Liberty Day Challenge July 4th 2013 V2

"This is probably going to sound abit silly, but Josf, how in the world can you stand it? You see, you understand, you know how things could be and those things are kept out of reach because criminals keep victims powerless, or at just enough power for them to rake off the abundance leaving the victims, if they are lucky, with enough power to go make more power the next day so that that power can be raked away by the criminals again."

I am speaking with my new friend in Russia again, it was me who had dropped the ball, not seeing his last reply in e-mail.

He offers very competitive viewpoints like you do, like my wife does, my son, my daughter, my brothers, friends, etc.

This is amazing, this capacity to Stand it, not alone.

More people standing for something, so as not to fall (scripture helps here again) for anything, is happening, and I've told you this before, and you may want to know this, borrow my viewpoint, as never before there are many people listening, many people finding each other, gaining power in many competitive ways, at least as far as I can see, based upon decades of looking carefully.

You can stand it, so can I, more or less, relatively speaking, and there is much power in numbers greater than 1.

"You talk to me about looking at the earth from mars and seeing. It is almost overwhelming to try to imagine. Free power, free money, abundance all available thru equitable competition. I am using the word free, not to mean cost-less, but free from unearned income, which in comparison would make it seem nearly free. Perhaps talking in 2 different places has brought this realization for me."

You have now a working concept of unearned income, and why not? What could be further from the truth to think that all income is earned? Charity does not work (in a true sense) in such a way as to reward those who find ways to get charity. A professional welfare collector like Ben Bernanke, receiving so much charity, is not a good case of earning charitable income. If words mean anything, then the charitable flow of income from those who produce it to Ben Bernanke, as welfare, is a crime, and a specific crime of fraud, easy to see, why not?

Ben Bernanke writes his own welfare check, as much money as everyone else has combined, and then Ben Bernanke buys things with that Charitable Donation hand delivered to Ben Bernanke by all these Charitable People in this place called America; flowing from their Good Faith and Credit, in the form of Charity.

No, that is not charity, and charity is a flow of unearned income from those who do earn income to those who can't, for reasons beyond the control of those who receive TRUE charity.

Unearned income brackets equity perfectly as Crime and Charity.

Unearned income is crime and charity.

Equity is in the middle as such:

1. Charity (power given, in a true sense, to needy people by people who earn something worth giving)

2. Equity (power traded equitably so as to move power more efficiently between traders who specialize in specific ways of earning income)

3. Crime (power stolen, in a true sense, from those who produce power to those who steal it, and then use the stolen power to steal more as the criminals grow stronger and their victims grow weaker, and the criminals grow more able to steal, and the victims grow less able to produce things worth stealing)

Charity is powerfully good, and crime is as powerfully destructive as if being exactly opposite of Charity?

Why not?

"I equity is tied to the golden rule. So when a trade is made I have learned from you that both are traders. There is not a “buyer” or a “seller” but there are traders. So both traders trade what they will for what they want. If the perfect money is attached to the golden rule then the medium of exchange will be equal as both parties intend to do for the other party what they would have done for themselves."

If not, then a honest person can demonstrate why not, and if there are only 2 people left on earth, no one else alive to help resolve a contentious estimate of equitable trading, then two honest people can find any cause of contentious trading, as time goes by, and who pays the cost of resolving future disputes when there are only 2 people left on earth?

Here is where "Lender" and "Borrower" become just traders too. Just Traders. Who pays the costs of a lender who moves POWER to a borrower whereby the borrower runs into hard times, and is not able to perform as expected? The lender is trading, not giving, no being charitable in a true sense of charity, so what is the lender trading, what does the lender want, get, and earn in any equitable case of trading in this way? What if the lender sells the loan without recording the sale in the way agreed upon by equitable traders, breaking the chain of title requirements written into the fine, and finer, and even finer print of documented laws governing lending in America?

One thing I was told during my lifetime was that in America there are no debtors prisons. Now I hear that Student loan borrowers are being offered a Tour of Duty in The Criminally Led U.S. Military, or a Tour of Duty in The Criminally Led U.S. Gulag that is so often fraudulently labeled with such False Front LIES as "Correctional Institution".

