3 votes

Liberty Day Challenge July 4th 2013 V2

Link to Liberty Day Challenge July 4th Volume 1:

http://www.dailypaul.com/244168/july-4th-2013-liberty-day-ch...

Two directions are possible from this moment on as proven by historical precedent. Either an individual will be subjected to suffering by Legalized Criminals and be forced to pay all debts collected in that evil enterprise or an individual will move in the direction of Liberty.

What happens if enough of us move far enough toward Liberty to swing the pendulum, the total collective sum of voluntary actions, our way, and we do so by July 4th 2013?

If by that date enough American people, as one large and powerful number of former victims, have invented, produced, and supplied a number of competitive legal supplies, monies, currencies, agreements, and defensive efforts, for each other, voluntarily, without resort to deceit upon the innocent, and without resort to threats upon the innocent, and without resort to violence upon the innocent, then those American people will take back their power to prosper, at will, for their own and for posterity.

Sign on in spirit or sign on in actual reality, either way the days will move in a direction and the Legal Criminals score their progress with or without your willful participation toward their goal of absolute despotism.

May God have mercy on our souls.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Perfection

bear,

Please check this out:
http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3000741

I hope that you understand my viewpoint on that, at least partially.

Joe

I saw that before I realized I was invited to see it!

I didn't say anything because I didn't want to always be sticking my bear nose into your "honey." But it seems this bear nose sees Josf's words as honey :)

I saw this from the OP:

"That is your cue, reason it away."

And I saw Josf take that offer and succeed in the task of reasoning away the points made as to the OP's suggestion of the perfect slave. Yes, I have been treated to your honey often enough this last year that I understood and agree with your viewpoint. Thanks for the invite to comment, as if I need one :)

I see you are back. When Jeff is late I imagine the worse. You do not know the thoughts that have gone thru my mind this morning as I wondered of your well-being.

...

Too much information

Internet information advertizes a lot of things, and my thinking was to avoid announcing a trip out of town, at the risk of what happened. I passed on costs to you, knowingly, and I am sorry about doing that, with a need to avoid such things in the future.

An e-mail note may not be any less of a risky announcement of absence from home, but my guess is that another power is at work here whereby there really isn't much I can do to avoid that which will happen.

When my Russian friend did not reply I began imagining things too. That turned out to be my neglect too.

Joe

No worries

Understand completely. I am glad you were able to get away and celebrate. I am also glad you are safe and sound. No worries about passing on costs. They are well worth it IMO. I am also glad the Russian is still on the friend bus. That is good news that you are still sharing perspectives.

...

Cut and Pasted from another thread

bear wrote:

Still working on http://praxeology.net/BT-SSA.htm

When you say Socialism is the study of society is this what you are saying:

“Socialism, on the contrary, extends its function to the description of society as it should be, and the discovery of the means of making it what it should be.”
------------------
On the deal about renting houses, if I understand Social Anarchism correctly, the application does not disallow anyone from renting, but rather removes the obstacles that make the “playing field not level,” and those obstacles being government monopoly whereby legal criminals make their crimes legal thereby putting labor at a disadvantage to capital. So, if capital (products) were only the price of cost, then capital would be within everyone’s reach.

So, then, with my understanding of capitalism is that prices are set upon supply and demand, then that would not work with the idea of cost being the limit to price. Am I thinking correctly?

It is very hard for me to conceptualize cost being the limit to price…for everything. It is hard for me to put into concrete ideas. I think I understand the “theory” of it, but not how to apply it. My imagination is not very good, and I find trying to concentrate and imagine the implication almost past my capability or desire as it makes my brain hurt. The ability to do that is like seeing a whole chess game at once. So, that link I handed you this morning…the guy was talking about federated voluntarism…would anarchistic socialism work in limited area, or would it take a great country of space and people to realize the benefit? i.e. if socialists had to compete next door to capitalists, would that work? Would a socialist society be able to purchase capitalist priced raw goods needed within the socialist society?
---------------------------
OK, this bothers me too:

“Their attitude on this is a key to their attitude on all other questions of a political or social nature. In religion they are atheistic as far as their own opinions are concerned, for they look upon divine authority and the religious sanction of morality as the chief pretexts put forward by the privileged classes for the exercise of human authority. “If God exists,” said Proudhon, “he is man’s enemy.” And in contrast to Voltaire’s famous epigram, “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him,” the great Russian Nihilist, Mikhail Bakunin, placed this antithetical proposition: “If God existed, it would be necessary to abolish him.” But although, viewing the divine hierarchy as a contradiction of Anarchy, they do not believe in it, the Anarchists none the less firmly believe in the liberty to believe in it. Any denial of religious freedom they squarely oppose.”

Not that they would not deny religious freedom, but that Bakunin says if God exists, it would be necessary to abolish Him. That sure would leave a vacuum for evil, since of course God does exist and so does Evil. If God were removed, Evil would run rampant.

James 1:16 Do not er , my beloved brethren. 17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

...

Joe

Working on removing confusion

"On the deal about renting houses, if I understand Social Anarchism correctly, the application does not disallow anyone from renting, but rather removes the obstacles that make the “playing field not level,” and those obstacles being government monopoly whereby legal criminals make their crimes legal thereby putting labor at a disadvantage to capital. So, if capital (products) were only the price of cost, then capital would be within everyone’s reach."

First:

It is made clear by Stephen Pearl Andrews that the unwise choice of employing the word Anarchism was originally made by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, and this was at the time of the forming of the modern vernacular of Political Economy into the two basic (false) "Sides" of "Capitalism" and "Socialism".

Anarchism was wrongly chosen as a word to be used to differentiate between those people who work toward Liberty (strictly voluntary associations) and those people who work toward Slavery (Involuntary associations or Monopoly), so the use of the word Anarchism, or Socialism, or Capitalism, has to be understood in the context of goals.

If the goal is Liberty, then the words used will be accurate words, intending to inform, not intending to deceive.

If the goal is Slavery, then the words used will be false on purpose, intending to deceive, not intending to empower, inform, enlighten, in a competitive (not antagonistic) way.

"...the application does not disallow anyone from renting, but rather removes the obstacles that make the “playing field not level,"...”

I think that it is very important to get all the pieces together and then look back at that sentence from a viewpoint that identifies the word "removes" as a contentious word. The force that "removes" anything is a force that is cooperatively competitive, as opposed to antagonistically competitive.

Better is chosen over worse, in the sense that many better choices are much better than one poor choice, and in the case of money the concept of cooperatively competitive versus antagonistically competitive shows up without any room for doubt as to which is better, and which is worse, and if people have the choice, many people on a long, long, list of people, all having a choice, then all those people choose better, and they all don't choose One Legal Fraud and Extortion Money made Legal, by criminals with badges.

"...the application does not disallow anyone from renting, but rather removes the obstacles that make the “playing field not level,"...”

The force that removes the obstacles that make the playing field not level is, in the very capable illustration of legal money, choices for many people to make, between better and worse, and worse goes out of circulation, and better keeps on getting better, and that is called competition, but again, words either have accurate meaning or words are purposefully intended to deceive the targets, and confuse the targets.

Might makes Right, for example, is an antagonistic from of competition, as if saying, OK, the person or group that can lie the best, threaten the best, and violently destroy innocent people the best, is the perfect example of the best competitor.

If that "might makes right" is your working definition of the word "competition" then you won't understand a word written by Josiah Warren, Stephen Pearl Andrews, Benjamin R. Tucker, or Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.

If that is your working definition of "competition" whereby "Might makes Right", then you are more likely to understand Marx or Ben Swan, or anyone else having that working in their brains, where Might makes Right, and that process is the shinning example of what is meant to compete in competition.

I know I go off on these tangents, as do you, but we are just two competitive people seeking better for worse, and having a very difficult time finding agreement. Wouldn't it be easier for either of us to just cut corners, resort to deception, instead of actually working toward a negotiated agreement?

"...and those obstacles being government monopoly whereby legal criminals make their crimes legal thereby putting labor at a disadvantage to capital."

Here, in those above words, are to me cause for more celebration, not Glory, but cause to step on this step and look all around, and see, and know, that this is a point of competitive understanding.

You don't say "government" without the qualifier of "monopoly".

Now you say, or write, "government monopoly", and to me the use of the word "government" is the one word that does not fit, since it is "monopoly" that is the working thing, not "government", but the words do combine to make better sense of what type of "monopoly" is being looked at, inspected, measured, and found to be what it is, and found not to be what some people claim that it is, for whatever reasons they may have for falsifying the meanings of words.

"...labor at a disadvantage to capital..."

Here is a potential mine field. Just as it was demonstrated by Andrews that the word "anarchism" is a poor choice of a word, because it alienates so many people right away, turning so many people off, like a "knee jerk reaction", immediately turning off so many people to any further interest, the words "labor" and "capital" are as potentially destructive in the same way, to enter a person's brain, to then be immediately rejected, calling forth any number of bad feelings, and then that interest in that person to know what anything else might be said by that person, is gone in a flash.

You combine those words in that order and your intended partner in competition toward knowing better is put off, never to listen to you again?

"..labor at a disadvantage to capital.."

It may be a good idea to avoid those words,and to speak in more accurate terms, since no one is going to buy those words, since those words are on the bad list of words, for about half of the worlds population.

If you are speaking to the non-capitalist polarized world, then those words will be welcome to them.

"..labor at a disadvantage to capital.."

To be more specific, consider, competitive terms as such:

"...honest productive people are at a disadvantage to criminals with badges..."

I don't know if you can make any sense of all this, at this point, but the Web of Deceit is woven very tight, and has been worked on, by very bad people, for centuries, so the job can't be easy.

"So, if capital (products) were only the price of cost, then capital would be within everyone’s reach."

Again, terms that you now understand may not convey well to anyone else, since you have done so much costly work on getting past "seeing red", or seeing past the lies, and instead you are finding the facts, just the facts, thank you very much.

I see you use parenthesis, toward that end, on your own now, as if you do realize what I am trying to say to you.

Example:

Competition A:

"So, if capital were only the price of cost, then capital would be within everyone’s reach."

Competition B:

"So, if capital (products) were only the price of cost, then capital would be within everyone’s reach."

Competition C:

"So, if products were only the price of cost, then products would be within everyone’s reach."

Here, even here, without using the word "capital" there are people who will be threatened by those words as they want to hold their "profits" dear to their hearts, and if that is so, then there is confusion on their part.

Costs are whatever the most efficient producer makes them, including the costs of going on vacation, to charge batteries, and those costs are added to the Cost/Price so long as some other competitor is not offering lower Cost/Price without the vacation.

So the falsehoods still work upon the dupes who can't see, as they are then inspired, by falsehood, to claim that no one can afford any vacations under such conditions of competition.

That is not true, and the reason that is not true is knowable when understanding how power abundance works compared to power scarcity.

In Josiah Warren's day, for example, mid 19th century, the work load per person for an average standard of living was about 4 hours a day. That was before the use of oil, electricity, and natural gas, and that was before modern communication, connectivity, where information can travel instantly from one person to everyone else.

Where does all the profits go (why use the word profits?) while there is now so much more power that allows human beings to work less and get more for each hour of work?

A person reading your words, and then claiming that you are working to take away their profits, take away their vacations, take away their retirements, is a person stuck in the Web of Lies, and they are inspired to write another check to the IRS, or lie less on their Federal Tax forms, or at least hire better liars to make the "workers" pay their taxes, and put in jail those who don't, so as to perpetuate this method of making sure that the "laborers" don't take over MY MONOPOLY "government".

This is where I ask you, over and over again, what makes an employer no longer an employee?

What makes a borrower no longer a lender?

The President of a Bank does not work?

The President of a Bank does not labor?

Cut through all the Might makes Right dogma, please, and just ask, and find out, where does all the power to purchase go, since we human beings are now so able, so capable, of making things that make things, and once made, turn on the switch, and things that were scarce are now abundant.

Where does all that power go, and how does all that power flow that way, and any time spent on this trail constitutes following the ONE MONOPOLY money trail.

Forget about all the dogma about who earns what, how, and when, until you solve the Monopoly Money problem, and then things may fall better into place as to who is a Friend of Liberty, what they are going to do to get away from the opposite, and who is a Friend of Legal Crime (Legal Money Monopoly Fraud Crime in Progress) and what they are willing to do to get their way.

One way is honest and productive, and measurably so, and the other way is dishonest and destructive, and measurably so, and what then is the standard of measure in either case?

"So, then, with my understanding of capitalism is that prices are set upon supply and demand, then that would not work with the idea of cost being the limit to price. Am I thinking correctly?"

Pricing POWER has to be understood in any case, and I think it is vitally important to do the work necessary to know better, and in any case of anything one person has in exchange for something another person has, the work, in each case, has to be done, over and over again, until you defeat the dogma/dragons/lies/propaganda/brainwashing/response conditioning/behavioral modification that infects your brain.

Why is one person said to be selling and another person said to be buying something? Each person, in an equitable trade, each time, is seller and buyer.

In each case of just two people, each is seller, each is buyer, not one at a disadvantage to the other, or if there is disadvantage, then what is that disadvantage, and how is it measured?

I can offer an example, and my choice is chosen for a reason.

Ben Bernanke is selling this very big lie to everyone using dollars as money. Ben writes a check for as much money as everyone else combined, and then Ben sells that check to everyone else, and in this case of commerce, in this case of trading, in this case of an exchange of one thing for another thing, what does Ben Bernanke get, and what does everyone else get in exchange for that check?

Is that too complicated?

How about you writing a check for tomato jars? You write a check that says this money is good for 10 tomato jars full of delicious tomatoes. Can you sell that check?

So, you have now two homework assignments, if you care to do the work, and tell me whatever you can about these two transactions, as to how one transaction compares to the other transaction, and in this work you can answer some of your own lingering doubts as to what you do know and what you have yet to know, and know better.

1.
Ben Bernanke writes a check that amounts to "as much purchasing power" as everyone else combined, and Ben does, in fact, sell that check to everyone else who uses FRNs. To be more clear, every producer of wealth who uses FRNs to do business, they buy that check from Ben Bernanke because Ben Bernanke spends all the "profits" earned by all the producers with that check Ben Bernanke write for himself and his exclusive group of Legal Criminals.

2.
bear writes a check for 10 tomato jars worth of tomatoes in jars, and bear imagines finding someone who will buy that new inventive form of competitive money.

"It is very hard for me to conceptualize cost being the limit to price…for everything."

The work you may do on 1 and 2 above may help. How much do you get when you sell your check for 10 tomato jars? Do you settle for a trade that is less than all the costs you spend on making those 10 jars of tomatoes? If so then it won't do you any good, economically, to spend that one check on buying only 10 empty glass jars. Can you add the cost of going on vacation for a year in Rio? Ben Bernanke can buy all the materials needed to start, persecute, and clean up World War III.

Somewhere in the middle of you with your money and Ben with his money is people happy about eating tomatoes in jars and people happy about buying World War III.

One direction works to use the power available to make more power, to make power move from scarcity into abundance, and the other direction works to move all power from every source to the few legal criminals and in order to accomplish that goal all competition must be destroyed.

