Liberty Versus Legal Crime
Submitted by Josf on Mon, 04/02/2012 - 21:54In that work by that person there are words that convey specific meaning, shared meaning, agreeable meaning, accurate meaning, or true meaning, concerning the Power Struggle between those who invent, produce, and maintain Liberty (which is the most effective avoidance of crime, including the most effective avoidance of crime that is made legal), and on the other side of this Power Struggle are those who invent, produce, and maintain crime, including the most powerful crimes which are those crimes that are Legal Crime.
Here is the relevant quote:
"The Constitution denied the right of the states to issue currency. The federal government alone had this right,"
It can be baffling, confusing, and very difficult to understand how someone can be lead to believe in lies, as if lies were true.
How does that happen?
Example:
In the Declaration of Independence there are words that convey accurate meaning, whereby the concept of rebellion or insurrection is understood to be good, right, and even the duty of moral human beings, so as to preserve Liberty, which means something, and does not mean nothing.
Liberty means something, and if it means anything it means to avoid being criminals, certainly it means to avoid making crime legal.
That above is understandable as:
1. Declaration of Independence = Liberty, the right, the good, the moral duty to rebel, to cause insurrection, when the Law power is Criminal.
Next, in this example of pointing out what can be termed a Patented Absurdity, whereby there is a false belief, held by some people, whereby some people think that a lie is true, next is another document titled The Articles of Confederation.
Under the Articles of Confederation those rebels who worked at the job of insurrection dared to reclaim the law power by those Articles, in the effort to drive out the invading army of the British rulers whose competitive law power was accurately measured to be a criminal law power - dictatorial - masters who enslaved mankind by fraud and force, made legal by their say so, at their exclusive pleasure.
2. Articles of Confederation = Liberty, the right, the good, the moral duty to regain control of the law power, by mutual agreement, in Liberty.
How is it possible to claim that rebellion and insurrection is against the law when it is rebellion and insurrection that brought the law power back to moral people in defense against Wars of Aggression, for profit, perpetrated by a Dictatorial Government?
It is not possible.
Rebellion and insurrection was the power that reclaimed a Liberated Government Power from a Dictatorial, Criminal, Government Power.
So far:
1. Declaration of Independence (rebellion)
2. Articles of Confederation (Law Power gained through rebellion)
Skipping, for the moment, number 3 in this exposure of a Patented Absurdity, and moving onto 4:
4. Bill of Rights
Armed people, armed with knowledge, profess to have that knowledge, and that POWER, and they demand to retain that power to share that knowledge and that Power, as precisely, and accurately, reported in The First Amendment.
Backing up that profession, that declaration, that POWER, is the additional POWER to be armed with weapons, in case of any need, which may arise, whereby armed criminals, including criminals with badges, seek to take away any POWER, from these people who make these declarations.
4. Bill of Rights = Don't tread on me, fair warning, give me Liberty or be prepared to die trying to take it from us.
OK, that is a healthy series of words, in those documents so listed.
What about that contradictory document? What about the one that does not fit in that set of documents?
What is this crackpot doing with his tin hat now?
3. The Constitution
Section 8
I quote (from the official web page):
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"
Note: Suppress Insurrections
Do as I say, not as I do.
Why do people, educated people, smart people, knowledgeable people, wise people, group The Constitution in with The Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation, and The Bill of Rights as if it belonged in that group?
It is a Patented Absurdity to do so, since the one is Dictatorial and the others are Liberating.
One is crime made legal.
The others outlaw Legal Crime.
The others are willful expressions of a demand to avoid, or rebel against, crimes made legal.
The others outlaw Legal Crime.
Who controls the Power of Law?
Who controls the free flow of information?
Who controls the free flow of money?
Why do people fall for this fraud, whereby Crime made Legal is grouped with Crime being against the Law?
I am going to continue this report in subsequent comments, while employing more current events from reports by other people who compete in our world of information while our world of information is as yet not censored completely by the criminals who have stolen the power of law.
Repeating:
"The Constitution denied the right of the states to issue currency. The federal government alone had this right,"
- Login to post comments
Please Explain
From reading your post I am understanding that the constitution is a dictatorial document. Why then, does Ron Paul support/uphold the constitution? I am just trying to understand. Thanks!
Good question
There were many critics who stood against The Constitution because they understood the process by which Criminals take over the Power of Law.
Among the criticisms of The Constitution was the ambiguity of the Language used in it. The critics claimed, in so many words, that The President would make himself King, as powerful as any King, by constructively interpreting the ambiguous language.
When asked, in this light, why, why, why, Mr. President, did you do that, and what can be the expected answer?
It is within my Power to do so, according to my interpretation of The Constitution.
Which Constitution?
You interpret it one way.
Someone else may say: It depends upon what is is.
Asking The President to explain his reasons can be followed up:
"You and what army?" Say so?
One of the first test cases, as to both the reasoning behind the change from The Articles of Confederation and the creation of a Single Monopolistic Nation State (instead of a working Federation good enough to help The People get rid of the most powerful Aggressive Invading Army for Profit of the day) was the crushing of that Rebellion against that enforcement of that National Money Monopoly called The Whiskey Rebellion.