How far from equity can We The People get, when power is being made scarce for the fun and profit of a few at the expense of all those earners who can start the day with less power and end the day with more power?

How powerful is knowledge?

How powerful is accurate communication?

What is money?

"So how can exchanges continue to be free as long as human nature is around? Is the answer competition? If the answer is competition, then will not the price be driven to equity, even when human nature abounds? So the price the market will bear is base within a market of competition and if my price is not following the golden rule and someone else’s is, then I will lose the ability to trade what I have for what I want until I self-regulate to operate within equity."

Have you ever spoken with a criminal and realized how they think? I have. To a criminal, anyone infected with criminal thoughts, having criminal thoughts working in their minds, driving them to action, the concept of crime is a gift to the targeted victim. They say, they really do say, I've heard them say, that the victim deserves everything the victim gets, because the criminal is teaching the victim a lesson, giving a lesson to the targeted victim, to help the targeted victim be less of a victim.

Your work is the work of a non-criminal mind, despite all the forces that work on you to turn you into a fellow criminal, yet you persist in defending the most valuable power you have to keep you from ever being one of the criminals who think like criminals.

So you have been confused, and still are confused, and when you next encounter a criminal, you may have one of those light bulb moments, as you see past the False Front used by the criminal, so adeptly, as the criminal is convinced of his power to be charitable to you, by stealing from you.

Petty criminals are not as charitable as Ben Bernanke and the rest of the gang at Central Bank Center.

Central Bankers know how to raise the bar of counterfeit Charity to new heights of competitive excellence in Evil.

Which competition?

A. The greater of two evils contest

B. The greater of two goods contest

Which competition ends up with power in short supply where the best at this contest have power over that shrinking supply that they shrink on purpose, for their exclusive profit, because they are so charitable that way?

Which competition seeks more at the end of the day, arrives at more at the end of the day, than that which was available at the start of the day?

"I think Warren’s answer to this was in keeping the books open to the public so that each individual could determine that equity was being followed. So even Warren understood human nature to either cheat or to question whether someone was cheating."

Is the thought that enters a person's head a true thought of true charity if the person decides to withhold information from the potential traders that would be accurate information empowering the potential traders to know better as to the actual price of the thing being traded? I'm doing those fellow traders a service by avoiding full disclosure of the facts?

How many decades of wasted power is spent on printing and selling "deals" where the price of things are now "half price" and everyone now knows to wait for the "half price" "sale events"?

It is nonsense.

I have to go for now.

"Very interesting take on Love and Joe’s Law! And hate entered into that equation produces the opposite of Joe’s Law."

Here is where I test my understanding of new found viewpoints in scripture, keys if they are keys, and I am again taken back to Proverbs 8 with The fear of God being to hate evil, and to me it is the evil seen in the mirror.

You wrote:

1 John 4:18 KJV
There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment . He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
I think that works as productive power when Love is placed into my formula.

Fear of God isn't a case of a powerless being, a human being, made even more powerless because God is so scary, no, not from my position of pretended understanding, the idea here is to know that fear is to be avoided like the plague, and therefore the human being aught to know what causes it, which is that Evil stuff, the cause of fear is the Evil stuff, and where is this plague, where is this fear, where is this Evil, where it can be known in such a way as to be rendered powerless?

I think each human being has to look in the mirror first.

"They help each other a lot and it makes their work fun."

I feel as if there is a good opportunity here to convey a resent discovery I found with the help of the Russian. I was explaining to him my idea of fun, as having no fun to me is like having no reason to go on living.

He says this:

__________________________________________________________
'Радость' reads like 'Radost' '. 'Ра' part comes from the very old form of language - runic one. ' Ра' as rune means 'light' and 'knowledge' together. 'Дость' part comes from verbe which in modern form looks like 'дать' and means 'give'. So together word means a state in which you recieve Ra. And such state is a pure joy, mirth.
___________________________________________________________

The Russian figures out something I did not figure out myself, and that is that what I mean when I say "fun" is to give knowledge while receiving knowledge, or to trade knowledge equitably, and this is current stuff, exemplary stuff of what I mean precisely when I say fun, as in "the pursuit of happiness" type fun.