If you can think in terms of power, where is it, what is it doing, then you can start seeing the difference between productive power, what does it do, how is it measured, who measures it, how much is there, how much will there be in the future, and what a future looks like when productive power is abundant, and compare that future to the future that is demonstrated by those who use the power they steal to then steal as much as they can, and inevitably they must destroy all competition to keep that power going, and it is destructive power and by that process the inevitable goal is reached, where power is so scarce that almost everyone will do almost anything asked of them, to avoid starvation, and death.

This is not so tough, but your work has to be done, when you have the power to do the work, and if you don't have the power to do the work, then you are powerless, as power is scarce, so why does that not make sense?

Take the historical example of Egypt and see how power was so readily available, so abundant, that those people could live, reproduce, and make Pyramids.

Take away their power to farm, take away the power of irrigation, take away the water, and can they still build Pyramids?

What happens if instead of building Pyramids they used the power consumed in that work to make more power out of less power?

No Pyramids, what did they buy instead?

Take modern times, today, and wake up tomorrow with no more gasoline, no more home heating oil, no more coal, no more electricity, no more water, no more food, no more houses, no more clothes, and everyone tomorrow morning wakes up in the dirt.

Power is relatively abundant right now. Tomorrow it is scarce compared to right now.

Who does what, competitively, to make more power out of less power, and what does that person do with that new supply of power abundance?

Does that person use that power to do The Ben Bernanke on everyone else, or does that person try to find someone willing to repeat, reproduce, the example, and then other people have more power too, and in what way, what form, what type, of power is produced with the scarce power available?

Productive power?

Destructive power?

Which direction is better?

What is the goal?

Use scarce power to make more power out of less?

Use scarce power to steal power from other people who also have scarce power, and logically, use scarce power to defend against people using scarce power to steal power?

There is, obviously, measurably, three types of exchanges of power, that can be measured physically, as in a measure of Kilowatt Hours, or calories, but that also requires a psychological power to judge if a calorie is worth anything compared to a kilowatt hour.

Focus on the three types and then things may make more sense.

1. Inequitable by mutual agreement (charity)
2. Equitable by mutual agreement (equity)
3. Inequitable by lies, threats, and violence (crime)

Which way ends up with more power at the end of the day compared to the amount of power at the start of the day?

"So, that link I handed you this morning…the guy was talking about federated voluntarism…would anarchistic socialism work in limited area, or would it take a great country of space and people to realize the benefit?"

You are where I was, low power at the start of the day, lower power at the end of the day, and eventually, if you persist, in my opinion, you can figure out how to use scarce power to make more power by the end of the day. Things begin to make sense, and then it begins to be a self sustaining power that can be called knowledge, but there are dangers, since the subject matter can be very disturbing.

To be more specific:

"would it take a great country of space and people to realize the benefit?"

Economies of scale work this way, where a small benefit is gained by one person, where the day starts out with low power and the day ends with more power, in a physically measurable way, and as is found out the next morning, in a physiologically measurable way, starting out another day with even more power than yesterday, and ending the day with more power still, and that is then physically and psychologically (what I say is economic and political) powerful.

Less in the past, more in the future, power, reaching toward power independence - individually.

What happens when two people are on that path competitively, each showing the other one how to gain more during the day compared to yesterday?

The benefits are not a sum of the two individual parts when there is cooperative competition (opposite of antagonistic competition) because of division of labor and specialization, something we can go over again, but the present question concerns the process, or phenomenon, of economies of scale, suffice to say that cooperative competition is an exponential increase in benefits and an exponential decrease in costs.

One person can only make enough to survive.

Two people can make a third person.

100 people can run a system called Trial by Jury based upon sortition and exemplify how crime can be practically eliminated from human activity.

How many people is required to send a person to Mars? How much power is needed, compared to the power required to build a Pyramid?

" if socialists had to compete next door to capitalists, would that work?"

In the case of the working example of The Articles of Confederation between 1776 and 1788 there were States of various stages of despotism, slavery, involuntary associations, among the competitive examples of cooperative political economy, making less power into more power, and some were this way and some where that way, and claiming that some were "socialists" and some were "capitalist" is part of the problem, a game of dividing and conquering, and those who buy into that falsehood pay the price, so I see past the labels, and I get to the root of the matter. If a person like Daniel Shays's continues the battle to stop the criminals from taking over the government in Massachusetts, but fails, then that individual can shop around for a better government, because the design of the government is a Free Market design, so Daniel Shays's votes with his feet, a runaway slave from Massachusetts, and he runs to Vermont, all nice a legal, in a Free Market Voluntary Government design, which is the way that works when it works that way.

No "federal" troops conscripted by a dictator in chief sent into Vermont to take the runaway slave out of Vermont and kidnap the slave, and enslave the slave, lawfully, placing the slave back into the hands of the slave masters in Massachusetts who have given themselves badges.

Free Market Government can be said to be a capital idea?

If it is a flow of power flowing from many people into one storage place, then it is socialism by almost every person who uses the word socialism, since collecting all those collections of all that individual power from all those individuals flowing into the one place, is by that physical measure, a collectivizing of power, or collectivism.

Every man for themselves, on the other hand, is not collectivism.

How bad can the evil of deception get?

How is bad measured?

I keep linking the autopsy (falsified) reports from Waco, where all those terrorists killed themselves by burning themselves alive, and their heads were missing, and their bodies crushed, and their bodies were piled up into one commingled mass of former living human beings, and I paid for it, that was financed by me, the "Federal Income Taxes" I paid at that time were enormous. I was taking in about 70 grand a year in those days, working my life to death.

Why?

How?

Where are my blinders, my ear plugs, and my muzzle made in China?

"OK, this bothers me too:"

Please bear in mind that Andrews is speaking about the work of Benjamin Tucker who was speaking about the work of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. It was Tucker who wrote about the "anarchists" Warren, Proudhon, and Marx, where Warren and Proudhon went the Liberty Way (competition) and Marx went the other way (State Socialism or what I call Legal Crime), so, so, so, it is not Andrews to be held to account for those things that bother you, rather, it is Pierre-Joseph Proudhon who was speaking about religion.

I think that Andrews was trying to separate Proudhon, and his ideas, from Warren, Equitable Commerce, and those things proven by Warren to be true, and not just "theory".

Keep in mind that there is now this nebulous "Labor Theory of Value", something that may have been started by Benjamin Tucker, but that fails to actually convey the information offered by Warren in Equitable Commerce, so I think Andrews is offering a competitive "translation" of Proudhon, which is something that Benjamin Tucker was less able to accomplish.

Please note how Warren and Equitable Commerce is missing in almost every case of any discussion about Political Economy when any reading of the actual work uncovers very important discoveries, inventions, and step by step methods of reaching Liberty.

Why?

"Not that they would not deny religious freedom, but that Bakunin says if God exists, it would be necessary to abolish Him. That sure would leave a vacuum for evil, since of course God does exist and so does Evil. If God were removed, Evil would run rampant."

Yes that was the other person involved in Political Economy at the time of the beginning of Communism (Bolshevism being the historical example) and both Bakunin and Andrews were thrown out of The Internationale, for speaking their heresy (voluntary associations).

Bakunin, and many of the atheist, as far as I know, are targeting False Religions, and they declare their disbelief in False Religions, as everyone should, since they are false. As to what is, or is not, true religion, as far as I know, as far as I can know: God is either known, on an individual basis, or not known, according to God and God's will to let the individual in on the truth.

We go over and over that often, and I'm really trying to know better, but not much success is measurable in a physical way.

James 1:16 Do not er , my beloved brethren. 17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Words can be confused, "above" is a direction opposite the force of gravity on earth? If so then above is an infinite number of directions all at once. Looking up is the same as looking down, if the idea is to actually find God looking back?

I can wave, but I'm not so sure that he is waving back to me.

Joe

To clarify

I am still working on Benjamin Tucker's work concerning state socialism and anarchy. I have not yet read Andrew's work on Proudhon. So the concepts I am trying to iron out are from Tucker's work. I wanted to get those concepts settled in my mind before I move on to Andrew's work. Why add confusion upon confusion :) I think at least I know enough now to know what I am confused about instead of thinking I know what things mean when in reality I have no idea. So now that I know I have no idea, I am asking.

You gave me some homework:

1. Ben Bernanke writes a check that amounts to "as much purchasing power" as everyone else combined, and Ben does, in fact, sell that check to everyone else who uses FRNs. To be more clear, every producer of wealth who uses FRNs to do business, they buy that check from Ben Bernanke because Ben Bernanke spends all the "profits" earned by all the producers with that check Ben Bernanke write for himself and his exclusive group of Legal Criminals.

Ben Bernanke’s check is written out of debt and the faith and hard work of the American people are the collateral. He has invented money out of debt. His money is based on future product (capital)

2. bear writes a check for 10 tomato jars worth of tomatoes in jars, and bear imagines finding someone who will buy that new inventive form of competitive money.

I have created a product (capital) for which I will trade for product (capital). Under Warren’s system, the price of my product will be limited to cost. Cost can include anything…like vacation. So I have a question. Who says what type of vacation. What if I add a 10 day vacation to Hawaii to my cost, but you add a 1 day vacation to your cost. Then the price limit of cost is no longer equitable. What if I have doctor bills I must add to cost, but you don’t? It seems to me the limit of cost can be ambiguous. Who is to say what the limit of cost is? Maybe I have 10 kids and you only have 1 so I have to add college for 10 to my product and you add only college for 1. How is the trade going to be equitable when my costs are larger than your costs?

Please know that I am asking honest questions here. I am not trying to be tricky or seeing red. I am trying to understand how cost can be limited and why cost is not limited by the price the market will bear?
----------------
As far as the Pyramids in Egypt…I hear they used slave labor.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/exodus/1-audio.html
text: http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/exodus/1.html
-------------------
“I can wave, but I'm not so sure that he is waving back to me.”

• 1 John 4:10 KJV
Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

Joe, God has been waving to you your whole life, and He still is.

...

Cooperative, productive, competition.

Cooperative, productive, competition is not the opposite, since the opposite is antagonistic, destructive, competition.

"Cooperative, productive, competition.

"Who says what type of vacation?"

Here is where the so called capitalists tend to earn credit, or here is where the false capitalists take credit, and the answer is determined by negotiations at the time of sale. If you sell enough coupons, checks, promises to pay the holder of the note 10 jars of tomatoes, and in each case of you finding someone to buy your money, you get something in return, 10 FRN's for each of your dollars, because your sales pitch is "I need the FRN's to buy supplies, and then I will have those 10 jars of tomatoes ready for you, and they will be as delicious as the sample you are now eating, and your purchase with the money you are buying from me will be ready at the end of the month, it says so on the money you are buying from me.", and then you go on vacation, buying a vacation with the FRN's you gathered from 1,000 people, as you printed up 1,000 of your own competitive money, and at the end of the month, you have had a vacation, and no power to buy anything to make any tomatoes in jars, and there are people wanting those tomatoes in jars as they have your capital in that form of your own good faith and credit as an individual American.

Meanwhile, down the street, someone else did exactly the same thing you did, but they didn't go on vacation, not yet, what they did was stretch the POWER they borrowed and ended up making twice as many jars of tomatoes as was the price set on the cost of one Tomato Jar Dollar, at that exchange rate of 10 FRN's, or so much weight in gold, or so many Euros, or so many Marks, or so many Yuan, or so many Pesos, or so many Yen, or so many Rubles, or so many Francs, on and on. The competition down the street can then honor the original issue of currency, pay out 1,000 tomato jars, and have 1,000 more tomato jars to sell for the current Monopoly Money that does not require so many sales pitches to sell the money, since the prevailing legal currency is the stuff everyone thinks they need, because there are these goons that will show up and kidnap anyone failing to have the FRN's demanded for "Federal Tax Liabilities".

Now the Tomato Jar competitor, who did not go on vacation, could diversify, expand, improve, lower costs, be more efficient, improve, and if there are still any customers wanting Tomato Jars, and if you have not raised the bar, somehow recovering credibility, then that competitor could gain more power for less work, or "profit", because the supply is still prices at the lowest cost compared to any competition and there is still a demand for that lowest prices product on the cooperative, productive, competitive, free market.

If the same producer is never challenged by a better example of a producer, then that producer has an effective monopoly, so long as there remains a demand for those Tomato Jars. What happens when there is a monopoly and there is then no help by anyone else in improving quality and lowering cost by the competitors inventive employment of power?

The monopoly producer may then, without competition, begin to raise the price to "that which the market will bear" as high as possible, without any competitor setting that cost/price lower, and in that sense that quality of equity is moved off that scale and onto a different scale.

How so?

What, if a monopoly producers has grown accustomed to a life without competition, and therefore there is a relative ease to the amount of cost paid by the producer relative to the benefit earned by the producer, when suddenly, rudely, a competitor upsets the balance of pricing at "that which the market will bear" instead of at the most efficient cost price possible?

Mr. Fat cat, Tomato Jar producers, down your street, meeting the demand for these Tomato Jars, at the highest price possible, the lowest quality possible, and still, somehow, meeting the demand at that bare minimum of quality and at that maximum of cost, is suddenly, rudely, confronted by you, as you begin to offer at least as high quality of tomatoes, but half his price, and you are set to corner that market.

What do you think Mr. Fat cat may want to do in this case of unwelcome competition?

Cost/price is the logical result of consistent, cooperative, productive, competition, where competition is welcome because everyone wins, as everyone is seeking the better ways, the higher qualities, and the lower costs.

We have yet to introduce, and explain the terms known as surplus wealth and unearned income.

Surplus wealth can be measured as prices falling to zero.

Surplus wealth can be measured as National Debt.

If you sell Tomato Jars at half the cost of production, and you factor the cost of expansion, the cost of a good standard of living, and you are meeting a demand that exists, competitively, then the other half of the "cost of production" is surplus wealth at that moment, and you can consume it, go on vacation, or expand your business, which invests that surplus wealth, save it in some form where it will not evaporate, which is consuming it as an investment (but saving it so it can be like a battery storing electric power), or send it to The Federal Government so that they can steal more from you, or crush your competitive Tomato Business, or use the Surplus Wealth you produced to crush your competitive money business.

Unearned income is not you, as a monopoly, having no competition, and setting your price as "that which the market will bear" just because you can, you are earning your income, but as soon as you resort to crime to crush your competition, then, what are you buying with your earned income?

You buy liars to lie for you, you buy goons to threaten your competition for you, or you buy violent people to crush your competition, and from then on, do you "earn" your income?

"What if I add a 10 day vacation to Hawaii to my cost, but you add a 1 day vacation to your cost. Then the price limit of cost is no longer equitable."

No, that is not true. If you are selling a higher price, lower quality, product to 1,000 people, and they are getting exactly what they want at the price you ask, then that is equitable, and that is equitable by that fact, a voluntary association free trade. If you know that I am down the street selling the same thing you are selling at half price, because I don't go on vacation, or because my idea of vacation is providing better tomatoes in jars for less cost compared to you, then do you keep that knowledge from your customers?

If you know that all your customers are paying twice as much for the same thing from you as they could be paying from me, then do you keep, without, and censor that information? Do you buy all I produce, from me, then sell all my products to all your customers because then you don't even have to make another Tomato Jar, all you have to do is keep the information secret?

Is that then the definition of equity?

1,000 people could, without your "help", buy directly from me, at half price, but your POWER to keep the information flowing affords you the opportunity to buy from me and sell to your customers at a "profit" you manage to gain, for doing what?