Ron Paul has those words on his Desk in Congress: The Government Hates Competition.
Competition of all kinds, but mostly competition in Legal Currency, including the power to interpret what is is.
In context with Ron Paul, please confirm, or please support, or please help me understand, his goals as President with that constructively interpretable Constitution.
Repeal of Legal Tender Laws, for example, can usher in a new age of Monetary Competition among States in a Federation, according to Ron Paul's interpretation of that Constitution.
Yes or no?
The words on the document are not the problem, so much as the likely occurrence of liars, frauds, and criminals taking over the power to interpret those words, and use their interpretations as cover stories covering up their willful crimes made legal.
They promise one thing, they do the opposite, and they can be trusted to do that more than once, so, reasonably, there can be a head count concerning who hires the criminals, to run things, and who pays them, and who is satisfied with that connection to those hired frauds?
Cases in point:
Crushing a rebellion against a Whiskey Tax (money competition) one of the first test cases as to what the new Nation State can get away with perpetrating under the color of law.
Alien and Sedition Acts (Thought Crime), which lead to James Madison seeing the light of his error in taking part of The Constitution fraud, and then siding with Thomas Jefferson in fighting against the crooks in that office with their Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions (another lost battle to preserve Liberty within a fraudulent republic)
The First Bank of the United States (Legal Money Monopoly Power) The Prize
Joe
Thank you
for an excellent answer!
Following up
Following up on the connection between a constitution and Ron Paul it may be worth considering the principles involved in a constitutional government as a constitutional government competes, side by side, in comparison to a dictatorship or legalized crime.
Ron Paul, as far as I understand his stated intentions, is supporting an interpretation of The Constitution as can be useful in defending innocent people from crimes, including crimes perpetrated by people with badges.
How about an outline of this type of thinking as such:
Problem:
The Imminent Extinction of Mankind or one more innocent person injured by another person, done legally or otherwise.
Competitive Solutions:
A
Resort to Crime to avoid Human Extinction, or to avoid one more innocent person becoming the victim of one more crime, legal or otherwise.
B
Liberty, or, in other words, the effective avoidance of Crime, as victim or as "fellow" criminal.
Which type of person chooses A?
If everyone chooses A, what is likely to be the result of those accumulative choices, or what is the aggregate sum of consequences in a case where everyone chooses A?
Is A a false solution?
What is a true solution?
How about a concept whereby it is lawful to offer competitive solutions instead of the ONE choice?
Which is the ONE choice?
A
Resort to Crime to avoid Human Extinction, or to avoid one more innocent person becoming the victim of one more crime, legal or otherwise.
That is the ONE choice. It is not a choice. It is a false choice, because it isn't even a choice, it is, in a word, obedience.
Enter State Left (or Right):
B
Liberty, or, in other words, the effective avoidance of Crime, as victim or as "fellow" criminal.
Which type of person chooses options and what happens if everyone chooses anything other than the non-option?
Everyone chooses to avoid crime, to avoid being a criminal, and to avoid being a victim, both, at once, and then ask what are the likely consequences of all those choices being made by all those people in the absence of any choices by anyone to resort to crime for any reason, not for false reasons, and not even for supposed "good intentions"?
Problem redefined:
Some people choose A, crime, as a solution to any problem under the sun, but since a criminal makes that choice it is probably a lie when the criminal confesses their reasoning as they explain why they choose to resort to crime.
For the Greater Good.
What can be done by people who don't choose A, while there are still people choosing A?
Here is where a person invents something, such as a tool, like a pointed stick, or a Constitution, something handy, something picked up and waved around, to accomplish a goal, a workable thing used to reach an intended result.
What will this tool look like, and what happens if this tool is copied and used by the very people who this tool has been constructed to defend against?
It will look like an agreement, such as: if, by chance, this happens, then it is reasonable for that to happen, yes or no?
If it looks like an order that cannot be questioned, whereby those who are ordered to obey must obey, and failing to obey will result in injury of a specified magnitude, including the failure to avoid questioning the order, then, that looks no different than any other crime.
A criminal can use that tool, designed that way, to commit crimes, according to that specific formula.
What if the tool looks like any other crime from one angle and from another angle the tool looks like a reasonable agreement?
A non-criminal can use that tool, designed that way, to hold those who commit crimes to account for those crimes, at least.
Torture is legal.
Where does it say that?
Which tool?
Who has the power to use it?
Where do they get that power to use that tool?
How do they get that power to use that tool?
If that tool doesn't work to accomplish the goal in view, why not?
So the thinking is, as far as I can tell, based upon my reading of Ron Paul, and his stated intentions, is to pick up that tool, that Constitution, and use it in defense of Liberty, and that isn't a far stretch, since that Constitution was sold as a tool that can help people in defense of Liberty, even though the inventors of it knew better, and even though those who opposed it knew better, it was still sold, to the masses, as a tool that can be used by The People in defense of Liberty.