What do I mean?

I mean that life without this equitable trading of knowledge would be meaningless and powerless to me.

How can I arrive at knowing better?

I need help, a demonstrable fact of life.

"The power to make work fun is something that money cannot buy. It is something that can be given and enjoyed. I am glad that you have people say those words to you."

Amazing?

__________________________________________________
“So many people, on the other hand, lie, cheat, and steal their way to some imaginary "top" of the heap, and there is no way, none whatsoever, not in all my experience, to speak accurately with such a person, unless you speak their language, which are lies, threats, and violence.”

Is that why you asked me about a stock split when you first began talking to me?
____________________________________________________

Not at all. I think a stock split is perfectly legitimate in a moral, psychological, and economic, physical sense, so long as those who are connected in that way are all up to speed as to what is being done, why, when, and how much.

A stock split is just a device that exemplifies how there can be a genuine equitable use of accounting/money/paper/deals/trades/power transfers and that can be compared competitively with Ben Bernanke doubling the money supply in such a way as to fail, deliberately, to fully disclose what that means, exactly, to everyone who will be victimized, on purpose, by those willful actions designed to accomplish exactly what those willful actions are designed to accomplish and the LIES that are told to cover that up are easier to see if you imagine having that power yourself.

I did not think, do not think, and will not think that you are a criminal until such time as you prove to me that you are a criminal, so I knew, know, and will know that I have to speak to you in non-criminal language, or, try to help you see that criminals do have their own language that may be understandable from their shoes.

Did I get the question confused?

"Is that why you asked me about a stock split when you first began talking to me?"

I think no.

"What kind of security, what kind of trust, what kind of love is resident when one cannot depend on their partner?"

Here is where you have a difficult time depending upon my translations of what Andrews means, with the words Andrews chooses, and I may fail miserably, and therefore you cannot know what Andrews means, when Andrews uses the word Love.

What I think Andrews means is such that an individual person is the source of the definition of the word love, according to that individual person, not a Lawyer.

If I am right, then that is what Andrews means. If you get some other idea out of what Andrews means, then I am powerless to alter your ideas of what Andrews means in any case. I can offer, repeated, and you can defend your viewpoint of what Andrews means repeatedly, and that can go on forever, and Andrews is not alive to defend against any misinterpretations that may occur in any case.

I wrote:

Who is confusing one with the other? I won't muddy these waters anymore, if I can help myself, so please show me where anyone, anywhere, has, in a demonstrable way, confused something that is not marriage with marriage?

You, apparently, bring up Andrews as an example of someone confusing marriage with something that is not marriage. I see no such thing. You do?

You decide what love means for someone other than you?

You decide what marriage means for someone other than you?

You, on the other hand, reserve the power to decide what love means, and what marriage means to you, with or without help given to you by God, through scripture?

So your viewpoint is more powerful than anyone else's viewpoint because you have been saved and someone else may not yet be saved, and so how is it that you can help Andrews, or me, or anyone else, know better as to what is truly love, or marriage?

Make a man-made law that punishes people who do not abide by God's law?

Andrews is not confusing the issue of personal, individual, power to know better with God's law, as his words, at least obvious to me, concern the personal, individual, power to know better compared to Man-Made-Law, or "legal" love and marriage.

If Andrews is confused, an example of someone confused, then where is such evidence of that confusion? I don't see it.

"What kind of security, what kind of trust, what kind of love is resident when one cannot depend on their partner?"

What does that question have to do with what Andrews wrote? Why put Andrews into the discussion as an example of something, and then ignore what Andrews wrote, and then, instead of listening to what Andrews wrote you start attaching these ideas to Andrews as if these ideas are from Andrews?

I don't get it.

"Why do Anarchists need to remove the family unit?"