On the other hand, so it was cool, you could get away with not be very competitive, selling at full price, that which the market will bear, and then I show up, raising the bar, selling at half price, and you are finding out that your price was equitable without competition, but is now measurably not equitable as more people find out that the measure of equity is higher quality and lower cost than what previously was equity by your exclusive example.

"What if I have doctor bills I must add to cost, but you don’t? It seems to me the limit of cost can be ambiguous."

We have not yet discussed the concept of insurance, and we can, but Equitable Commerce is strictly dealing with commerce between individuals, so a move from individuals to "collective" funds owned in some way "collectively", such as insurance, is definitely not having anything to do with Josiah Warren and Equitable Commerce, which is odd, since it was Andrews, not Warren, who connected "socialism" to Equitable Commerce.

Setting aside collective ownership of something, which is definitely not anything Warren advocated, exactly opposite in fact, setting that aside, the concept of pricing being ambiguous is false.

Here:

"What if I have doctor bills I must add to cost, but you don’t? It seems to me the limit of cost can be ambiguous."

That is false, cost is exactly what it is at the time of transfer from A to B, exactly that, each time.

Arriving at that cost/price which is always exactly what it is at the time of transfer, can add to the cost during negotiations, removing any ambiguity that may linger, and then the price (cost) is exactly what it is at that time when transfer occurs.

Arriving at the cost, can be costly, or efficient, and that was covered in Equitable Commerce with the chess clock punched by the seller at the moment someone starts haggling over the price. If the price is not low enough, why add to the price while the clock is ticking? This is where, again, the concept of this nebulous "labor theory of value" is false. Equitable Commerce is what it is, and it happens all the time, whenever competition is the force that forces people to price at a competitive price or cost/price, as competition with one's self, or with other people, forces price down to cost, and not price moving up to some other measure.

Haggling over price may be a form of competition, like the liars club, the ambiguous ambiguities of truth?

In Equitable Commerce as explained by Warren a price is set by the trader or "seller", a person in the business of offering specific, not ambiguous, products in exchange for a specific product, a Tomato Jar for 10 Debt Notes, not 9 Debt Notes, not 11 Debt notes, but 10 Debt notes, is offered to anyone who can afford that price, that is the cost price, as far as the Equitable Exchange is offered, exactly that, by that trader.

You want one, you can equitably trade one for the cost price of 10 Debt Notes (or some other THING, exactly that THING, set as the price by the equitable trader) and if someone starts haggling over the cost price, then the trader starts the clock, each minute adds a Debt Note to the cost/price, and soon enough that haggler prices himself out of the market, for having added so much to the price, as the trader having the product is forced by the haggler to waste the traders time.

If the thing isn't worth 10 Debt Notes to anyone, then haggling over the price adds costs to something that isn't worth the cost of it in the first place. Someone, somewhere, made something or traded for something that they paid for it more than it cost that person who traded for it, so why add to the cost of it?

If it cost you X to make tomato jars, and no one will buy one, or the price that someone will buy one is less than your cost, less than X, then how can that be considered an equitable business when it is an obvious case of charity?

Equitable Commerce is not ambiguous, it is exactly what it is in each equitable case.

Charity can be ambiguous, crime can be ambiguous, but Equitable Commerce is exactly what it is when trades are made at cost each time and the equitable cost price is the price at the time of the exchange, not before, not after, and finding the cost price can be ambiguous, or not yet found, up into the price is set, then it is the cost price, right on the price tag, if cost price is reached for, the cost price is found, and it goes on the price tag.

If the trader doesn't even look for a cost price, and just grabs a price from the hat, an ambiguous price, something random, and is then ready to haggle, at that point, then, even then, what if the price taken out of the hat is half the cost of production?

You go out of business fast, or even at that price no one wants to buy without having haggled their way down to half the price you are asking?

Now I'm confused.

"How is the trade going to be equitable when my costs are larger than your costs?"

To me, but not said in Equitable Commerce that I can remember, the Equitable nature of a trade is any trade that is not made as a result of anyone resorting to falsehood, threats, or violence as a means of one person, the criminal, gaining at the expense of the victim, and if your costs are too high then you are wasting time in the wrong business, so why waste any more time, learn from competition, stop wasting your time, and find where your unique talents are competitive, are higher in quality, and lower in cost compared to the competition?

Warren and Tucker point out how the end of the Money Monopoly (which in our case is The Fed/IRS/Troops trio of monopolies) releases competition for so many inventors, producers, experimenters, entrepreneurs, no longer rendered powerless by that very destructive monopoly power, which then increases the demand for simple labor, where so many people are now unemployed, and unemployable, whereas there would then be much incentive, much reward, for laborers, so named, to be induced to work, please work, please someone work, for me, I have so much that can be done, but not enough people to employ at all this work that can be done.

What is, here and now, is power scarcity, all around, very measurably are so many powers made so scarce, that the prices are well over cost, just look at mortgage interest, "taxes" (which could be merely competitive insurance policies where investors are buying potential benefits in case of loss by criminals, including criminals with badges), water prices, gasoline prices, electric prices, medical prices, education prices, and monopoly insurance prices (mandatory?).

What can be is power that is abundant as prices are driven down to cost, such as less than 1% mortgage interest, no inflation, deflation instead of inflation, electricity at cost (which can quickly reach zero with solar panels alone), cars run by electricity (no fuel costs, or almost zero fuel costs), on and on.

What is, all around, is crime made legal.

That is what is, so the rules that apply cause this and that to be this way and that way.

What happens in the other direction?

Power is now stolen and consumed in the work required to steal more, and a whole lot of power is now being spent on World War III.

Power can be used to make more power out of less, and then what happens?

"Please know that I am asking honest questions here. I am not trying to be tricky or seeing red. I am trying to understand how cost can be limited and why cost is not limited by the price the market will bear?"

More homework for you as:

1.
What is Surplus Wealth?

2.
What is Unearned Income?

I have offered competitive answers earlier. If you can, try to explain those concepts in terms that begin to make some sense, and then we may be able to work on how life changes when power is no longer consumed into a forced state of scarcity.

From that viewpoint the works of Warren and Tucker (and others) may be easier to understand.

"As far as the Pyramids in Egypt…I hear they used slave labor."

We are slave laborers, the point is to point out that there is more power than meets the eye, unless you start looking at the Pyramids and wonder, wow, if they could do that then, what can we do now?

If they can do that, even with all the power consumed in maintaining slavery, what could they have done then, and what can we do now, without all those costs consumed in the all the destructive work required to enforce slavery?

"Joe, God has been waving to you your whole life, and He still is."

That must be nice to know. I'll keep waving back.

Joe

Follow up to "I am laughing"

“Surplus wealth can be measured as prices falling to zero.
Surplus wealth can be measured as National Debt.
If you sell Tomato Jars at half the cost of production, and you factor the cost of expansion, the cost of a good standard of living, and you are meeting a demand that exists, competitively, then the other half of the "cost of production" is surplus wealth at that moment, and you can consume it, go on vacation, or expand your business, which invests that surplus wealth, save it in some form where it will not evaporate, which is consuming it as an investment (but saving it so it can be like a battery storing electric power), or send it to The Federal Government so that they can steal more from you, or crush your competitive Tomato Business, or use the Surplus Wealth you produced to crush your competitive money business.”

You said “If you sell Tomato Jars at HALF the cost of production…”

Did you mean TWICE the cost of production? Wouldn’t I need to sell at twice the cost of production to have surplus or residual wealth?

So are you saying that if the market will bear the price of surplus wealth, it is OK to charge twice the cost of production so I might have “insurance” upon continuance of my wealth?

-----------------
Unearned Income…is what I give myself when I resort to violence, threats, and cheating and deceit to maintain my wealth. So Unearned Income is income received thru ill-gotten-gain.
-----------------
OK, I want to talk about buying your tomato jars at half price so I can double my mine on them, me being the middle man or the retailer and you being the manufacturer. Is there room for that? Maybe you can make lots of tomato jars cheaper without having to deal with customers. Maybe you like tomatoes but not people, so I am doing you a favor being the one to put up with customers who want to haggle. Maybe I have a place that is readily available to lots of people and you are in a town of 700 and everyone grows their own tomatoes and they don’t need yours. So, I would be helping you if I bought your tomatoes and resold them.

Is that OK?
------------------
The next thing that bother ms:

"Even in so delicate a matter as that of the relations of the sexes the Anarchists do not shrink from the application of their principle. They acknowledge and defend the right of any man and woman, or any men and women, to love each other for as long or as short a time as they can, will, or may. To them legal marriage and legal divorce are equal absurdities. They look forward to a time when every individual, whether man or woman, shall be self-supporting, and when each shall have an independent home of his or her own, whether it be a separate house or rooms in a house with others; when the love relations between these independent individuals shall be as varied as are individual inclinations and attractions; and when the children born of these relations shall belong exclusively to the mothers until old enough to belong to themselves."

...

Causes of confusion exist.

Finding the causes of confusion can be added costs to life on Earth.

"Did you mean TWICE the cost of production? Wouldn’t I need to sell at twice the cost of production to have surplus or residual wealth?"

Yes, I did mean TWICE, not HALF, but from whose viewpoint?

To one trader the cost is twice, to the other trader the cost is half, so what is the cost price?

The cost price is the price at the time of transfer?

So the doubling, or halving, is a judgment call made by the trader who has the thing to be traded, and that trader is in the process of determining the cost/price, why two words?

If there is always competition, a person competing with his former self, or her former self, trying to be better today than yesterday, then does that person jack up the price to that which the market will bear, because there is no external competition?

Why?

Who wins? Who pays?

If the idea is to increase the costs of production, to send the kids to school, is that not a good standard of living worth exemplifying? Who would be able to undercut that cost? Are "jobs" so scarce that we have to be at each other's throats, making a killing, to make sure that we are cornering that scarce bit of economy where so many people are fighting over so few opportunities to supply the few things people want?

That is up-side-down, in so many ways. People want things, so why is there a scarcity of POWER to supply the things people want?

Suddenly, inexplicably, no one wants anything any more, no one is wiling to work another second to get something better instead of settling for worse?

What happened to demand?

There is no demand?

Since there is no demand, obviously, there is no, or very few, opportunity to work at supplying that demand?

Really?

Are we that stupid?

It is the Elephant in the room that stomps out competition, the Legal Fraud and Extortion Money Monopoly Elephant, crushing everything that threatens that Elephant with any POWER that does, in fact, constitute a threat to that Power.

What happens when competition in legal money exists?

No monopoly.

What does competition do - exactly - in reality, in human reality on earth?

Competition (not antagonism, not false competition, not crime made legal) forces quality up and cost down, in reality.

What happens, how is it measured, when quality goes up and costs go down?

Power becomes abundant.

How?

If you want to see, you can find a way to see, and you are persisting, and what do you already measure by that investment of your power of knowledge into gaining more power of knowledge?

If you can imagine a million moms just like you, doing a fraction of the work you are now doing, and at the very least those moms then refuse to dress their children up as "soldiers" to then make war, because war is so good for the economy, then how many sons, and how many daughters are then creating opportunities instead of destroying them?

What happens when good people do good things compared to what happens when those same good people are led down a false path where those good people are forced to choose the lesser of two evils, and they then become evil themselves?

How is this all not easily accountable to that Elephant right their in your living room, stomping out all your earned income, taking everything that can be stolen from you, and transferring the power you need to defend yourself to those who then overpower you and they steal even more power, and the things that they do with your power makes your ungodly thoughts, and your ungodly actions look, by relative comparison, to be good thoughts and good actions.

I'm reaching for my 8x10 glossy photos taken by the medical examiner, you know, you know, the broken record, like a Business Psycho, skipping on the same scratch each revolution, as the stomach turns.

"So are you saying that if the market will bear the price of surplus wealth, it is OK to charge twice the cost of production so I might have “insurance” upon continuance of my wealth?"

Think hard about that concept of Surplus Wealth, and if you can borrow my brain, then think in terms of being a disinterested, foreign, observer, just looking at an electric circuit.

There are these things in electric circuits called capacitors, and these things store power when there is too much power, and then when there is not enough power these things unload that power.

If all the surplus wealth is stored in one capacitor in the circuit, then that circuit has that feature, that design, as all the surplus power flows into that one capacitor.

What power determines when there is too much, or not enough, power in the rest of the circuit when there is only one capacitor?

That capacitor, if you are looking at THE FUND (which is the real capacitor not The FED), or look at THE FED, whatever, there is one capacitor in this circuit called The Dollar Hegemony, the electricity, the power, is measured in dollars, not watts, not amps, not calories, but dollars, Federal Reserve Notes at this time, in this place, and all of the Surplus Wealth flows in this circuit to that one storage place. Not all of it, but you have to actually detach some of your vested interest in your own supplies of power, your friends in the game, whatever.

If,there was only one Savings Account, in the circuit, then see how that simplified circuit works, and a quick look at the National Debt Clock (Real Time), official, supports the realization that there is ONE dominant savings account, even if there are many other retirement accounts, personal savings accounts, etc.

If there is one, what determines when, and how much, that one savings accounts collects surplus wealth, stores it, or what determines how much, and when, that savings account releases power?

Surplus wealth is power, the power to purchase, or it isn't surplus wealth because it has no power to purchase.

If it is "dollars" then it is fraud and extortion made legal, which is destructive power, but that is besides the point I suppose.

Reminding where I am here:

"So are you saying that if the market will bear the price of surplus wealth, it is OK to charge twice the cost of production so I might have “insurance” upon continuance of my wealth?"

Insurance ought to be kept on the back burner, or at least understood to be either or an individual store of power, a personal insurance storage power thing, or, on the other hand, a collective insurance fund/power/capacitor/storage medium of power.

In your sentence I think you are referring to "insurance" as being a water tank on your property, or a cellar full of food, or batteries in a flash light, or a tank of gasoline, or something other than dollars, legal money, "collective insurance", something other than that, in that case.

This case:

"So are you saying that if the market will bear the price of surplus wealth, it is OK to charge twice the cost of production so I might have “insurance” upon continuance of my wealth?"

What is that not a reasonable, equitable, efficient, competitive, honest, productive, additional cost, to add a measure of storage of power to the cost of the things to be traded, to be supplied to meet the demand for that thing to be traded, to be added to the competitive cost price demanded by the trader, or no less than that, to meet the costs, when trading that things supplied to meet that demand for it?

How is that not a very competitive part of the total cost of doing equitable business, to earn, a measure of surplus wealth?

Step back, move your mind to the moon, or to mars, look through your telescope at America, see what is, with that one capacitor stealing a great, significant, majority of all the surplus wealth, and ask yourself why, and ask yourself what could it be if instead of one big, full, nasty, capacitor, there were instead many little capacitors at each house, a Solar Panel Array, at each house, two cars where electric power is stored in their batteries at each house, each house has a water well and a water tank, each house has a few Modular Green House Farming Units, Each house as a portion of all that Gold that is stored in that one place, and that doesn't even touch, not one foot, into collective supplies of surplus wealth, no insurance of any collective kind at all, all you see through your telescope in an imaginary future, is equitable traders adding the cost of storing personal, individual, supplies of surplus wealth, in their own estates, with their own castles, in Liberty.

What is missing, but the power of knowledge, and what is in the way, except the falsehoods planted between all those ears on that distant planet from your observatory on Mars?