It was sold, to the masses, despite opposition, as a Democratic Federated Republican form of government, a tool that was already proven to be an effective tool in defense of Liberty.
A similar tool had already been invented, and used, and that was a working Democratic Federated Republic under The Articles of Confederation; whereby the design was such to enable the users of the tool to experiment on competitive methods by which Liberty will be defended by the users of the tool.
Here is where all that typing above, and presumably all the reading thus far, pays off, as the design of a Democratic Federated Republic is explained.
I trust that Ron Paul understand this much.
A State Government within the Republic may dabble in Despotism, whereby the Governors may choose to resort to crimes perpetrated upon some of The People within, even outside, the boundaries of their current level of power.
Who protects those victims? Who has the legal power to protect those victims?
The victims.
That is the answer.
They vote with their feet, if they don't want to resort to insurrection against a criminal government.
How about looking from this angle of view:
Take all you know about exactly how criminally guilty the National Government is right now and image all those crimes committed by all those bad people were limited only to one State inside an otherwise functioning Democratic Federated Republic.
This is not difficult to do, all that is needed is pick the least criminal State in this Nation State (formerly a Republic) and imagine that State being the worst criminal State in a more Perfect Union.
Take, I don't know, Montana.
Picture Montana as being the worst, despotic, torturous, mass murderous dictatorship in The United States of America, whereby every other State was, by comparison to Montana, a paradise of crime free prosperous living, high standards of living, low costs of living, by some process as yet not clearly, and accurately, reported.
Just imagine Montana as being the bad apple in the bunch, even as Montana is now one of the less despotic States in this Nation State.
This image of Montana, as it is now, being the worst State in The United States, is an image that does not include a run away Federal Government Power (that isn't Federal, it is criminal).
So the image is before you, where there is no Criminal National Crime Ring perpetrating crimes in Montana, as well as all the other States, and in this image Montana is the poster boy Despotism compared to all the other States.
What happens if Montana, with that picture, that image in mind, goes rogue? What happens in that image where Montana is as it is now, but it is by comparison to all the other States, a model of despotism, and it suddenly turns into a worse despotism. What happens in that image of a more perfect Union, if Montana turns into something exactly like our runaway Federal Government today?
Would anyone in all the other States support the Dictators in Montana or support the Rebels in that State as the Rebels work to regain control of their Criminal Government?
What happens if the targeted Slaves in Montana vote with their feet and move to Minnesota, or New Jersey, inside that imaginary Democratic Federated Republic under the leadership of those people hired to interpret that Constitution?
The thinking continues:
As the Despotic Criminals running Montana kill off more of their rebellious victims, and as the slaves run away to other States, the competitive advantage of Liberty is measurable as the Despots consume all their capital, including their slaves, while those slaves, those producers of capital, those honest productive people, take their power to greener pastures.
The logical end result of all those decisions by all those people involved in that imaginary scenario is the end of Despotism and the empowerment of Liberty, on a massive scale.
Eventually Montana Criminals, with badges, grow so weak, they can't afford to enslave the depleting supply of victims, let alone eat cake, or defend against rebellion and insurrection by The People in the effort to return Government back to something akin to Defense of Liberty, instead of Crime as a solution to Crime.
The design of a Democratic Federated Republican form of government is such that competition is protected, whereby it is against the law to resort to deceit, threats of violence, and acts of torturous, and mass murderous violence, creating a monopoly power, and then sustaining it.
There was a precedent on that point, in Shays's Rebellion.
Joe
Vital Questions
Vital Questions deserve to be answered accurately, if not: why ask?
This forum, at this time, is vital, it seems to me.
The Vital Questions are being asked, and more people are not tolerating the false and misleading answers.
What is found, when that intolerance of fraud drives discovery of the facts?
Money, or better yet, currency, and all forms of it, including the vital questions and the accurate answers.
I think there is a convergence occurring as more and more people are discovering the need to no longer tolerate this state of being subjected to lies, and on this road fellow travelers are found on almost parallel paths, but the paths are not parallel, the paths meet, we are following the money.
There is one source.
Why?
Joe
UPDATED: There is one source
because monopolistic criminals have power over what is legal tender granted to them under a single nation state document which can be interpreted to make their crime legal, and when grievances to restore liberty are addressed they can be squashed as insurrection. (I had to go outside and gather a few branches for the burn barrel before the complete answer was formed.)
Wow!
Funny how a little physical labor can bring things into focus,Lol. Check out the link I posted below about turgot. It is worth looking at in relation to Ron Paul.
"You go and carry off the enemy's land; the enemy comes and carries off your land"-Ancient Sumerian tablet
Will do...
Yes, my first answer was just "Because the monopolistic criminals have power over what is legal tender." I had to run back into the house 2 times to get what I felt to be a complete answer, though I may still be missing something. Also had the thought that so many paths are converging because so many "rebellions" have been stiffled thru the years we are all finally coming together. Plus since Ron Paul has been at it for 40 years so there seems to be someone with a good record who is focused enough to lead.