Where is one? If you can find one, then you can ask one who removes the family unit, and then we can both know the answer.

Andrews points out the difference between an individual doing something based upon their individual power to do things and compares that individual power to do things with a power that is external to the individual, and the external power that is external to the individual is not vague, not misleading, not suggesting that the external power is God, or The Devil, rather specifically LEGAL power, as this LEGAL power is claiming to be better at deciding what the individual will do, or will not do, according to that individual power to do, or not do, so where does God find his way into Andrews viewpoint?

Individual is here.

Man made law authority over the individual person is here.

Individual finds what the individual considers to be love and marriage with another individual who considers love and marriage to be the same thing here.

What does that have to do with man-made law?

It has, in Andrews day, in Andrews experience, a power to dictate that those two people will be punished for failing to abide by man-made laws.

It is specific to actual people showing up at actual homes and these actual people have badges, and licenses, to force people to stay together or be punished for failing to do so, and that is the subject matter to be looked at, for the purpose of knowing better, and he offered examples.

Where is this person who is this anarchist where this anarchist is doing what you say this anarchist is doing?

"Why do Anarchists need to remove the family unit?"

Here is what Andrews used as an example:

"Now, the doctrine of free love is not even anti-marriage in the external or legal sense of the term, any more than the doctrine of free worship in our churches is anti-worship; certainly, therefore, it is not anti-marriage in respect to the spiritual conception of marriage entertained by Mr. James. It is simply opposed to the legal imposition of marriage as a uniform and compulsory mode of adjusting the sexual relations of society and may be said perhaps to be equally opposed to the dogmatic imposition, upon all of us, of precisely Mr. James’s idea, or anybody’s idea of spiritual marriage. It is simply and wholly the doctrine of “hands off,” or of remitting the jurisdiction of the subject to the parties concerned; of freedom to marry externally and by express contract for those for those who desire so to marry; of freedom to be married ever so closely and exclusively, in the spiritual sense, for those who believe in it and desire it; and of equal freedom for those who believe in neither to regulate their love relations in accordance with whatever ideas they do entertain. The doctrine pronounces absolutely nothing with regard to the truth or falsehood of any of those ulterior doctrines, but simply prohibits the interference of anybody with the affairs of others, in this respect, for the purpose of enforcing their own individual or collective beliefs. The whole doctrine of free love is, therefore, rigorously constrained in what Mr. James defines as the negative side of that doctrine. It has no other side whatever; and upon this side of the subject Mr. James affirms that he is infinitely in accord with us. The other side of the doctrine – what he calls the positive side, and attributes to us – is, as I have previously said, purely a figment of his own imagination, and would be as abhorrent to me, if I recognized it as really existing anywhere, as it is or can be to him."

http://praxeology.net/HJ-HG-SPA-LMD-19.htm

That was not what I set out to find. But it may help.

How about this:

"Had there existed a Public Opinion already formed, based on Freedom, the poor girl in New Hampshire, whose sad history we have read in a paragraph, would probably not have been deserted, or if she were, she would not have felt that “every eye was turned upon her in scorn, knowing her disgrace,” visiting upon her a worse torture than any ever invented by savages, because, forsooth, she had already been cruelly wronged! A Christian people, indeed! “Her heart” would not have “sunk within her day by day and week by week.” “Paleness” would not have “come upon her cheeks,” and “her frame” have “wasted away until she was almost a living skeleton.” She would not have become a raving maniac. “Her brothers and friends” would not have been “borne down with sorrow at her condition.” Public opinion would not have bene invoked “to hunt down” her betrayer, after first hunting down her; and, finally, her misfortune would not have been paraded and gloated over by a shameless public press, Mr. Greeley in the van, holding up the poor agonized, heart-riven, persecuted victim of the Infernalism of our Social Institutions, in warning to others against yielding to the purest, and holiest, and most powerful of the sentiments which God has implanted in the Human Heart – the joint force of the yearning after Freedom and after Love. "

http://praxeology.net/HJ-HG-SPA-LMD-13.htm

So...be specific and I can be specific too.