You tell me.

"So are you saying that if the market will bear the price of surplus wealth, it is OK to charge twice the cost of production so I might have “insurance” upon continuance of my wealth?"

What is the goal? Cut each other's throats or a better idea?

"OK, I want to talk about buying your tomato jars at half price so I can double my mine on them, me being the middle man or the retailer and you being the manufacturer. Is there room for that? Maybe you can make lots of tomato jars cheaper without having to deal with customers. Maybe you like tomatoes but not people, so I am doing you a favor being the one to put up with customers who want to haggle. Maybe I have a place that is readily available to lots of people and you are in a town of 700 and everyone grows their own tomatoes and they don’t need yours. So, I would be helping you if I bought your tomatoes and resold them."

"Is that OK?"

You are describing division of labor and specialization. We can go over that again, and again, and why would it not be OK, so long as there is no resort to deception, which was the angle of view offered, not this angle of view you offer in reply.

A.
Resort to deception, such as omission, which is deception.

B.
Those who are best at a job tend to be those who do the job most efficiently, at the lowest cost to them, and therefore the least expense to anyone else, as people find where their special talents are most competitive in a free market (free from crimes such as fraud of minor measure or fraud of extreme destructiveness).

C.
Why does scripture bear this out so well: Fear of God is to Hate Evil (not external evil but internal evil)?

Am I learning?

You will have to be more specific as to what bothers you in Andrews writing. All he is saying is that forced, by evil, by fraud, by threats of violence, and by violence, man upon man, or woman, in any case not God acting, forced "might making right" marriage is wrong.

That is all he is saying in principle. If he thinks that people will do as they please without being forced by another human being to act according to whatever another human being thinks is good, or bad, then are you saying he is wrong?

He does not say that absent the force of man upon man, or woman, absent the force of human being upon human being, absent that force, no one will seek God, find God, and behave as God instructs human beings to behave.

Is that what you think Andrews says?

I don't think so.

I've been wrong often enough to know better than to believe that I am absolutely right. I know of one absolute truth, so far, and that is all I have power to know, absolutely, so far. We went over that some.

I certainly need to know better at this point. Where do I get the power to know any better?

Joe

Elephants and Dragons

“Yes, I did mean TWICE, not HALF, but from whose viewpoint?”

It seems to me that the cost of production is fixed, so any price above that cost is the same from anyone’s viewpoint no matter how I try to look at it.

“If there is always competition, a person competing with his former self, or her former self, trying to be better today than yesterday, then does that person jack up the price to that which the market will bear, because there is no external competition?”

Yes, if that person is actively pursuing their work.

“Why?”

I think it is human nature to get as much as one can in business.

“Who wins? Who pays?”

Both “traders” win and pay. Both are gaining capital at an exchange agreed upon

“It is the Elephant in the room that stomps out competition, the Legal Fraud and Extortion Money Monopoly Elephant, crushing everything that threatens that Elephant with any POWER that does, in fact, constitute a threat to that Power.”

I have started listening to Quigley’s “Tragedy and Hope:” I guess I listened upto number 7 of 31 thru the night, so I don’t know what I heard. But I woke up to the speaking here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBDAGNocnzM&list=PLMMPK5eDLaV... Starting about minute 11 I believe the elephant is evident. At 25 minutes Africa colonization is discussed and the elephant is stomping on the natives and white people about also become subject to stomping thru laziness as the reading continues thru the hour. I am finding the information very interesting, except one has to get used to the computerized reading voice.

“If you want to see, you can find a way to see, and you are persisting, and what do you already measure by that investment of your power of knowledge into gaining more power of knowledge?”

I think part of my problem continues to be prejudice in the sense I prejudge the meaning of Equity not to include abundance, but only bare necessity, because I continue to confuse equity with criminal/involuntary economy. I think perhaps a dragon is being slayed!

The Elephant = Monopoly = Unearned Income = the opposite of Joe’s Law = Scarcity

“In your sentence I think you are referring to "insurance" as being a water tank on your property, or a cellar full of food, or batteries in a flash light, or a tank of gasoline, or something other than dollars, legal money, "collective insurance", something other than that, in that case.”

But is there anything wrong with story money if it is not criminal monopoly money? So if my equipment breaks I have money which is readily convertible. Or if I get sick, I have money to go to the Dr., etc.

“Why does scripture bear this out so well: Fear of God is to Hate Evil (not external evil but internal evil)?
Am I learning?”

Because when we abhor internal evil and cast it away, we are able to live as Equitablists not resorting to deceit, threats or violence upon our neighbor. Hating any internal evil we find within ourselves is the source of proper self-governance.

What do you think this verse means?:

• 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.

“You will have to be more specific as to what bothers you in Andrews writing. All he is saying is that forced, by evil, by fraud, by threats of violence, and by violence, man upon man, or woman, in any case not God acting, forced "might making right" marriage is wrong.”

I think it is Tucker’s writing that I am quoting: http://praxeology.net/BT-SSA.htm

“SSA.32
Even in so delicate a matter as that of the relations of the sexes the Anarchists do not shrink from the application of their principle. They acknowledge and defend the right of any man and woman, or any men and women, to love each other for as long or as short a time as they can, will, or may. To them legal marriage and legal divorce are equal absurdities. They look forward to a time when every individual, whether man or woman, shall be self-supporting, and when each shall have an independent home of his or her own, whether it be a separate house or rooms in a house with others; when the love relations between these independent individuals shall be as varied as are individual inclinations and attractions; and when the children born of these relations shall belong exclusively to the mothers until old enough to belong to themselves.”

Specifically what is concerning to me is the after creation, the first institution was the family. A husband and wife are to cling to one another. Why confuse something that is not marriage with marriage? Why call crime marriage? Why say that children born out of marriage with belong exclusively to their mothers? Why not say be married and have children which belong to both the mother and the father? Why is it necessary to remove the family unit in anarchism?

I found this passage interesting in that Martyrs Mirror book:

http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/martyrs004.htm

“OF MARRIAGE
Marriage we hold to be an ordinance of God, which was first instituted by God in Paradise, and confirmed in our first parents, Adam and Eve, who were created after the image of God, male and female, while they both were yet in favor with God. Gen. 2:22; 1:27.

Page 32
In accordance with this first institution, and agreeably to Christ's ordinance, Matt. 19:5, the marriage of Children of God (who are not too nearly related by consanguinity) must be entered into, after prayer, and kept inviolable, so that each man shall have his own, only wife, and each wife her own husband; and nothing shall separate them, save adultery. Lev. 18;20; I Cor. 5:1; Matt. 19; Rom. 7:2; I Cor. 7:2; Matt. 5:32; I Cor. 9:5.
Thus, it is lawful for a brother to take a sister to wife; a sister, also, may be married to whom she will, only in the Lord, that is, according to the ordinance and pleasure of the Lord, as mentioned before. But we do not find that God has anywhere, through His Word, ordained or instituted, that a believing member of the church should enter into matrimony with an unbelieving, worldly person; on the contrary, we find, that God the Lord was very angry with those who did so, and declared that they were flesh, who would not be led by His Spirit; therefore, we reprove all those who follow herein the lust of their own flesh, in the same manner as we do other carnal sinners. I Cor. 7:39; Deut. 7:3; Neh. 10:30; 13:25-27; Gen. 6:6.”

Note that in that last paragraph. The terms brother and sister are not speaking of blood, but of Believers in Christ. I am in that sense Jeff’s sister because I also am a child of God. Note also that a wife is to marry who she pleases”

“Thus, it is lawful for a brother to take a sister to wife; a sister, also, may be married to whom she will, only in the Lord,”

So now I am thinking this is for believers and those who do not believe will live as they wish perhaps moving from partner to partner leaving a bunch of fatherless children who have no male input into their lives. Sons need fathers to model being men. So the words to partner around as you please (in so many words) are evil as they are not the Creator’s plan for families.

I am glad my laughing made you smile. Thank you for your time today Josf.

...

Who decides your pay scale?

"It seems to me that the cost of production is fixed, so any price above that cost is the same from anyone’s viewpoint no matter how I try to look at it."

That is exactly the point.

If you do not take responsibility for determining your pay scale, then you are Un-American. Ha, ha, ha, don't you think that I could make a good propagandist?

_____________________________________________
Yes, if that person is actively pursuing their work.

“Why?”

I think it is human nature to get as much as one can in business.
_____________________________________________

So...if you place no limit on what you will do to gain at the expense of someone else, then where can you look to find the source of iniquity in human life on Earth?

"That which the market will bear" is this:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/about.html

If you don't set limits, who does?

"Both “traders” win and pay. Both are gaining capital at an exchange agreed upon"

So, suddenly, despite every effort on my part to focus attention on the Elephant in the room, you suddenly find a way to make it disappear at the wave of your magic wand - again?

If you are speaking about equitable trades, then exemplify one, and we can both look at such a nice thing, right there, or over there, or here, or under that rock. If not, then what are we looking at, and why would anyone ever want to confuse an equitable trade with a counterfeit version?

"The Elephant = Monopoly = Unearned Income = the opposite of Joe’s Law = Scarcity"

That is almost spelled out that way by Tucker speaking about Warren, Proudhon, and Marx.

According to Tucker the work of Warren (and I suppose Proudhon but Andrews throws light on that question) went toward Liberty (competition and abundance) and Marx went toward Legal Crime (monopoly and scarcity), but you and I may be the only one's on the planet who are working on the Power measures of reality here on Earth, in this unique way. Is the power formula valid?

I've already told you that Howard Bloom, the only one I've ever had the chance to ask for any kind of "official" opinion, as to the validity of the Joe's Law equation and he says it looks right - not quoted verbatim because we were typing in a discussion at the time and I did not save the text exchange.

Bloom is big on utilizing Satellites in Space to collect Solar Power and send that power to a collector on Earth for electric Power, which according to his work (and that guys does extensive work) it is already possible - nearly unlimited cost-less electric power without need to buy any oil, or coal, or wood, or produce any nuclear waste that is not so much of our daily lives.

I point out, and no one listens, that Solar Panels reproduce themselves, in other words they generate enough power to pay for their own costs and at least one more, and that cost/benefit FACT is getting better not worse, so there is no reason, other that that Elephant in the room, for POWER to be scarce on Planet Earth.

This is so simple, since POWER is the stuff required to do anything, and so, again, why are those demands people make, not being supplied by all those people who supposedly can't find a job, and earn an equitable living?

Demand will always be high, so long as human beings are as God made them, and therefore THE reason why supply of the demand is scarce has to do with POWER being made scarce on purpose.

Mortgage interest at nearly ZERO means how much more POWER for each family (or individual) on Planet Earth?

False TAX (extortion payments) at nearly ZERO means how much more POWER added to the Mortgage Interest savings?

Electric Power at nearly Zero, combined with very much more efficient Electric Cars (a no brainer in more ways than one), means Electric Home Power, Electric Business Power, and almost all Transportation Fuel costs at nearly zero, added to Mortgage Interest savings, added to No More Legal Criminal Extortion Payments, is how much savings added up so far?

How much will food cost, and how good will food quality be, and how many jobs will be up for grabs by a steadily shrinking supply of the unemployed if Vertical Home Farming Modular Units, as a growing business, explodes onto this small Planet Earth?

Adding up some of the most Obvious savings:

1.
Mortgage Interest at near zero
2.
Tax "Liabilities" at near zero
3.
Electric Power supplies at near zero
4.
Transportation FUEL costs at near zero
5.
Food costs at near zero

Why, if you think with your prejudiced, infected, brain, do you think Alaska as a "government" pays people to be citizens? Do you think that all the other States in the Involuntary Union are subsidizing those payments? Is there nothing of value in Alaska that could possibly be the source of that POWER, such as all that Oil that is reported to be in Alaska, as reported by the person Lindsay Williams, and others?

"The Elephant = Monopoly = Unearned Income = the opposite of Joe’s Law = Scarcity"

There is the Elephant!

What Elephant, I see no Elephant.

Look at your Mortgage interest payments, and if you have none, good for you, but look at the whole circuit of POWER flowing from many to one FUND, and then see what that is, in FACT.

Look at all those "Federal Tax Liabilities" and know what is being done with all that POWER as all those wars just keep on going, and going, and going, as if by some accident, yet the POWER still flows into those wars, leaving unambiguous money trails, purchase orders, with or without the signatures.

Look at the cost of Electricity.

Look at the cost of fuel for transportation, yours, yours alone, each time you fill up, and then add the WHOLE number of all that fuel flowing and all those "added costs", all that "unearned income" due to "tax payers FUNDS" flowing into Armies of Mercenaries, so as to "Spread Democracy" where, as it happens, there is, by some strange coincidence, a very large supply of oil handy: monopolizing transportation fuel markets.

Look at the quality of food, and the cost of food, and picture a future generation, after a reasonable adjustment of power being spent, not on Monopoly Food Producers, with their seed patents, and their Aluminum and Barium Pest Control Methods (Persistent Vapor Trails), where every home, like having a Garage with 2 cars, now has their own self-sufficient supply of competitive food for use or for trade, competitively, cooperative, and not antagonistically.

We have not even touched on medical or insurance costs and what does all that above add up to, as you somehow, again, and again, and again, fail to measure, or even see, The Elephant in the room?

How do I know, that you still slip back into abject belief in falsehood without question?

You write this:

"Both “traders” win and pay. Both are gaining capital at an exchange agreed upon"

You can't even put period on the sentence as you stumble to find reason to confuse equity with that same stomping Elephant.

Why?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think it is human nature to get as much as one can in business.

“Who wins? Who pays?”

Both “traders” win and pay. Both are gaining capital at an exchange agreed upon
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Who decides your pay scale, and are there any limits on what you will do to increase your pay scale?

What is the point of our discussion at this moment as you read this challenging question?

______________________________________________
“In your sentence I think you are referring to "insurance" as being a water tank on your property, or a cellar full of food, or batteries in a flash light, or a tank of gasoline, or something other than dollars, legal money, "collective insurance", something other than that, in that case.”

But is there anything wrong with story money if it is not criminal monopoly money? So if my equipment breaks I have money which is readily convertible. Or if I get sick, I have money to go to the Dr., etc.
_______________________________________________

Going back to you pretending to be on Mars, looking through your telescope, and measuring the flow of POWER on earth, try to imagine the accurate identification, and measure, of ONE very large FUND, that works like a Capacitor, where all these producers of POWER send POWER to that one FUND (IMF, Global Bank, The FED, The IRS, Wall Street, Fort Knox, The Dollar Hegemony, The New World Order, the POWER to write a check for as much money as everyone else combined and buy World War III, etc.) and that ONE FUND grows, and grows, and grows, in its POWER to FEED ITSELF, and it releases that POWER very carefully, targeting all competition, crushing all competition that DOES measurably threaten that one POWER.

If you could, and you want to read something very entertaining, then read Sirens of Titan by Kurt Vonnegut, or read, again very entertaining, a chance to charge your batteries, read The Ender Series of books written by Orson Scott Card. In these books the authors let you borrow their brains, and they take you to other planets so that you can then begin use that method of looking back on Earth with the POWER of detachment/disinterest/no prejudice or whatever words convey the process of inventing a competitive viewpoint in that way.

What way?

Pretend to be someone living on Mars, just for fun, look at those things on Earth, what are they doing?

What were they thinking?