Probably good that I was asked the question to put all the pieces together. Plus I just figured out that the OP had a link at the beginning of his post that I had never looked at so I still need to do that. Will probably bring things into better focus as well. But I have to say since these concepts are new to me I have to read the information a couple of times to get it to sink in.
I saw ya'll throwing names around below and the only one I recognize is Marx. I am behind the curve ball on history. I'll check out your link on Turgot.
That happens to me too
I will be in a conversation here and have to run on a call. The whole time I am figuring out my response to a question. Then I get back and the thread is buried and I am afraid to bump it back up too soon,Lol. I posted the Turgot link here also if you want to comment on it. :)
http://www.dailypaul.com/224593/anne-robert-jacques-turgot-m...
"You go and carry off the enemy's land; the enemy comes and carries off your land"-Ancient Sumerian tablet
Change is on the schedule
Don't worry.
Change is inevitable.
New Boss (same as the old Boss)
Just when you think you have the bad guys nailed down, at least their names known, what happens?
The Federal Reserve becomes The World Bank?
Is that harkening back to that Bait and Switch routine, or just a natural progression, like rotations of the Earth?
Quote:
"The latest moves by the U.S. are deeply disturbing to China, as they have the power to directly hurt the spread of the Yuan on a global basis, if the U.S. so decides. Consequently, China is threatened right now!"
I may be very wrong, of course, I'm just an average Joe who has been documenting the flow of Power out of the control of U.S.A. Inc. (LLC), and American Producers of Surplus Wealth, into China.
American Producers of Surplus Wealth have become too powerful to control by those who own us. You can claim that no one owns you, and maybe you have figured out how to protect your earnings, you don't feed the monsters, not you.
Good for you.
The National Debt Clock is a score board, most of us are on it, most of us are feeding the monster, and that monster has control over us, but, and this is where I may be wrong, but that power over us is vanishing, we are growing much too powerful, we the Honest Productive People, We the People, we are much too powerful for those who own us, with that Money Monopoly Power, on that score board, that National Debt Clock account.
The change on the horizon is on a schedule, and when it is time, all the power we have, will be taken from us, through the thing called war, not small war, relatively speaking, not local war, but World War.
Number III.
World War III is the change afoot. It serves to usher in the new World Reserve Currency move, from The Dollar Hegemony, to the new Power, same old power, new place, new regime, many of the same actors, and they fight, they torture, they murder, each other, just not as much as they torture, and mass murder their victims.
There is a power in numbers.
There is a power in deceit.
Don't, please, discount the power of honest productive, agreeable, mutually beneficial, equitable, work.
Don't, please, discount the power of Liberty.
All that is needed is a competitive legal money, or two, or three, each forcing the other to higher quality, earning higher standards of living, and each legal, competitive, money supplier, forces each other, to lower, and lower prices, leading to lower, and lower, costs of living, gaining more power, and more power, and enough power to avoid becoming Legal Criminals, and avoid them as much as is humanly possible.
When World War III is on the brink, it is because the tipping point is reaching, where they have to do something, or they lose all their power, they lose their power of deceit, their power of threats of violence upon their targeted innocent victims, and those Legal Criminals, at that tipping point, where their victims wake up, is their loss of their power to order good people to be violent against the innocent, so the bad guys will be weakest, and Honest Productive Human Beings will be strongest, at that time when we can opt out, because that will be our window of opportunity. They know it, and that tipping point will be their last chance to ignite World War III.
It is no coincidence that a Ron Paul is gaining power at this time.
This is our time.
Don't attend either the Economic Collapse or World War III.
Invent, produce, and maintain Competitive Legal Money, produce Liberty, Prosper, Opt out of Legal Crime.
Those who are left in support of those crimes will eat each other alive, be rendered powerless, either survive through charity after their own hell on earth, or they too will pick up a shovel, or rake, or a productive idea, and get an honest job.
Joe
Thank you
I enjoy your style,Great work.
"You go and carry off the enemy's land; the enemy comes and carries off your land"-Ancient Sumerian tablet
Thanks
Rare are the compliments, but many more in these days than 20 years ago.
For you especially I am going to find words that may serve you as well as they have served me:
Science Applied
"What remains to be done, then, for wise men, is clearly this: to attempt to penetrate the future by investigating the past and the present to ascertain whether there be no elements of calculation capable of fixing with tolerable certainty the precise point in the sidereal heavens of human destiny toward which our whole system is confessedly verging with accelerated velocity. To penetrate the gloom which encircles the orbit of our future progression might, at least, end the torture of suspense, even to those who may be least content with the nature of the solution. “If,” says Carlyle again, “the accused nightmare that is crushing out the life of us and ours would take a shape, approach us like the Hyrcanian tiger, the Behemoth of Caos, or the Archfiend himself,--in any shape that we could see and fasten on,--a man can have himself shot with cheerfulness, but it needs that he shall clearly see for what.”
Joe
How did you know I was a historian?