We might know better as a result.

Where is the anarchist who works to remove the family unit?

When you find one, then we can see how that anarchist is working to reach that goal. We may be able to find what power is commanded by that anarchist, how well or how poorly that anarchist is doing in that work where that power is being applied to reach that goal that you have placed in that anarchists mind.

We can ask that anarchist if that anarchist is working to remove the family unit, and we can ask if their goal is the same goal as you think is the goal they have, and we can all then agree that that anarchist is working to remove the family unit as you obviously think is what is being done by that anarchist, and at that point I can comment on what I think is, or is not, anarchistic, in my own viewpoint, or as I interpret what Andrews is saying with the words he published in the 19th century.

"Why does he advocate people having multiple relationships and women bearing children from multiple fathers? Why is that important to anarchism?"

If that is what you want to do with your time on earth, then that is what you want to do with your time in earth, were is it that any other person wants what you are claiming they want?

Where is this anarchist that represents this anarchism stuff the way you say that this anarchist represents anarchism in the way you claim they represent anarchism?

When you find one, because you have not found one in Andrews, unless you have some words that are written by Andrews where Andrews advocates people having multiple relationships and women bearing children from multiple fathers, specifically Andrews himself advocating such things, not Andrews saying that an individual is the power that decides those things compared to someone other than the individual deciding those things for that individual where that individual finds another individual agreeing to do those things, then having that, not adding your ideas in between the lines, we will have, at that time, an anarchist who advocates his self, or her self, finding another individual who also shares his self, or her self, advocating this or that, a confession if you will, doing the things you say they are advocating themselves to do their-selves, and not themselves advocating a nebulous State licensed person with a badge "advocating" their selves to do what that person with that badge "advocates" with that gun, and that whip, and that rope, and those stones, or those nails and that cross.

"They look forward to a time when a man and a women do not become one flesh?"

Who is they? They is not you. You do what you do, without a person with a badge making you do what you do, and that is the point offered by Andrews. Andrews does not claim the legal power to make you be one flesh with someone you would not be one flesh with without the gun, the mob, the stones, the nails, the cross, the lies, the threats, and the violence.

If you see people doing things that you think they aught not do, then perhaps you can help them see the error of your ways, and the point offered by Andrews, as I see it, is that if you resort to lies, threats, and violence as a means of making those people you think are not doing good, do good, you resort to crime to make them do good, if that is what you do, then you are the one doing that, and that is the point pointed out by Andrews according to my understanding of Andrews according to Andrews, not according to the words I imagine being written by Andrews.

"They look forward to a time when you are not a father to your 2 children?"

Who is "they"?

Where did "they" confess to not looking forward to being a father to 2 children?

"You should live in your own house and the person you made children with should live in her own house?"

The point was, as far as my reading of Andrews, that you should no more be tricked, threatened, or violently forced by other people to live in one house or not live in one house as you may decide on your own to do or to not do, and that is the point, not what you place as being the goal in their minds.

I have to go again.

" But that does not mean that everyone is supposed to be free from being a family unit."

And holding people to account for their own thoughts and actions, when they harm no one but themselves, being responsible for their own affairs (no pun intended), is whose job?

If you say it is God's job, to judge, then are you saying Andrews, according to your judgement, is advocating no families?

I saw no such thing attributable to Andrews.

"It seems to me that both you and I are fortunate to be part of 4-fold cords: our spouce and our 2 children. You have much more power as a 4-fold cord than as a single strand."

That is the essence of Equitable Commerce, to avoid placing road block in the way of people finding those other people who are best at helping one another.

"Which makes me wonder, do you have a library in your forum? Or maybe your whole forum is your library?"

If English means anything, a shared understanding of words, then yes, I store useful information to me, in my library which is my forum.

Public access?

"The quote I gave you from Tucker is where I think the family unit is being removed from Anarchism. I am reading that People should be free to love whenever, however, as long as ever, whomever or how many ever they wish. That concept is completely outside of the Bible:"

I thought you were quoting from Andrews, but Tucker is the same thing, to me, it is not a case of refutation of scripture, far from that, it is actually the opposite, as those who will find scripture aught not be kept from it because a false authority (a man or woman) keeps them from anything that they, as individuals, are inspired to find, and pay for, at their own cost.

