealand at large.

In fact, not even the most deluded of the Maori separatists are advancing a position akin to yours, Mr Akzle, and they arguably would have stronger claim to advancing it than anyone else, should they choose to. Of course they'd still be wrong, just not as wrong as you.

Also: sushi for lunch. Superb.

**oneofsix** · 2nd November 2012, 12:50

Originally Posted by HenryDorsetCase

Shirley, if Mr Akzle was sincere in his belief about a "society of one" for want of a better description, then disengaging entirely would be the intellectually honest approach. Find some land somewhere, and using nothing other than own hands, mind and labour, build, trade, and defend your own "patch". .

trade? If he is to trade he requires others to trade with and that makes a society of sorts.

Hope you enjoyed your mercury lunch

**007XX** · 2nd November 2012, 13:05

I just want to know who Shirley is

**oneofsix** · 2nd November 2012, 13:08

Originally Posted by 007XX

I just want to know who Shirley is

worried she might be competition?

**HenryDorsetCase** · 2nd November 2012, 13:12

Originally Posted by oneofsix

trade? If he is to trade he requires others to trade with and that makes a society of sorts.

Hope you enjoyed your mercury lunch

mmmmm mercury.

I was sort of thinking of the classical era city state. That is Island Akzle trades with other societies (mainland NZ for example). But I do think your point is well made: to engage at all implies social interaction which is a characteristic of "society".

He's in for a lonely old time on his island, huh? Or as Hobbes would have it: "Nasty, poor, brutish and short"

In fact I would recommend that Mr Akzle read at least Hobbes "Leviathan" and some Tom Paine, a bit of Marx and some Bakunin, maybe a bit of the classics etc. I dont think I have the PHIL101 reading list or course notes but I know someone who teaches it. Sing out and I can try and get a copy.

Then we can all get a good grounding in the area, and deal with the fact that people have been thinking about, and writing about, this shit for 4000 years. In fact probably for as long as people have been thinking, and writing.

Then we'll talk. Oh yes. It'll be like the US Constitutional Congress (but with less hookers and whiskey)