Yes,What an unusual character Stephen Pearl Andrews truly was. He latched onto any new idea that came along including the works of Charles Fourier the French utopian socialist,
Josiah Warren and Karl Marx. Yet in the end he became well known for his Libertarian ideas that were rooted in his Individualistic Anarchism. Jeff Riggenbach wrote a very good article about Andrews at the Mises institute that I found facinating with history. Thank you Joe.
http://mises.org/daily/5161
"You go and carry off the enemy's land; the enemy comes and carries off your land"-Ancient Sumerian tablet
Hit Piece
Resort to Spin, and even the use of Spin does not convey accurate meaning, concerning that willful deception on that web site concerning the opinions that author has on Stephen Pearl Andrews.
That is a professional Hit Piece, the subtle but effective close association made between Andrews, his actions, and someone's opinion concerning those actions, whereby the opinion conveys a cult like "belief" in "notions".
So, having read as much as I could stand, I'm now possessed of a belief that Andrews was a cult follower?
Of course I am guilty of reading too much into things, granted.
How about a deal?
We can start a Forum Topic, one that may not yet be in demand, but certainly one that will be in demand if the Power of Liberty grows, and the topic could be something alone the lines of Competitive Money Issues - what do you think?
Joe
Of course you are right
I have taken this off topic from your OP,I did not mean to and I apologize, but the original words you posted by Andrews sparked my interest in that direction.Please do, start another thread to cover this topic.I think many here might enjoy it, as it has been discussed before.
"You go and carry off the enemy's land; the enemy comes and carries off your land"-Ancient Sumerian tablet
Thanks
I could hold my own in any discussion concerning Josiah Warren but Karl Marx is a mysterious figure to me.
Your words, as a read them, suggest unearned discredit thrown upon Stephen Pearl Andrews and Josiah Warren.
Am I mistaken?
I will look into the mises link.
I can report a sordid history of mine with The Austrian Economists, I think there are at least two main groups within that bunch. To credit all of them for what some of them did, do, are doing, and will do, is an error, not accurate, prejudice, so I won't do that, but time is ripe, right now, to compete for higher quality and lower cost viewpoints.
Who gets credit for what, in your view?
Which ideas have you latched onto?
Joe
Andrews appeared to be open minded
And studied the works of just about everyone, from every angle, including Marx. his views changed from one to the next as he progressed into his own final result as an author. I guess you could call him a flip flopper in support of the different theories as he grew in knowledge. I think though that happens to everyone as they gain knowledge.
I support Austrian economics as a very sound theory as a whole. I have been reading about Austrian economics for years, but as for credit I would have to go all the way back to Anne Robert Jacques Turgot. I had heard of Turgot years ago but had not spent much time studying him at that time. When I was researching another interesting topic I came across him again with renewed interest of his works.
The topic I was looking into was the background and history of the Dupont family in France. I found it interesting that both Pierre Samuel DuPont and Turgot were both recognized economists that worked at the same time for Louis XVI & Marie-Antoinette. They were both also discharged at the same time by Louis XVI for criticizing the spending habits of Marie Antoinette. I guess Karma may have rectified that action?
I may be wrong but I have to ask if you are the Joe that contributes over at MI? If so I am honored to meet you.
"You go and carry off the enemy's land; the enemy comes and carries off your land"-Ancient Sumerian tablet
Unearned Credit?
I don't know what MI is, but my guess is Mises Institute, and if so, then credit for my work during my short connection to that group (one part of that group in particular) is probably misplaced in reference to a Joe that currently contributes at MI.
I was run off The Austrian Economic Forum awhile ago, it was a very instructive display of Shooting the Messenger by resort to deceit - the common resort Dictators choose.
What else can they do?
Speak the truth?
What I found to be very odd was the fact that the Forum Monitors continued to publish my work even after they sent me to exile. It has been a long time since, however, and the old Forum is gone, along with all my work.
That Hit Piece on Andrews in particular, what a display it is, standard miss-association, connecting opinion to fact, as if they are one and the same thing, if it didn't disgust me so much I could read it with interest, study the science involved perhaps. Emotion concerning things I care for are overpowering to me - a source of concern.
Dictators dictate, that is what they do, they confess by their actions, often hidden, they resort to deceit because that is their weapon used on their targeted victims. I think it is a good idea to opt out of that routine.
If the guy had something worth discrediting, concerning Andrews, then he could have reported whatever was worth reporting, and done so accurately, rather than resorting to stealth mode. It seems to me.
Joe
Brains falling out
Yea, stealth mode, this is eye opening.
How about allowing the chips to fall as they may, competitively, without resort to deceit, threats of violence, and violence upon the innocent? Why not opt out of the Standard Routine once?
Joe
Yeah,Like that?
I also found it strange that MI would place an association with Socialism and true Austrian economics. Thank you for your wisdom and guidance as I am still learning. So what was the real story on Andrews?
"You go and carry off the enemy's land; the enemy comes and carries off your land"-Ancient Sumerian tablet
I don't know
Andrews was a player on the World Stage during the transition from Voluntary versions of both Socialism and Capitalism into the Involuntary versions - in my opinion.