You confuse a viewpoint that accurately points out that false authority is false authority with your inaccurate interpretation of that viewpoint with some nebulous claim that "they" are anti-God.

The subject of God is covered by Andrews in his replies to James in that link on Love and Marriage.

Here again:

http://praxeology.net/HJ-HG-SPA-LMD-19.htm

"Now, the doctrine of free love is not even anti-marriage in the external or legal sense of the term, any more than the doctrine of free worship in our churches is anti-worship; certainly, therefore, it is not anti-marriage in respect to the spiritual conception of marriage entertained by Mr. James. It is simply opposed to the legal imposition of marriage as a uniform and compulsory mode of adjusting the sexual relations of society and may be said perhaps to be equally opposed to the dogmatic imposition, upon all of us, of precisely Mr. James’s idea, or anybody’s idea of spiritual marriage. It is simply and wholly the doctrine of “hands off,” or of remitting the jurisdiction of the subject to the parties concerned; of freedom to marry externally and by express contract for those for those who desire so to marry; of freedom to be married ever so closely and exclusively, in the spiritual sense, for those who believe in it and desire it; and of equal freedom for those who believe in neither to regulate their love relations in accordance with whatever ideas they do entertain. The doctrine pronounces absolutely nothing with regard to the truth or falsehood of any of those ulterior doctrines, but simply prohibits the interference of anybody with the affairs of others, in this respect, for the purpose of enforcing their own individual or collective beliefs. The whole doctrine of free love is, therefore, rigorously constrained in what Mr. James defines as the negative side of that doctrine. It has no other side whatever; and upon this side of the subject Mr. James affirms that he is infinitely in accord with us. The other side of the doctrine – what he calls the positive side, and attributes to us – is, as I have previously said, purely a figment of his own imagination, and would be as abhorrent to me, if I recognized it as really existing anywhere, as it is or can be to him."

"The words of Mr. Tucker are anathema to me in respect to love. And the first time I read Warren and Andrews I read the same kind of thing which caused me to choke on the whole message of equity."

The words you place instead of their words, it seems to me, is what you have an issue with, and where is the source of those words since they did not write those words that you have an issue with in fact?

Advocates of sex with animals may be your next assumption of guilt placed upon Tucker, Andrews, and anyone else daring to point out the absurdity of man dictating to man what is right or wrong to be done at your own cost?

Tucker the goat fornicator?

"This idea of unfettered "love" which is not love at all, causes me to see sin."

Whatever it is you see, to me, has nothing whatsoever to do with what Warren, Andrews, and Tucker attempt to communicate, in fact the opposite appears to be the case.

The word "unfettered" means "shall make no law" as in "man-made" law abridging the rights to read scripture, or define the meaning of love, etc.

Where you get your definition, or ideas, of what is or is not "unfettered", to me, appears to be in your mind, not theirs.

"IMO that is why women were in back allies with coat hangers. They had no one to love them or the child."

Warren, Andrews, and Tucker, as far as I can see, are the one's who are suggesting the end of the transfers of power to those who make it "Legal" to profit on abortion markets. Even the word "subsidy" as in "subsidized abortions", are exactly the things that do happen, despite the false words covering up the crimes of baby murder for fun and profit, which are specifically not things "advocated" by Warren, Andrews, and Tucker, they say no, don't send "them" any power at all, and "they" won't abuse that "collective" power in that way, or any other way.

Here is where Warren, Andrews, and Tucker, and I part, because I think that "government" can be a collective power of defense, and they see no need for such things. I point to The Declaration of Independence, as does Warren and Tucker. I also point to Shays's Rebellion, Constitutionally limited States, Common Law, Trial by Jury (Spooner points to Trial by Jury), and The Articles of Confederation, they do not, so there are things to work on, in my opinion.

No editing here too.