How do they survive?

Isn't that interesting in a foreign sense? I mean, so what, if they blow themselves up, so what, who cares?

If you remove your too often resort to attaching emotion, long enough, you may find the disinterested viewpoint worth checking out, for fun, if for no other reason. Kurt Vonnegut is a fun read for many people. You may not like it, and Orson Scott Card is a treasure, to me, but you may not like his viewpoints either, but these are novels, these are forms of artwork, not the heavy reading that you are investing in heavily right now.

"But is there anything wrong with story money if it is not criminal monopoly money? So if my equipment breaks I have money which is readily convertible. Or if I get sick, I have money to go to the Dr., etc."

That is exactly the point, since the Elephant in the room takes all those many individual storage units and consumes all the power that would otherwise be in those many individual storage units. The Elephant in the room is designed to make sure that all those individual storage units can't exist, for if all those individual storage units were allowed to exist, the Elephant in the room would vanish over night.

It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.
Henry Ford

• 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.

Love produced into a state of oversupply reduces the price of love down to zero, while purchasing power increases, because Love reduces the cost of production.

So many people in my life have told me that they were going to miss me at work, because I have this power to make work fun, they say that, and I know it is true, but not because I make it true, but because those special people are aware of these facts too.

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.

Productive power does this, and destructive power does this, and why is that at all a mystery?

"Why confuse something that is not marriage with marriage?"

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?

I can then have something to see, exactly that, this demonstrated case of this person who is confusing something that is not marraige with marriage. If you can demonstrate that event, then I can know where you are getting this bothersome ideas, or thoughts, into your life, your thinking, your being. Pick out specific parts of the quotes, for example, where you are then demonstrating where someone (if it is Tucker that is THE someone) confuses something that is not marriage with marriage.

"So now I am thinking this is for believers and those who do not believe will live as they wish perhaps moving from partner to partner leaving a bunch of fatherless children who have no male input into their lives. Sons need fathers to model being men. So the words to partner around as you please (in so many words) are evil as they are not the Creator’s plan for families."

If someone says to you that false gods are false, then you understand that, it is common sense, or self evident, if you have that power to see those facts.

In some cases it is easy, as a false god may be just a man, a man claiming to be god, and then when put to the test the false god can't do things that god can do, this false god can do things that human can do, and no more.

So Tucker, Warren, Andrews, Spooner, at least those four, point out that someone, somewhere, dictating to other people, telling other people what must be done, and what must not be done, according to that one person's exclusive power to know these things, without question, without any power afforded to anyone other than this person, this dictator, this one man, or this one woman, no power allowed for any questioning whatsoever, all power held in that one person, is absurd, a lie, as pretentious as someone claiming to be god, these 4 people pointing this out to you, is bothersome to you?

They are saying the same things said in scripture concerning who has the authority to force their will upon innocent people, which is to say, that such power is not commanded by any man, or any woman ever living, alive now, or ever will live.

The only difference is, perhaps, that these 4 people, and I, making 5 in this group of Warren, Tucker, Spooner, Andrews, and I, do not make any exceptions, and you do, since you, and your group, claim that Jesus is the one exception.

Does Jesus go around taking children from the women that bear those children?

Andrews does not, Tucker does not, Warren does not, Spooner does not, and neither do I, with no exceptions that I know about, but here is room for confusion.

Example:

You walk in on a mother ready to insert the coat hanger to solve her financial problems associated with having to pay for a baby that she cannot afford, and right there in front of you, on your dinner table, is this event.

"...the children born of these relations shall belong exclusively to the mothers until old enough to belong to themselves."

That is Tucker speaking.

Tucker, Andrews, Warren, and Spooner, you and I, in fact, speak about things that can cost us much, we do so because we believe in things such as Love, and other things, and these beliefs we have threaten people in power, where the power these people are in, where these people have their power threatened by us, may want to do us harm in some way.

Is that true?

Andrews was run out of Texas, if I have the story understood, for "freeing the slaves", a serious crime.

Freeing the slaves.

A serous crime.

So I'm going to speculate, pre-judge, as if making a wager, betting the farm so to speak, as to what this group, in question, would do, in this case in question, presented to you.

5 people in one group.

You in the other group.

5 people walk in on this event, this coat hanger event, where this woman, this "mother", is now ready to make life less expensive for this "mother".

Warren, Tucker, Andrews, Spooner, and me. 5 people.

What would we do?

I can't speak for Warren, but I know, as his words report, that his efforts to speak to other people, were subject to liabilities in his day, and he knew this. I can get the quotes now.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/warren/...

"123. Now are heard the wails of distress from all quarters. The papers are filled with accounts of brutal violence on both sides -- villages burning -- men hanging -- ferocity let loose in every horrid shape and form. The heated passions on both sides become more and more ferocious, -- a curious way to promote "Union"! A frenzy of rage sweeps over the land while I write. The last step of despotism has been taken by both governments. Freedom of action and speech are annihilated in "the land of the free and the home of the brave." Even these written words may prove the death-warrant of the writer. Nothing but the clamor of war and the fear of prisons and violent deaths, smother, for the moment, the low moan from desolated hearths and broken hearts from the depths of the hell we are in!"

I had to speed read to find that here:

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/warren/...

So, back to my own story, these 5 people in this dastardly group of so called "anarchists" walk in on the "mother" tending to her "child" with a coat hanger, and we do what, exactly.

What do you do?

Are we speaking about good things in our future or are we speaking about The Elephant on the room?

"Why is it necessary to remove the family unit in anarchism?"

When you can demonstrate to me, specifically, where someone, somewhere, finds it "necessary to remove the family unit in anarchism", then we can look at that being demonstrated, and then we can start discussing that event in the past, in the present, or in the future case where that exact thing is demonstrated.

I may be jumping out of order at this point.

"I am glad my laughing made you smile. Thank you for your time today Josf."

Thanks for the smile, and your time too.

Joe

Back to Work

“Bloom is big on utilizing Satellites in Space to collect Solar Power and send that power to a collector on Earth for electric Power, which according to his work (and that guys does extensive work) it is already possible - nearly unlimited cost-less electric power without need to buy any oil, or coal, or wood, or produce any nuclear waste that is not so much of our daily lives.

I point out, and no one listens, that Solar Panels reproduce themselves, in other words they generate enough power to pay for their own costs and at least one more, and that cost/benefit FACT is getting better not worse, so there is no reason, other that that Elephant in the room, for POWER to be scarce on Planet Earth.”

I know you have been hammering away at this for nearly a year now. Here we were talking about the fact that FRN’s do not belong in Equitable Commerce and now I must add to that there is no reason on earth for power to be scarce.

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.

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.

“Why, if you think with your prejudiced, infected, brain, do you think Alaska as a "government" pays people to be citizens? Do you think that all the other States in the Involuntary Union are subsidizing those payments? Is there nothing of value in Alaska that could possibly be the source of that POWER, such as all that Oil that is reported to be in Alaska, as reported by the person Lindsay Williams, and others?”

Sarah Palin talked about this. She told people to read the Alaska Constitution because the resources belong to the people of the state.at time 22:40: http://youtu.be/VkRw4EOwY2g (from http://www.dailypaul.com/278512/sarah-palin-rocks-cpac-mocks...).

“How do I know, that you still slip back into abject belief in falsehood without question?
You write this:
"Both “traders” win and pay. Both are gaining capital at an exchange agreed upon"
You can't even put period on the sentence as you stumble to find reason to confuse equity with that same stomping Elephant.
Why?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think it is human nature to get as much as one can in business.
“Who wins? Who pays?”
Both “traders” win and pay. Both are gaining capital at an exchange agreed upon
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Who decides your pay scale, and are there any limits on what you will do to increase your pay scale?
What is the point of our discussion at this moment as you read this challenging question?”
______________________________________________

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.

But I am having a hard time with that concept now as I think of human nature. I have one son who will not pick the biggest piece so as to let the other have the biggest. I have another son who will pick the biggest piece so that he gets the largest portion. Needless to say, it is the skinny son who picks the biggest for himself…some people are more generous than others. 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.

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.

God says thumbs don’t belong on the scale too: http://www.biblestudytools.com/search/?q=weights&c=&t=kjv&ps...

“If you remove your too often resort to attaching emotion, long enough, you may find the disinterested viewpoint worth checking out, for fun, if for no other reason. Kurt Vonnegut is a fun read for many people. You may not like it, and Orson Scott Card is a treasure, to me, but you may not like his viewpoints either, but these are novels, these are forms of artwork, not the heavy reading that you are investing in heavily right now.”

Thank you for the book suggestions. I have saved them.

“ 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.
Love produced into a state of oversupply reduces the price of love down to zero, while purchasing power increases, because Love reduces the cost of production.”

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

“So many people in my life have told me that they were going to miss me at work, because I have this power to make work fun, they say that, and I know it is true, but not because I make it true, but because those special people are aware of these facts too. “

The Amish call their community work projects “frolics.” Their work is fun as they work together to accomplish what one could not accomplish alone. A frolic is something they look forward to. I got to see one in action as I picked up eggs Friday. The men were all out with their axes clearing some land and some lumber was present. I don’t know what is being built yet, but the land was cleared in a day. The ladies were inside visiting, caring for children and would be preparing the noon meal shortly.

The Amish have church over other weak. They take turns having in each other’s homes. The homes are built to accommodate the church gathering. Anyways, before they have church the do a good house cleaning. Relatives get together and help the host do a good cleaning for the upcoming church service. They help each other a lot and it makes their work fun.

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.

“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?
--------------
"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?”
“http://praxeology.net/BT-SSA.htm
“SSA.32
Even in so delicate a matter as that of the relations of the sexes the Anarchists do not shrink from the application of their principle. They acknowledge and defend the right of any man and woman, or any men and women, to love each other for as long or as short a time as they can, will, or may. To them legal marriage and legal divorce are equal absurdities. They look forward to a time when every individual, whether man or woman, shall be self-supporting, and when each shall have an independent home of his or her own, whether it be a separate house or rooms in a house with others; when the love relations between these independent individuals shall be as varied as are individual inclinations and attractions; and when the children born of these relations shall belong exclusively to the mothers until old enough to belong to themselves.”
----------------
“Even in so delicate a matter as that of the relations of the sexes the Anarchists do not shrink from the application of their principle. They acknowledge and defend the right of any man and woman, or any men and women, to love each other for as long or as short a time as they can, will, or may.”

What kind of security, what kind of trust, what kind of love is resident when one cannot depend on their partner? Why do Anarchists need to remove the family unit? Why is not love for life? And I am not talking about the opposite of love. I am not talking about men who beat and rape women and call that marriage. Those men deserve to go to jail or whatever the jury OF WOMEN decides lol :) It is hard for me to understand. You are married. You say you are faithful to your wife. Why bother if Anarchism says love who ever you want as long as you want? Did you not make a commitment to your wife to love her? Does love have an end? When I read Tucker’s words, I read words that say there is no need to make any commitments. Come and go as you will and leave the women burdened down with multiple children while you go make some more:

"...the children born of these relations shall belong exclusively to the mothers until old enough to belong to themselves." - Tucker

Children are supposed to belong to a father and a mother in a family unit. That is what bothers me. Why does he advocate people having multiple relationships and women bearing children from multiple fathers? Why is that important to anarchism?

“They look forward to a time when every individual, whether man or woman, shall be self-supporting, and when each shall have an independent home of his or her own, whether it be a separate house or rooms in a house with others; when the love relations between these independent individuals shall be as varied as are individual inclinations and attractions;”

They look forward to a time when a man and a women do not become one flesh? They look forward to a time when you are not a father to your 2 children? You should live in your own house and the person you made children with should live in her own house?

Jesus said in Mark 10:2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. 3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? 4 And they said , Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. 5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together , let not man put asunder

Is that not a beautiful picture of 2 becoming 1? Granted it is not going to work out for everyone, so a divorce is in order in some cases. Why? Because some people are not equitable. Some people are selfish, some people are abusers. But that does not mean that everyone is supposed to be free from being a family unit.

Ecclesiastes 4:9 Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour.10 For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up. 11Again, if two lie together, then they have heat: but how can one be warm alone? 12 And if one prevail against him, two shall withstand him; and a three-fold cord is not quickly broken.

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.

I can't speak for Warren, but I know, as his words report, that his efforts to speak to other people, were subject to liabilities in his day, and he knew this. I can get the quotes now.
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/warren/...
"123. Now are heard the wails of distress from all quarters. The papers are filled with accounts of brutal violence on both sides -- villages burning -- men hanging -- ferocity let loose in every horrid shape and form. The heated passions on both sides become more and more ferocious, -- a curious way to promote "Union"! A frenzy of rage sweeps over the land while I write. The last step of despotism has been taken by both governments. Freedom of action and speech are annihilated in "the land of the free and the home of the brave." Even these written words may prove the death-warrant of the writer. Nothing but the clamor of war and the fear of prisons and violent deaths, smother, for the moment, the low moan from desolated hearths and broken hearts from the depths of the hell we are in!"
I had to speed read to find that here:
“http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/warren/...” A new resource? Oh my look how many pages it is? I have added it to my library doc. Which makes me wonder, do you have a library in your forum? Or maybe your whole forum is your library? :)

“So, back to my own story, these 5 people in this dastardly group of so called "anarchists" walk in on the "mother" tending to her "child" with a coat hanger, and we do what, exactly.
What do you do?”

Knowing me, I’d probably scream which is my first instinct. Not at the person but in horror. And then I would try to get some help for the woman.

I have relatives who lost everything in the civil war because they fought against slavery and their lands were confiscated in the south. At least my mom tells me some such story, but she also told me I have Indian blood in me which my aunt denies. So who knows. I am sure the relatives on the other side were those that were mean to slaves. They are in South Carolina. My grandfather was hateful towards women and black people.

“When you can demonstrate to me, specifically, where someone, somewhere, finds it "necessary to remove the family unit in anarchism", then we can look at that being demonstrated, and then we can start discussing that event in the past, in the present, or in the future case where that exact thing is demonstrated. “

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:

• 1 Corinthians 7:2 KJV
Nevertheless , to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

The way God made it you get your very own personal spouse to love and to care for and to share life.

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.

I have gotten past seeing red. This idea of unfettered "love" which is not love at all, causes me to see sin. IMO that is why women were in back allies with coat hangers. They had no one to love them or the child.

I didn't proof.

...

Stand for something or fall for anything.

"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.

Joe

Sorry, I missed this yesterday

“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".”

Contrast that to the GI Bill where soldiers had the benefit of paid college after service. The criminal reverse being student loans with interest, graduating at a time when America is being busted and one has the “opportunity” to work off their government debt by fighting government wars…or by sitting in privately funded prisons for profit.

“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?”

I posted a video to the Liberty Day Challenge comment titled “Elephants and Tape Worms.” The video is a very rationally speaking woman named Catherine Austin Fitts. I think she offers some steps to change things around abit, or at least reserve and conserve and grow power locally. If you have time, it is an hour long, I think it is well worth the listen. It is not hard listening, but I have listened 2 times and am getting Jeff to listen to it. We made it 25 minutes before he nodded off :) To me she presents:

Powerful knowledge, accurate communication, as well as a discussion on money economy. The only reason I listened to it was because it was on the top of the front page of the DP and I decided to click on it and I am glad I did. I think she hammers home a lot of what you have been saying to me. I actually think a plan of action would be to have a viewing of the interview in each town to wake people up. She does not have the entertainment value of Alex Jones or Gerald Celente or Jesse Ventura, but I found myself wanting to hear and understand every word. I think she is someone that would appeal to all audiences and could perhaps get the message to some that would not hear otherwise.