Take, for a very good example, the unambiguous declaration made by the Communists in their Communist Manifesto to denounce Socialism as being that which they (The Communists) are definitively NOT.
I can get the relevant text and link it, and it refers specifically to Fourier.
Andrews, in his work, accurately reports on the failures of Fourier, which is hardly a cult members actions when following the cult leader.
This is all happening before the abomination that became known as The Civil War, which was anything but Civil, and which was as predictable as predicting the sun coming up, if you understand the history of The Constitution, and in particular The Dirty Compromise that was the deal done by the bad guys (I call them Legal Criminals) in the North (War Profiteers, Monarchs, and Central Bankers) and the Legal Criminals in the South, the Slave Industry, the deal done so as to pave the way for a Central Bank, Monopoly Money Pyramid Fraud, and the South Legal Criminals knew better, but their Gravy Train was already on the fast track into Brutal History, so they were desperate in their effort to have their runaway slaves returned, or kept secure.
So the time period is mid 19th century.
I don't know enough about Andrews, in particular his book titled The History of Socialism, which I can't find. I can report to you that I found The Science of Society, by Andrews, in a Public Library in Australia, of all places, when I could not find that book here in the U.S.A., they copied it, and sent me each page on letter paper in a yellow envelope. I still have those pages. I've since found a hard copy of The Science of Society.
What else is desired to know of Andrews, if you have read, and understand The Science of Society? Who needs an interpreter? The Author spoke.
My interest in the History of Socialism is in particular an interest driven by that complete rejection of Socialism by the Communists, what was it about Socialism that The Communists could not touch, with a ten foot pole?
Is it me, or is it understandable that one of the obvious shining examples of Socialism is the thing called The Military, or if you prefer a voluntary example, then Insurance is an obvious second best example of Socialism, if words command agreeable meaning.
So I don't know much more about Andrews. I've read, but I did not bookmark that source, that Andrews, similar to Bakunin, was "expelled from the international by Karl Marx" (that is the quote at Wikipedia). What was their viewpoint worthy of censorship? I don't know, exactly. I have my guesses.
The thing about Capitalism and Equitable Commerce, not Socialism Versus Capitalism, which is a false non-battle, the real battle has to do with who commands power, and that is the lesson offered by Karl Marx (but twisted) as told by Eric Fromm.
What a web we weave, when at first we resort to deceive?
Labor versus Capital?
Oh, the thing about Capitalism and Equitable Commerce has to do with prices.
In competition, or in a Free Market, there is a force at work where competitors supply things to gain a place in that competitive market, and the force at work forces prices down to cost, and that can be understood, that can be measured, that can be known as fact. Equitable Commerce merely recognizes how that works and reports on the inevitable, logical, result, prices are forced to the price of cost.
How can it be any different?
Enter stage left (or "right"):
Resort to deceit (fraud)
Resort to threats of violence
Resort to willful violence upon the innocent
What happens then?
Prices go up.
Quality goes down.
What happened?
The Criminals end competition, they create a monopoly, they call it law, but it is what it is, it does what it does, and it is accurately measurable with accurate currency.
What brings down Superman?
What kills off the Vampires?
What ends Monopoly?
What ends Crime, at least the crimes made legal?
Follow the money.
Which money?
The accurate, the powerful, the highest quality, and the lowest cost money, the money that is produced by all those producers doing their best to make their way into a free market of money, made all nice and legal of course.
Who is credited for what, with the best money that money can buy?
Labor or Capital?
See how far the capitalists get without lifting a finger?
See how far the workers get without something, anything, to work on?
Joe
Good question
Let me try to figure this one out and get back to you with correct avantages and disadvantages of the two ideas. I lean towards labor as a choice of answer for this question. This is what Turgot explained,but during a time of very different cultural technology. See, as you know, we actually have no true free market economy model to set as example. So in reality we are all just speculating as to validity of the theory even if it is sound.
"You go and carry off the enemy's land; the enemy comes and carries off your land"-Ancient Sumerian tablet
Steps in A direction
How does anyone know if the direction chosen is the right direction?
The proof is in the pudding, and it will come out in the wash.
Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
I once too offense to a comment made by a friend who likened me to Don Quixote, by some forgotten sentence; until I read the book.
Try this on for size:
Power produced into a state of oversupply reduces the cost of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production.
In that sentence there are puzzle pieces placed neatly in order; including Politics and Economy.
if you can, please, link a source for Turgot.
Joe
Absolutely, as you know Ron Paul is an economist.
He most likely got most of his beliefs from this man, Anne Robert Jacques Turgot. We should all take a little time to study the principles this pioneer put forth as roots for Austrian economics.
As regional administrator and later comptroller-general of France, a nation which had succumbed to absolute monarchy, he took giant steps for liberty. He spoke out for religious toleration. He granted freedom of expression. He gave people freedom to pursue the work of their choice. He cut government spending. He opposed inflation and made a case for gold. He abolished some onerous taxes and trade restrictions. He abolished monopoly privileges. He abolished forced labor.
(Sound familiar?)
Turgot was respected by leading thinkers for liberty, including the Baron de Montesquieu, the Marquis de Condorcet, and Benjamin Franklin. Referring to Turgot, Adam Smith wrote that I had the happiness of his acquaintance, and, I flattered myself, even of his friendship and esteem. After meeting Turgot in 1760, Voltaire told a friend: I have scarcely ever seen a man more lovable or better informed. Jean Baptiste Say, who inspired so many French libertarians during the nineteenth century, declared, There are hardly any works which can yield to the journalist and to the statesman an ampler harvest of facts and of instruction than may be found in the writings of Turgot. Pierre-Samuel Du Pont de Nemours, a French champion of laissez faire and founder of the American industrial family, paid his friend Thomas Jefferson the supreme compliment by calling him the American Turgot.
Screw the Duponts!
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/anne-robert-jacques...
"You go and carry off the enemy's land; the enemy comes and carries off your land"-Ancient Sumerian tablet
Next Step
Thanks for the Link on Turgot.
Please consider my viewpoint at this moment.
Problem and Solution.
Problem stated:
Law Power is now Criminal Power
Solution:
Invent, produce, and maintain competitive Legal Money
I don't know how to break things down simpler, but I have tried.
Joe's Law:
Power Produced into Oversupply reduces the Price of Power while Purchasing Power increased, because Power reduces the Cost of Production.
In order to know better, Science is Applied.
That is why I found Equitable Commerce by Josiah Warren, and The Science of Society by Stephen Pearl Andrews to be worth something along the lines of Problem and Solution.
Problem:
Legal Crime
Solution:
Competition in Legal Money Markets
Words cannot convey exactly how accurate those words are, in accurately measurable fact; hence a more accurate medium of exchange in needed, something less destructive, something much more productive, something mutually beneficial, something that does not transfer so much power from those who earn that power, produce that power, make that power, more power made by those people than those people consume, transferring to those who steal it, something that avoids that, some medium of exchange that is, in a word, EQUITABLE.
Not equal
Equitable
The words on the link to Turgot appear to be words that help illustrate how good things can be done, and other general illustrations.
I skimmed the link, as I have another project, a power earning project, required of me, to pay the bills, as I looked for Turgot's take on legal money.
That is what I do.
I look for competitive perspectives on Legal Money Issues, because that is, to me, the Litmus Test.
Think:
A. Legal Fraud and Extortion World Wide, Nation Wide, State Wide, County Wide, City Wide, Family Wide, Individual Wide, the same unit of legal money used by all, for all DEBTS PUBLIC and PRIVATE - no OR ELSE. Love it or leave it. Might Makes Right
B. Gold as Money used by the people hired to run Government at the National Level (in the effort to return a Nation State or working Despotism into a working Republic), while repealing Legal Tender Laws, so as to stop enforcing a single Money Monopoly, so as to allow States to compete in the effort to invent, produce, and maintain competitive Legal Money Supplies within the Republic. The Federal Government runs on Gold and Silver as money, flowing from State Governments to the Federal Government in that working Republic = NO DIRECT TAXATION OF THE PEOPLE BY THE DESPOTIC NATION STATE i.e. End both The Federal Reserve System of Legal Extortion and The Federal Income Tax Enslavement Program (both of which are definitively not FEDERAL, as they are monopolistic, despotic, or NATIONAL).
C.
Everything under the SUN as the newest, best, highest quality, and lowest cost, competitive Legal Money bidding for more market share against all the other competitors who are no longer forced out of business by people who resort to deceit, threats of violence upon the innocent, and acts of torturous, mass murderous, violence upon the innocent, including those people who give themselves badges, raises, bonuses, and those Legal Criminals who have, and will continue to, write themselves legal checks greater than the total sum of purchasing power controlled by everyone else on the planet combined.
I learned my history myself and in that process I found Equitable Commerce by Josiah Warren.
Step, by step, by step, this is how it works, and it was tested, in actual reality, and it worked as it worked, it really did, and the Principles involved are true, accurately measurable, each new time it is measured, by each person using the Scientific Method, because that is how truth works, it is always the same truth, always the same for everyone, all the time.
Monopoly = Crime
Competition = Liberty
Those are just words.
Turgot can help make things better, a good example, how did he do it?
Ron Paul is also providing an example, his example is current.
What is Ron Paul doing, exactly?
1. End The Federal Reserve (system of legal extortion)
2. End The Federal Income Tax (Legal Slavery)
3. End Enforcement of Legal Tender Laws (return to a working Democratic Federated Republican form of self-government)
4. End the purchase of Aggressive Wars for the Profit of a few (crimes that Nazis were found guilty of perpetrating and sentenced to death, and put to death for perpetrating), and employ The Military as a Defensive Force used to Defend Liberty, not securing the profits of a few at the expense of every tortured and mass murdered victim, including The Troops, The Families of the Troops, and including all the Targets Targeted by those Troops as they are ordered to do their jobs better than the Targets or they die when the Targets they are ordered to Target are better at killing than OUR Troops.
So, at this Step, what is Turgot's position on money?
That is the litmus test.