You ask:

“How powerful is knowledge?
How powerful is accurate communication?
What is money?”

Here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulucJnxT7B4

I think perhaps they are all one in the same: currency or power

“Have you ever spoken with a criminal and realized how they think?”

I didn’t even fully understand criminals until dialoging with you. In my mind a criminals was the standard robber or sexual deviant. I was glad to never have run into any of them. Really though, I am pretty sheltered so I haven’t run into the criminal mind and realized it. However, now I see it evidenced around me with eyes wide open. I hear criminals speak all the time now. But so far, I don’t have the occasion to have a conversation with any. But now I think of my grandfather who forced my grandmother to cook his breakfast while she was in labor before he would take her to the doctor. And I think of him telling me about how when he owned a gas station and pulled people out of the snow and they wouldn’t pay up, he would push their car back into the snow, and he said it like it was an OK thing for him to have done. I remember being surprised when I heard him speak that way and it hurt inside to hear him say he treated people like that.

“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.”

I think of this passage and am quoting from memory: I beseech you therefore brethren by the mercies of God that you present your bodies a living sacrifice holy and acceptable unto God which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind that ye may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God. Romans 12:1-2

Being conformed to this world has a greater meaning for me. As in do not have a criminal mind. But have a mind that causes you to do the right things.
--------------------------
“I think each human being has to look in the mirror first.”

When a human looks in the mirror to find evil and hate it, are you saying that we need to self-evaluate and get rid of any evil we find?
----------------------------
So you are learning the Russian language now? I hear it is very difficult.
---------------------------
“Is that why you asked me about a stock split when you first began talking to me?”

Oh, I thought maybe it was to test to see if I had a criminal mind or if I would naturally present an equitable split. Lol Afterall it was one of the first things you asked me to work on. So now after all this time, I look back and wonder, maybe Josf was checking to see if he was speaking to someone infected with criminal thinking.
--------------------------
I AM STICKING WITH TUCKER right now because I am trying to work thru the link you gave me:

Tucker says:
“Even in so delicate a matter as that of the relations of the sexes the Anarchists do not shrink from the application of their principle. They acknowledge and defend the right of any man and woman, or any men and women, to love each other for as long or as short a time as they can, will, or may.”

God says:
• Genesis 2:24 KJV
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Cleave http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/dabaq.html :
Definition
1. to cling, stick, stay close, cleave, keep close, stick to, stick with, follow closely, join to, overtake, catch
Cleave = one flesh

Tucker:
“They [anarchist] acknowledge and defend the right of any man and woman, or any men and women, to love each other for as long or as short a time as they can, will, or may.””

Yes, Joe, you and Tucker and every other anarchist are right that every man and woman can do whatever they want ,whenever they want, however they want.

People have every right to do that which is evil and people will do that which is evil. So it is every person’s right to do evil.

Why does God not want people to do what is evil? I think you answered that question already:

“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?”

God created man and woman to become one flesh. God the Creator designed man and woman to cleave to one another and be one. Man and woman can do what ever they want, but wen they do opposite of their design

• 1 Corinthians 6:18 KJV
Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

So instead of Tucker saying, you know guys, the Creator created you this certain way, Tucker says, if it feels good, do it.

I have heard that line before. Satan said it:

• Genesis 3:5 KJV
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened , and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

God said these words:

• Genesis 2:17 KJV
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die .

So sure everyone has the right to do what they want and pay their own costs:

• Proverbs 16:25 KJV
There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Sin will be judged:

Revelation 9:20 And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see , nor hear , nor walk : 21 Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.

If I know sin will be judged, why in the world would I not warn people? There was a day Joe, when the Bible was understood to be the Word of God. Today people cannot even recognize God’s Word. That does not change the fact that it is God’s Word and people who ignore it are in deep trouble. Trouble that will cost an eternity. So even though people have a right to cut their own arm off, I am not going to say that I look forward to the day when everyone does that. I am going to warn, hey, you cut your arm off and it will be gone. Oh, and by the way, those children that you and your arm made, your cost will spill over on them as well.

So, how about we promote love?

I Corinthians 13:4 (The Message) Love never gives up. Love cares more for others than for self. Love doesn't want what it doesn't have. Love doesn't strut, Doesn't have a swelled head, 5 Doesn't force itself on others, Isn't always "me first," Doesn't fly off the handle, Doesn't keep score of the sins of others, 6 Doesn't revel when others grovel, Takes pleasure in the flowering of truth, 7 Puts up with anything, Trusts God always, Always looks for the best, Never looks back, But keeps going to the end. 8 Love never dies.

• Ephesians 5:25 KJV
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

I look forward to the day when people know what love is and practice it. Love is not free. Love gives. When one does not give love they pass on the costs.

Or I could look forward to a day like Tucker when people don't understand love and pass on the costs instead.

Ephesians 5:6 KJV
Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

II Timothy 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7 Ever learning, and never able to cometo the knowledge of the truth.

I still had a couple of other issues with my Tucker reading that I wanted to go over...before moving onto the Andrews link.

...

Not me

"Yes, Joe, you and Tucker and every other anarchist are right that every man and woman can do whatever they want ,whenever they want, however they want."

That is not me. I don't think that is Tucker either. In my case, I can tell you, it is not me. You can claim it is me, over, and over, and over, again, and again, and I can tell you over, and over, and over, again, and again, that is not me.

If you think someone is of that mind, then you have to look another place for that someone, it is not me.

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

When a human looks in the mirror to find evil and hate it, are you saying that we need to self-evaluate and get rid of any evil we find?
_________________________________

I think that Proverbs 8 is that message, and I see that message as being true.

"People have every right to do that which is evil and people will do that which is evil. So it is every person’s right to do evil."

I see no such thing.

"So instead of Tucker saying, you know guys, the Creator created you this certain way, Tucker says, if it feels good, do it."

You can pick a name out of the phone book and attribute those same words to that person. You can create a Man of Straw and attribute your words to that person. Where Tucker has published his thoughts are specific English words to be quoted, understood, or misunderstood as can be the case in any case.

I may be the one misunderstanding what Tucker writes. Your words, however, are yours, not his.

"So instead of Tucker saying, you know guys, the Creator created you this certain way, Tucker says, if it feels good, do it."

Those are your words.

"I have heard that line before. Satan said it:"

So now Tucker, with you speaking for him, is falsely associated with The Devil, and I'm wondering why you find the need to preform this hatchet job.

"So sure everyone has the right to do what they want and pay their own costs:"

Please do not associate me with those words, and I don't think those words apply to Warren, Andrews, Tucker, Spooner, or anyone other than you, since you wrote those words, and they didn't, and I didn't either.

"So even though people have a right to cut their own arm off, I am not going to say that I look forward to the day when everyone does that."

I don't know who you are addressing these words to, but these words have nothing to do with me, so maybe you are not on your soap box and you are speaking to anyone who may want to listen, and I can listen to, but your words have nothing to do with me. I don't know what this "have a right" stuff is, in that context, it is meaningless to me.

"So, how about we promote love?"

I don't think that it helps to attribute thoughts, or ideas, to people who do not earn those thoughts, or ideas, such as the case where you claim that Tucker says this or that, which is not what Tucker actually does write: in English.

Now Tucker is the Devil, or working devilishly, if I understand your words attributed to him.

I don't think that is a good way to live.

I can be wrong, of course.

"I look forward to the day when people know what love is and practice it. Love is not free. Love gives. When one does not give love they pass on the costs."

Here again, apparently, you have this idea of what "free love" means, and so you attach this meaning of your own construction to other people, and since you do it, that makes it right. Your version sticks to those people you target with your version of the meaning of "free love" and no amount of defense against your version of "free love" stuck on those people removes that mud placed upon them.

In the context of Warren, Andrews, and Tucker the word "free" is meant specifically, and unambiguously, free from Man-Made Law Enforcers Enforcing their Man-Made Laws upon individual people.

If you, or anyone, adds unspecified, and ambiguous additions to that definition of what free means, in that context, then that is what you, or anyone, does, and in fact your actions pass on the costs of your error onto those targeted victims who are innocent of these added ideas of what "free" means.

"Or I could look forward to a day like Tucker when people don't understand love and pass on the costs instead."

Tarred and Feathered, run out of town, stones thrown, nailed to the cross, The Devilish Tucker, the goat fornicator, is publicly punished for such evil deeds.

I get it?

Now I am better for knowing just how bad Tucker and his Free Love is, because you can't seem to read plain English?

"I still had a couple of other issues with my Tucker reading that I wanted to go over...before moving onto the Andrews link."

Sure, but you appear not to read a word I write on this subject, so why don't you just pick a name out of the phone book and target that person with your versions of what they don't write?

Joe

I knew I was going to get into trouble for attributing the words

"if it feels good do it." to Tucker.

More than once I thought, you should not write those words. He did not say those words.

I take them back. He did not say those specific words. He said these words:

“They [anarchist] acknowledge and defend the right of any man and woman, or any men and women, to love each other for as long or as short a time as they can, will, or may.”

You ask?

“I don't know what this "have a right" stuff is, in that context, it is meaningless to me.”

I repeat:

Tucker says “defend the RIGHT of any man and woman”

The reason I bring up rights is because Tucker brings up the "RIGHT" of “every man and woman…to love each other for as long or as short a time as they can, will, or may.”

God says a man is to CLEAVE to his wife.

Tucker says man can love as long or short as he can, will, or may. Tucker says it is a function of a man’s right to love

for as long or as short a time as they can,

for as long or short as they will,

or for as long or as short as they may.

Love does not exist under the intent of as long or as short as one wills, can do, or may want to. That is not love. It is a false argument. Tucker is not talking about love.

Love never ends. Love continues on. Love is willing to be nailed to a cross and die. That is cleaving. Putting the other person ahead of yourself.

When one puts will, can or may as a right infront of the person to be loved, love is negated.

I am not on my soap box. I want to get this ironed out.

“In the context of Warren, Andrews, and Tucker the word "free" is meant specifically, and unambiguously, free from Man-Made Law Enforcers Enforcing their Man-Made Laws upon individual people.”

What is man made about Man leaving his father and his mother and cleaving to his wife and becoming one flesh? That is a law of nature. Just because you see 2 individual people does not mean that they are not 1 flesh.

Why don’t anarchist just say people can live with each other without any attachment if they feel like it and when they don’t feel like it they can quit, or not, or to live as a group of men and women who share the same bed. He did say “right of any man and woman, or any men and women,”

And I didn’t pick the word anarchist. Tucker did. He said

“Even in so delicate a matter as that of the relations of the sexes the ANARCHIST do not shrink from the application of their principle.”

What is the principle of an ANARCHIST? The principle of an anarchist is that it is the right of “man and woman, or any men and women, to love each other for as long or as short a time as they can, will, or may.”

This is the right that man has:
Romans 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

Love is not temporary or it is not love at all.

...

Trouble

"Tucker is not talking about love."

You may be in a higher plane of understanding, sure, I get that, and you may then be able to dictate to Tucker what is or is not love. So, in that position above Tucker, you can then do what, being so high above Tucker, to then tell on him to your friends?

Is your full understanding of what Tucker perceives to be love so well versed, so high above Tucker himself, now that you have read a few words written by Tucker, that you are now in this lofty position to judge his viewpoint to be in error? So be it, a given, true, accurate, perfectly correct, moral, spiritual, and merely passed by you from God himself, and being in that position, so much more able to know what Tucker thinks love is, or is not, what are you going to do as far as Tucker goes, or as far as any person who may also falsely believe that Tucker is right?

Are you going to punish someone who fails to abide by your accurate understanding of what love is, or what love is not?

That is the point offered, even if you refuse to see it. The point is not which human being is right or wrong in the eyes of God, the point, not that point, is to point out that one man, or one woman, abusing their human POWER to punish people is wrong, not right.

The point is not to argue over what is or is not love, the point is to point out who is going to do what in order to punish people who do not abide by their version of what is or is not punishable.

"Love does not exist under the intent of as long or as short as one wills, can do, or may want to. That is not love. It is a false argument. Tucker is not talking about love."

Tucker is not arguing, as far as I can tell, and neither am I, so who is doing the arguing, and with who is the argument being conducted since I am not arguing, and Tucker has long since stopped breathing.

Suppose you are, again, absolutely correct in your understanding of what love is, or is not, and from that point, supposing further that you know exactly what Tucker thinks love is, or is not, and supposing even further that you are then advocating doing something about those people who are claiming to be in love, but are not in love, or any people doing anything you think they should not be doing, what are you willing to do about it?

The point pointed out by Tucker has to do with the concept of "collectives rights" to go right ahead and force people to love each other according to what one person, or one group of people agree to be the LEGAL punishment for failure to obey a Man-Made Law.

If you do not do so, then as far as I can see your viewpoint agrees with the viewpoint offered by Tucker. If you do willingly, knowingly, and powerfully work toward punishing people with the LAW POWER for their failure to obey what you consider to be God's Law on love, then your viewpoint does not agree with what I think is Tucker's point - which happens to be my point too.

"When one puts will, can or may as a right infront of the person to be loved, love is negated."

In terms of reality I see no such thing happening. Love will happen. Love can happen. Love may happen. The context of "right", unless I am mistaken, has to do with "LEGAL" rights in the context of Anarchism, Warren, Andrews, Tucker, Spooner, or myself.

To me the help of scripture is such that Man-made-Law is inferior to God's Law, or Natural Law, and so the concept of one man dictating to another man, is unnatural, or as you put it: negated.

You appear to refuse to acknowledge the context of the words in view, which are words that address the concept of Man-Made-Laws or "Legal" POWER.

You then, repeatedly, as if you can wish away the facts, claim that Tucker speaks about something other than "Lagal" POWER or "rights", as if the whole concept of man made laws vanish like a Emperor's nakedness.

You place these false clothes upon Tucker, and it is troublesome, but for who, and why, and should I care?

"I am not on my soap box. I want to get this ironed out."

How about an exercise in English Language?

First, in my opinion, define as best you can, with few words, your definition of love.

Second, define as best you can, with few words, your version of what you think Tucker thinks is Love.

Now you have two definitions.

Third, take Tucker's sentence that troubles you. Take out the word love, put in your definition of love, then have that adjusted sentence, and see if the sentence can work, or not.

Fourth, take Tucker's sentence that troubles you. Take out the word love, put in your version of what you think Tucker thinks is love, then have that adjusted sentence, ans see if the sentence still works.

I can be the one that is wrong here, but to me you place into the sentence words that are not intended. That work, offered, four possible steps to take, may move closer to your goal.

"I am not on my soap box. I want to get this ironed out."

One question I can ask, may move closer to your goal.

What are you willing to do to stop someone from failing to obey God's law as far as you understand God's law to exist in fact?

"What is man made about Man leaving his father and his mother and cleaving to his wife and becoming one flesh? That is a law of nature. Just because you see 2 individual people does not mean that they are not 1 flesh."