Every Despot and every Criminal targets the producers of surplus wealth, because those producers of surplus wealth produce more than they consume, and therefore their work, their production, their earnings constitute all the power in command of every human individual on Earth, there is no other source, and that is why that group, that group of honest productive people, equitable people, non-criminals, that group is the target group, that group is the focal point of all the Despots and all the Criminals that have ever existed, ever, in Human Time, as their kind pollute the gene pool, in so many ways.
They, the Despots, the Criminals, invent means by which the target victims are involuntarily connected to those criminals and there is then a measurable flow of power taken from the producers of surplus wealth and that power flows to those Despots and those Criminals through those connecting mediums, but it is not the TOOL, it is the Individual who will be Responsible for what is done with the TOOL.
If criminals and despots can invent, produce, and maintain these connecting mediums then why can't the victims invent their own, less costly (to the victims) versions, more productive (for the victims) versions?
Stupidity?
It is against the law.
Who made it against the law, why listen to them, they lie?
Litmus Test:
Do you think it is moral, or even survivable as a species, to support a monopoly money power by using that money?
or
Do you think it is moral, and even survivable as a species, to avoid that connection entirely, and instead of reading from that false script: you, and as many fellow Friends of Liberty existing on this Planet, decide to compete in that market, by inventing, producing, and maintaining higher quality and lower cost options instead of that Monopoly Legal Money Non-Option?
Once you see this Litmus Test, the reality of it, you can use it on anyone, anyone in history, and anyone alive today, and see which side they are on.
Liberty
Legal Crime
There is no fence.
My next step will be to make some income, to pay the bills, and then return to this vital Forum, and this vital Topic, and perhaps return to other topics invented by other people, or I may invent another topic myself, one that focuses more precisely on that aforementioned Litmus Test viewpoint.
Joe
Who owns our monsters these days?
Entertaining Criminal Power
Economic Collapse may be perceived (falsely) as a force of nature, just the way things go, with us, we humans, our fate, love it or leave it.
War, on the other hand, is definitively not "of natural causes", not error, not mistake, not happenstance, as if OH, look, Depleted Uranium rounds fell from the sky just like rain.
God is angry, no?
An order was given, not a secret order, not hidden, perhaps a need to know order, and the order was carried out, a target was targeted, a trigger or button was willfully engaged, damage was assessed, aim improved, new targets, new assessments, records kept, learning, improving, being all the best we can be, according to who?
Agreement?
Dictation?
Who is keeping score?
Is the score accurate?
Is the score falsified?
Quote:
"The US Congress voted by a staggering 390-to-5 to recognize "Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza"."
Victim:
"I'm being tortured."
Torturer:
"You are being saved, not tortured."
Observer:
"I may be stepping out of line here, but the severed limbs don't add up to being saved, saved from what?"
Please note how there are many competitive accounts, some more accurate than others, some merely errors, others are willful deceptions.
How about following the money? If money isn't accurate, it is powerless, yes or no?
If money is powerless, it isn't money.
I don't need an accountant to know that much.
Joe
Constructively Interpretable
"It depends upon what is is."
Our Monsters
There in that link are words that convey a message, some can argue over the meaning, some can agree with it, the point is, here, a message claiming that there is POWER in agreement, and that power is absent in Dictatorship with exceptions.
The exceptions are where one of the Dictators agree with the other Dictators, as they agree to Dictate to those who are not excepted, those who are not above the law.
Quotes from the link:
"The habit of referring to all severe cruelty to “psychosis” and the like has the ironic effect of making evil self-exculpating. No “normal” person, we like to think, could do such things."
How about a novel idea? If there is a victim, or two, really, not fake, a real victim, such as, for example, a victim now undergoing torture, an innocent person perhaps, certainly not someone processed by due process, someone tagged by someone else who collected a handsome reward for tagging another Terrorist to fill a quota, and on that rack, screaming, suffering, being tortured, right now, losing finger nails, losing fingers, losing life, life evaporating, being stolen, picture that, and invent a novel idea about it.
How about holding the actual criminals to account for those crimes? Punish?
How about actually admitting the facts? Isn't that a novel idea?
Punish?
Who has the power to punish? Really.
How about the power to know better? How about the power that can be used in the work of finding out who makes torture legal, who does the torturing upon the innocent, and who is paying them, and how much they are being paid to do that work that they do so well?
How about knowing the actual account information and knowing it accurately?
How about a novel idea, instead of merely parroting the official lies, going with the herd, getting along, seeking those comforting feelings of belonging to some nebulous US?
If someone claims to represent US, but says hey, how about holding the frauds who issue the fraudulent, and immoral money supply, legal as it may or may not actually be, to account, then, who does that someone represent?
The frauds?
Does it depend upon what is is?
How many people did you torture, when you made torture legal?
That is a secret, and it has to be kept secret.
Why does that have to be kept secret?
National Security.
Of course, but, seriously, what ever happened to the Republic?
It became a Nation State, and a Dictatorial one at that, but when?
That is old news. Now is time for change.
Who owns our monsters these days?
Joe