Again, and again, and again, the context of the Tucker, and Warren, and Andrews, and Spooner offerings of ideas, thoughts, suggestions, has to do with "The Legal Means" of reaching goals, as in "their aught to be a law" and then there is a law, and that law, when it is an involuntary association is a "law" that is essentially counter to God's Law, and why you don't see this, I don't know.

"Why don’t anarchist just say people can live with each other without any attachment if they feel like it and when they don’t feel like it they can quit, or not, or to live as a group of men and women who share the same bed."

Ask one. If you ask one, will you actually listen to the answer?

"Love is not temporary or it is not love at all."

Where did anyone say that love was temporary?

If someone is falsely perceiving love, is that love?

Joe

I left an earlier reply below

“You may be in a higher plane of understanding, sure, I get that, and you may then be able to dictate to Tucker what is or is not love. So, in that position above Tucker, you can then do what, being so high above Tucker, to then tell on him to your friends?”

I am not telling on Tucker to my friends. I am talking to you about Tucker advocating the right of every man and every woman loving for as long or as short as they can, will, or may. That is what I am doing. I am not elevating myself above Tucker. I am telling you that those words, just the thought that someone advocates fornication and adultery is way out of my comfort zone. It is beyond my thinking as to why someone would even go that direction. It is not within my understanding. Those things go against God’s plan for human life. So those things are just like lying, stealing, and killing to me. I see red. So I am going to talk about it to my friend, Joe, because Joe sent me a link and I have been talking to Joe for about a year now and this is a problem I am having with anarchism…that one would suggest that it is OK for people to live immorally.

So, now I have to add that to legislation and punishment? I do not want to legislate or punish. But that does not mean that I advocate what Tucker says about love either. I am having a hard time sorting that out. What if all the abortion, rape and sex trafficking are a result of not abiding by God’s law?
-----------------

“Is your full understanding of what Tucker perceives to be love so well versed, so high above Tucker himself, now that you have read a few words written by Tucker, that you are now in this lofty position to judge his viewpoint to be in error? So be it, a given, true, accurate, perfectly correct, moral, spiritual, and merely passed by you from God himself, and being in that position, so much more able to know what Tucker thinks love is, or is not, what are you going to do as far as Tucker goes, or as far as any person who may also falsely believe that Tucker is right?”

Who says I am judging? Is questioning judging? Is pointing out what seems wrong to me judging? Should I look the other way and say nothing? Can people really love as long as they want, can, will, or may without hurting someone else? Will the love of each individual person involved terminate at exactly the same moment in time so that no one is hurt? Will the man love just long enough until a woman is with child? Who will pay to raise the baby? Will a man only love a virgin for a single night to go and find another virgin to go and find another virgin and have just a one night stand with each? Will disease be spread from one person to the next? Do I not have a right to ask questions when a man shows up on the scene and says: hey you have a right to love at as you may. Which goes against the way it has been from the beginning? So then I can say: hey, that is not the way it is supposed to be.
---------------------

“Are you going to punish someone who fails to abide by your accurate understanding of what love is, or what love is not?”

No.

Are you going to punish someone who rapes your son because that is what his interpretation of love is?

What are the boundaries?
-----------------

“That is the point offered, even if you refuse to see it. The point is not which human being is right or wrong in the eyes of God, the point, not that point, is to point out that one man, or one woman, abusing their human POWER to punish people is wrong, not right.”

The point is not to argue over what is or is not love, the point is to point out who is going to do what in order to punish people who do not abide by their version of what is or is not punishable.”

OK, so what is the purpose of Trial by Jury? Who says anything is wrong? How do we determine what is wrong? Is there anything wrong? Who says?
----------

ME: "Love does not exist under the intent of as long or as short as one wills, can do, or may want to. That is not love. It is a false argument. Tucker is not talking about love."

YOU: “Tucker is not arguing, as far as I can tell, and neither am I, so who is doing the arguing, and with who is the argument being conducted since I am not arguing, and Tucker has long since stopped breathing.”

Ok, remove the words “It is a false argument and insert the word you use “strawman.” Tucker can make a strawman and call it love. I can make a strawman and call it love. What is love? Who determines what love is? Love is in the eye of the beholder? Love is in the heart of the individual. What is love? Does love have and end?
----------------

“Suppose you are, again, absolutely correct in your understanding of what love is, or is not, and from that point, supposing further that you know exactly what Tucker thinks love is, or is not, and supposing even further that you are then advocating doing something about those people who are claiming to be in love, but are not in love, or any people doing anything you think they should not be doing, what are you willing to do about it?”

I am not going to do anything about it other than try to teach God’s plan for a man and a woman.
--------------------

“The point pointed out by Tucker has to do with the concept of "collectives rights" to go right ahead and force people to love each other according to what one person, or one group of people agree to be the LEGAL punishment for failure to obey a Man-Made Law.”

OK then, is it ok for a 45 year old man to love a 3 year old girl? I’ve seen pedophilia being floated out as OK recently. Is it OK? Says who? Is it not OK? Says who? Should anyone do anything about it?
--------------

“If you do not do so, then as far as I can see your viewpoint agrees with the viewpoint offered by Tucker. If you do willingly, knowingly, and powerfully work toward punishing people with the LAW POWER for their failure to obey what you consider to be God's Law on love, then your viewpoint does not agree with what I think is Tucker's point - which happens to be my point too.”

I do not agree with Tucker that people have a right to love as they will. As far as I can tell, Free Love advocates didn’t just state the right to free love, some also practiced free love. I don’t know if that includes Tucker or not. But the point is I do not advocate free love or practice free love. However, because societal norm has drifted that way I was 12. By the time I was 14, I “dated” a man after my 15 year old friend was done with him. She had moved on to an even older man. By the time I came back to the Lord my 16 year old friend gave birth and put the baby up for adoption. We were all consenting…especially the guys. So, I am not high and mighty lifted up above Tucker. I am speaking from personal experience. I would give nearly anything for a re-do so I could follow God’s plan. Let’s see, those men took us to a drive in one night. I remember horse fornication on the big screen. I took some kind of pills and was drinking. I decided to run away that night. My dad came looking for me the next day at their apartment as I hid in the closet. I eventually went home. I practiced the right to love as long or as short as I could, would or might: The Preacher’s Wife. Oh, and we all knew what statutory rape was: a joke! So as you can see, I did my homework, but it was not your homework. It was Tucker’s homework.
---------------------

"When one puts will, can or may as a right in front of the person to be loved, love is negated."

“In terms of reality I see no such thing happening. Love will happen. Love can happen. Love may happen. The context of "right", unless I am mistaken, has to do with "LEGAL" rights in the context of Anarchism, Warren, Andrews, Tucker, Spooner, or myself.”

So, I suppose there were laws about fornication and adultery? If there were laws against it, then do people have a legal right to break the law? Who made those laws? Can I have my own town and have my own laws and just because you move to my town I have to change my laws that all the rest of the people in the town want to have as the law?
-------------------

“To me the help of scripture is such that Man-made-Law is inferior to God's Law, or Natural Law, and so the concept of one man dictating to another man, is unnatural, or as you put it: negated.

You appear to refuse to acknowledge the context of the words in view, which are words that address the concept of Man-Made-Laws or "Legal" POWER.”

But Josf, it is God’s law not to commit adultery or to fornicate. So it is not a man-made law, it is the Creator’s law.

Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said , It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. 21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept : and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
---------------

“You then, repeatedly, as if you can wish away the facts, claim that Tucker speaks about something other than "Lagal" POWER or "rights", as if the whole concept of man made laws vanish like a Emperor's nakedness.”

Tucker is speaking against the Law of God.
-------------

“You place these false clothes upon Tucker, and it is troublesome, but for who, and why, and should I care?”

I don’t know. I hope you will try to help me work this out and talk about it.
----------------

“First, in my opinion, define as best you can, with few words, your definition of love.”

To stay pleased with
--------------
“Second, define as best you can, with few words, your version of what you think Tucker thinks is Love.”

To be pleased with.
-----------
“Now you have two definitions.”

Me: To stay pleased with

Tucker: To be pleased with
--------------
“Third, take Tucker's sentence that troubles you. Take out the word love, put in your definition of love, then have that adjusted sentence, and see if the sentence can work, or not.”

They [anarchist] acknowledge and defend the right of any man and woman, or any men and women, to STAY PLEASED WITH [love] each other for as long or as short a time as they can, will, or may.
------------------
“Fourth, take Tucker's sentence that troubles you. Take out the word love, put in your version of what you think Tucker thinks is love, then have that adjusted sentence, ans see if the sentence still works.”

They [anarchist] acknowledge and defend the right of any man and woman, or any men and women, to BE PLEASED WITH [love] each other for as long or as short a time as they can, will, or may
-------------
“I can be the one that is wrong here, but to me you place into the sentence words that are not intended. That work, offered, four possible steps to take, may move closer to your goal.”

God’s intent is that a man be pleased with his wife as long as they live, not just as long as they will, can, or may. However, man’s heart is hard so divorce is the remedy given.

Proverbs 5:18 Let thy fountain be blessed : and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love. 20 And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman , and embrace the bosom of a stranger? 21 For the ways of man are before the eyes of the LORD, and he pondereth all his goings. 22 His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself, and he shall be holden with the cords of his sins. 23 He shall die without instruction; and in the greatness of his folly he shall go astray .

In verse 19 notice the word “always.” What does always mean?
-------------------

“One question I can ask, may move closer to your goal.
What are you willing to do to stop someone from failing to obey God's law as far as you understand God's law to exist in fact?”

I am not willing to do anything.

To the woman caught in adultery, Jesus said:

John 8:10 he [Jesus] said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11 She said , No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go , and sin no more.
-----------------

“Again, and again, and again, the context of the Tucker, and Warren, and Andrews, and Spooner offerings of ideas, thoughts, suggestions, has to do with "The Legal Means" of reaching goals, as in "their aught to be a law" and then there is a law, and that law, when it is an involuntary association is a "law" that is essentially counter to God's Law, and why you don't see this, I don't know.”

Does a failure to conform to God’s law actually facilitate involuntary associations when people commit crimes upon other people because they are not pleased with their spouse for life?
-------------

ME: "Why don’t anarchist just say people can live with each other without any attachment if they feel like it and when they don’t feel like it they can quit, or not, or to live as a group of men and women who share the same bed."

YOU: “Ask one. If you ask one, will you actually listen to the answer?”

I am asking. Can you answer? Do you know? Are you one?
-------------------

“Where did anyone say that love was temporary?”

Tucker says love can, may, will be as long or as SHORT as one can, will, or may. Therefore, if it is not permanent it can be temporary.

“any man and woman, or any men and women, to BE PLEASED WITH [love] each other for as long OR AS SHORT A TIME AS THEY CAN, will, or may”

How long is as short a time as they can?
------------------

“If someone is falsely perceiving love, is that love?”

If someone loves as short a time as they can, is that love?
-------------

Jesus said to me, Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more. Why should I agree with a man named Tucker who promotes sin as a right? I know better, personally. Been there, done that, figured it out on my own with lots of pain to boot.
------------------

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker#Liberty_and_Pol... :
The Anarchists believe in the family; they only insist that free competition and experiment shall always be allowed in order that it may be determined what form of family best secures this object.

Gee, thanks for the opportunity to experiment. It did me wonders. Wish I had just listened to The Creator. It would have saved a lot of heart-ache. I was able to beg my sisters not to travel my path even though they had a right to experiment for themselves. I love my sisters.

...

Hand up for me here:

"I am talking to you about Tucker advocating the right of every man and every woman loving for as long or as short as they can, will, or may."

No, that is not how I see it, repeatedly, so I may yet be wrong, but the routine is occurring over, and over, and over again, without exception.

You take out LOVE and you put LUST in place, and then you blame what you do on Tucker.

Tucker did not mean LUST when Tucker wrote LOVE, unless he did, and without him here to confess his deception, we both can't know the true fact of what Tucker meant when Tucker chose the word LOVE instead of the word LUST.

You are the only one taking out the word LOVE and putting in place the word LUST. Tucker did no such thing, I do no such thing, who does that leave as the 1 person who is taking out the word LOVE and putting in the word LUST?

_____________________________________________________
Tucker says:
“Even in so delicate a matter as that of the relations of the sexes the Anarchists do not shrink from the application of their principle. They acknowledge and defend the right of any man and woman, or any men and women, to love each other for as long or as short a time as they can, will, or may.”
_____________________________________________________

Not:

Tucker says:
“Even in so delicate a matter as that of the relations of the sexes the Anarchists do not shrink from the application of their principle. They acknowledge and defend the right of any man and woman, or any men and women, to Lust after each other for as long or as short a time as they can, will, or may.”

That is your baby, not something Tucker wrote, meant, said, thought, advocated, rewarded, or punished for failure to do, or not do, in any case whatsoever.

"I am not telling on Tucker to my friends. I am talking to you about Tucker advocating the right of every man and every woman loving for as long or as short as they can, will, or may. That is what I am doing."

Without exception, consistently, you are taking out the word love and you are placing in the word lust, and that is what you are doing, if I am not mistaken.

"I am telling you that those words, just the thought that someone advocates fornication and adultery is way out of my comfort zone."

There it is again. Tucker the goat fornicator: tried, proven guilty, sentenced, and publicly hanged on this public access forum, as Tucker swings on the end of his rope.

"It is beyond my thinking as to why someone would even go that direction."

That someone who goes in that direction is, according to you, Tucker, again, and again, and again, without fail, and no such thing can be proven, at all, unless you, by your own power of will, take out the words offered by Tucker, and put in place your words instead.

Your punishment is already done, over with, you have discredited Tucker, that is the past now, your reasoning for passing that guilty verdict, ordering the stones to be thrown, throwing the stones, managing to hit Tucker, square enough in the forehead, with at well thrown stone, figuratively speaking, not literal at all, mere words, not really stones, but none-the-less discredit, invented by you, produced by you, and sent to your target, this Tucker the advocate of whatever it is you have conjured up in your mind, public punishment, by you, is done.

Now what?

Move onto the next target?

If Tucker wrote about LUST and Tucker used the word LOVE in place of LUST, then Tucker was either in the dark about what is, or is not LOVE, or Tucker was willfully being deceptive by that willful use of a falsified change of wording in English.

You convicted him of these dastardly things, you keep doing this public hanging, throwing your stones, placing a new noose around his neck, each time I try to jump in front and take the stone, and each time I cut the rope.

Why?

"I am telling you that those words, just the thought that someone advocates fornication and adultery is way out of my comfort zone."

So now I am, by this connection, also advocating fornication and adultery?

I do so by stealth, by way of deception, by willfully using words like LOVE to cover up what my actual intent is, which is LUST, and me and this dead guy, this Tucker, are of like mind?

When he says LOVE, he is such a liar, as I am, when I say LOVE, because we are such bad boys, we really mean LUST, not LOVE, because we are devious?

What is the point of our deception? There must be a motive, or is that not even necessary, in this case, to consider motive, when all the evidence needed exists in plain view, there is no doubt, no reasonable doubt whatsoever, as these bad boys do these bad things.

"I am telling you that those words, just the thought that someone advocates fornication and adultery is way out of my comfort zone."

We, the advocates of fornication and adultery know better than to openly advocate fornication and adultery and that is why we use the word LOVE instead of LUST when we advocate fornication and adultery?

We can only reach our goal of advocating fornication and adultery by willfully resorting to deception, by using the word LOVE when we really mean fornication and adultery?

Or, on the other hand, we are hopelessly ignorant of our crimes, crimes worthy of punishment, as our fate is sealed by our stupidity, and carelessness, and our incapacity to realize that when we say LOVE we really mean LUST, when we say LOVE we really mean, despite our own false perceptions, we really mean fornication and adultery, because that is our condition of absolute abject belief in falsehood without question, and as such, thanks for the help in pointing out how bad we really are, as we are duped into thinking that we are advocating love, when in reality we are advocating fornication and adultery.

Case closed?

I can now try to figure out what other things I have totally wrong, now that I know that I have been operating under this false idea that I advocate LOVE, but instead, in reality, I have been, like Tucker, advocating LUST and I have been advocating fornication, and I have been advocating adultery, not LOVE?

If I am that bad, that unable to see this truth, what else am I not seeing clearly?

1.
Truly devious, willfully choosing the word LOVE when my actual intent is to advocate lust, fornication, and adultery.

2.
Too caught up in lust, fornication, and adultery, too infected with evil myself, to even know that I am advocating lust, fornication, and adultery, while I think I am trying to point out that it is a bad idea to pay the few very worst among us everything we earn so that they can figure out better ways to destroy everything.

"So those things are just like lying, stealing, and killing to me. I see red."

OK, I get it, we, these guys, this fornicators, or advocates of fornication, Tucker, me, the other guys, are capable of this wrong, so we are as capable of all those other wrongs, because we either willfully distort words, or we are too evil to even know how evil we are, in fact?

Because...you take out the word LOVE and put in place another word, as you take out the meaning of LOVE and you replace that meaning with whatever you care to put in place of that meaning intended?

I can't speak for Tucker. I can speak for myself. It seems to me that Tucker chose the word LOVE because Tucker meant LOVE.

Either he is lying, or his is himself deceived, and in either case you already tried, passed judgment, and executed punishment upon his good name.

I am as willing to take your punishments, by your judgment, because I am as guilty of whatever crime Tucker has committed, and when I say LOVE I mean LOVE, so that leaves only the case of me being so well deceived as to be hopelessly ignorant of the fact that I mean LUST when I say LOVE; by your way of seeing this case?

"So I am going to talk about it to my friend, Joe, because Joe sent me a link and I have been talking to Joe for about a year now and this is a problem I am having with anarchism…that one would suggest that it is OK for people to live immorally."

Where is this person, other than a total fabrication in your own mind, where this person, with a name, says, and I quote: "it is OK for people to live immorally."

So far as I can tell, that person is you, only you, and no one but you, in this case, since no one else has printed those words but you.

Why would you falsely place those words on anyone but you,since you are the only one writing those words as far as I can see so far?

Case in point:

__________________________________________
Tucker says:
“Even in so delicate a matter as that of the relations of the sexes the Anarchists do not shrink from the application of their principle. They acknowledge and defend the right of any man and woman, or any men and women, to love each other for as long or as short a time as they can, will, or may.”
___________________________________________

That is exactly what that is, and the word choice, in print, is "love".

You convict that person of advocating fornication.

You convict that person of advocating adultery.

That person, you convict, of those things.

You say this:

"...that one would suggest that it is OK for people to live immorally.

You offer Tucker's words as proof of that claim, I suppose.

Who is guilty of mistaken identity?

"So, now I have to add that to legislation and punishment?"

From your viewpoint, after your example of mistaken identity (my viewpoint), you now choose to return to the actual point of Tucker's words?

After you falsely convict, and publicly discredit (with your hit piece on Tucker), exacting punishment after the conviction, after all that, you now return to the actual point of Tucker's words?

"I do not want to legislate or punish."

Then why do you to it? Is there some other force involved, some other power that made you do what you have done already?

"But that does not mean that I advocate what Tucker says about love either."

Tucker is stating facts here:

__________________________________________
Tucker says:
“Even in so delicate a matter as that of the relations of the sexes the Anarchists do not shrink from the application of their principle. They acknowledge and defend the right of any man and woman, or any men and women, to love each other for as long or as short a time as they can, will, or may.”
____________________________________________

You are falsely (in my view) discrediting Tucker with your false claims of his advocating fornication and adultery.

"I am having a hard time sorting that out. What if all the abortion, rape and sex trafficking are a result of not abiding by God’s law?"

The point made by Tucker can be reasoned out, whereby "subsidizing false morality" creates a demand for abortion, rape, sex trafficking, and torture, and mass murder, and Monopoly Money Suppliers.

The Franklin Case happened well after Tucker's time, but around Tucker's time was those cases reported by John Tyler Gatto whereby the false words for human trafficking was "up for adoption".

Pay a lot, pay in children, pay to those who will abuse children, a ready supply of children, and what does that increase in supply of children, ready for exploitation, cause by way of demand?

Increase the supply of reward for something, and what happens to the demand for that something?

That was Tucker's point, that was Andrews' point.

I will cut and paste again, the words of Andrews, addressing exactly what you are doing, in my view, exactly your error is being answered, in fact, by Andrews in these word:

"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."

You claim that Tucker's stand on NOT making Love LEGAL is Tucker advocating fornication and adultery.

If I am wrong here, you could show me where I am wrong.

When the power of LAW is abused, then "advocating" goes well beyond "advocating" and becomes "subsidy" whereby baby murder for fun and profit is a steady flow of earnings from those who invest into "regulating morality" to those who are best at making as many babies as possible to then have those babies murdered by those who are best at baby murder.

When the power of LAW is abused, then "advocating" goes well beyond "advocating" and becomes "subsidy" whereby child sex slavery for fun and profit is a steady flow of earnings from those who invest into "regulating morality" to those who are best at making as many children as possible to then have those children tortured and murdered by those who are best at torturing and murdering children.

If you don't get that point, made by Tucker, Andrews, Warren, Spooner, or I, and instead you keep up your false judgements, and real punishments, of Tucker, for your abuse of his words, then I can keep working at conveying that point, until when: doomsday?

"Who says I am judging?"

I think you prove that you are judging, and to me your judgments, and your public hangings, are based upon your creations of falsehoods.

What is this:

"I am having a hard time sorting that out. What if all the abortion, rape and sex trafficking are a result of not abiding by God’s law?"

Connected to this:

"But that does not mean that I advocate what Tucker says about love either."

Connected to this:

"...that one would suggest that it is OK for people to live immorally.

Connected to this:

"So those things are just like lying, stealing, and killing to me. I see red."

Connected to this:

"I am telling you that those words, just the thought that someone advocates fornication and adultery is way out of my comfort zone."

Those are your judgements, you judging, you making these claims that someone, somewhere, is doing those things, your words, all your words.

Connected to this:

Tucker says:
“Even in so delicate a matter as that of the relations of the sexes the Anarchists do not shrink from the application of their principle. They acknowledge and defend the right of any man and woman, or any men and women, to love each other for as long or as short a time as they can, will, or may.”

You judge Tucker based upon your fabricated meaning of the word LOVE into lust, fornication, adultery, immorality, and further connecting Tucker to lying, stealing, and killing. All judged by you, as you connect all that evil to Tucker, because you convict Tucker of either falsely employing the word LOVE when, according to you, Tucker means lust, fornication, and adultery, or, and you can clarify you judgement, you claim that Tucker has no clue as to what LOVE actually means.

"Who says I am judging?"

"I am telling you that those words, just the thought that someone advocates fornication and adultery is way out of my comfort zone."

You judge Tucker, find him guilty, and execute your public hanging of his message.

What remains, please, is a clarification, if you will, concerning your judgement of tucker.

A.
He is guilty of willful fabrications of lies so as to cover up his advocating of fornication and adultery with the cover of LOVE as a False Front.

B.
He is guilty of being false himself, lacking the capacity to know the difference between LOVE, fornication, and adultery.

If you will, please, pass judgement more specifically, if possible.

"Is questioning judging?"

Questioning is questioning. Judging is judging. Why do you ask?

You judge here:

"I am telling you that those words, just the thought that someone advocates fornication and adultery is way out of my comfort zone."

Is that not judgement of Tucker by you?

If that is not judgment of Tucker by you, then how about this:

"So those things are just like lying, stealing, and killing to me. I see red."

This:

"...that one would suggest that it is OK for people to live immorally.

What are those if those are not judgments. Are those questions, not judgements?

"Is pointing out what seems wrong to me judging? Should I look the other way and say nothing?"

If Tucker writes LOVE and you replace LOVE with lust, fornication, and adultery, and then add stealing, lying, and murder, is that a case of guilt accountable to Tucker or is that just you replacing the word printed with the words you make up yourself?

"Can people really love as long as they want, can, will, or may without hurting someone else?"

Do you use the word LOVE to mean LOVE or do use the word LOVE to mean lust, fornication, adultery, lying, stealing, and murder instead of LOVE?

The same question applies to all the rest of your questions in that paragraph.

I had better move along in this reply, I see that your welcome response includes many more welcome words.

First, to the point:

Tucker's point had to do with Legal definitions/punishments/rewards for LOVE, that was his point, and as far as I know, there was none of the advocating for anything else done by Tucker - at all.

"So then I can say: hey, that is not the way it is supposed to be."

And the point is pointed out, that a slowing down, and a stopping, of the POWER flowing from those who "legislate morality" may reduce the rewards for lying, cheating, stealing, baby murder, child abuse, slave trading, fornication, adultery, "up for adoption", and many other "subsidized moral behavior" that is currently funded so well through those "legal" means.

"Are you going to punish someone who rapes your son because that is what his interpretation of love is?"

OK, so now we are cutting to the chase, as you say; now it is clear that I too am advocating those things you say Tucker is advocating, and now, to put me in my place, my son is on the block?

I can go into great detail as to what I teach my son by example, which is not very good, and by careful discussions of what I think is right, and what I think is wrong, and as may happen very often, I become the student in that relationship.

Shall we get personal?

"What are the boundaries?"

I think one boundary ought to be to avoid convicting an innocent person, punishing that innocent person, if possible, that is a boundary.

I think another boundary ought to be to avoid abandoning victims, in each case possible, so as not to continue, aid, and abet the criminals who will perpetuate their crimes upon those abandoned, or even "subsidized" victims - such as that Franklin case example.

"OK, so what is the purpose of Trial by Jury? Who says anything is wrong? How do we determine what is wrong? Is there anything wrong? Who says?"

In historical context, while siting the example of historical reporting done by Lysander Spooner, and accessing my own personal experience with the modern, counterfeit, version of Trial by Jury, I think Man Made Law can be made less criminal and more effective at avoiding the injury of innocent people and there are competitive examples of moving in that direction instead of moving in the direction of LEGAL CRIME.

Trial by Jury, as it worked in history, and as I see it working now, can stand in place of The Hand of God, when the goal is to avoid injuring innocent people in FACT, and when The Hand of God is clearly not applied in these specific cases, each one case, each one time, in history, now, or on into the future.

Pick any case. I think there is work to be done to reach for that goal of not injuring another innocent person.

I can pick a competitive case or two too.

1.
Ben Bernanke for the crime of Fraud
2.
Osama Bin Obama (aka Barry Soetoro) for the crime of mass murder with drones

Had people gotten, instead of not, the warnings, and suggestions, of a long list of people, things might have turned out better, instead of worse, and time is clearly proceeding, so it is not too late to listen, and be advised.

1.
Thomas Paine
2.
Daniel Shays
3.
Patrick Henry
4.
George Mason
5.
Josiah Warren
6.
Stephen Andrews
7.
Lysander Spooner
8.
Benjamin Tucker
9.
Ron Paul
10.
I can raise my hand here, because I can, just like I did so many times in Public School, and soon enough the "teachers" figured out how necessary it is to ignore me.

What do we say, this group of ignorant people?

Stop paying the criminals so well, and crime may not pay so well.

1.
End the FED
2.
End the IRS
3.
Bring the Troops Home (not to collect National Debt)
4.
Do so by July 4th 2013
5.
Try not to convict, sentence, and punish an innocent person
6.
Try not to abandon the victims
7.
Hold yourself to account for progress toward reaching the goal of Liberty.
8.
Try to point out to others this accurate accountability stuff, if other people express any sense of agreement in reaching toward that goal in meaningful, expedient, effective, competitive, ways.

"Tucker can make a strawman and call it love."

Here I have to stop and do other things. Here is where you are entering into the phase of the trial where you are working on the judgment of willful intent. You have already passed the judgement stage, you have already found the (innocent) person guilty, and you have already punished the defendant that can't defend himself.

Joe

I am going to work on the problems you gave me.

I have a question to pose to you for you to think about if you care to while I try to sort out the meaning of the word love.

My question: What if God judges a society, a country, a group of people as well as individuals based upon the morality of that people?

What happens when some people burn with sexual lust towards other people in a society?

What would happen if there was no fornication or adultry in a society?

What would happen if there was no fornication or adultry in the world?

Would there be trafficking of humans, of women, of little girls, of men, of little boys? Would there be rape? Would there be sexual addiction? Would it take more and more extreme to achieve sexual pleasure?

What if a society was built like this:

1 Corinthians 7:2 KJV
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

What might be preemted if that very simple formula were followed?

In the meantime, I will try to figure out what I mean by love and what Tucker means by love and I will try to answer the questions you left for me so I can iron this problem out in my mind.

Is the goal with ararchy to have no laws? Is that what is trying to be achieved?

...

So many things.

Mostly chores, but this present discussion is most welcome among the many things I have an opportunity to do today.

This:

"What if God judges a society, a country, a group of people as well as individuals based upon the morality of that people?"

If you can, please, stand in my shoes a moment on this one. I am closer to death than I have ever been, in years, at this age past half a century, no longer young by many competitive measures, and at this age I am absolutely sure of only one thing. That is where my viewpoint originates, from that one thing that I am absolutely sure about, and all else I can try to reason out, and I can even borrow a Common Law Legal Term for this process of reasoning.

Beyond a reasonable doubt, in my opinion, God punishes life forms that fail to abide by God's Laws.

"What if God judges a society, a country, a group of people as well as individuals based upon the morality of that people?"

I think your question proves to be a true statement as it is my way of thinking, my belief, that God punishes life forms, including human beings, for failing to abide by God's Laws, and therefore it is imperative that those who know better gain the power to overpower those who fail to know better and a case in point is easy enough to prove.

Those who know better than to invent, produce, and abuse Weapons of Mass Destruction, will either overpower those who don't, or we as a species will become extinct by our own destructive few whose obvious goal is to destroy all life on earth.

God will let nature take care of itself, it seems to me.

"What happens when some people burn with sexual lust towards other people in a society?"

Here is where I see a need to distance myself, distance Warren, distance Andrews, distance Tucker, distance Spooner, and distance anyone whose way of thinking is in agreement with that list of people, distance all of us, from this part of this discussion.

If the subject matter is love, then it is love.

If the subject matter is Legal Love, then it is Legal Love.

If the subject matter is lust, then it is not a subject that is on the table for me, Warren, Tucker, Andrews, Spooner, INSTEAD of Legal Love, or Spiritual Love, or Individual Love, unless someone agrees to change the subject.

You are changing the subject, in my opinion, and I can agree to change the subject, with this specific qualification, so as to avoid any potential false connections between this subject and the subject we were on, concerning Tucker, Andrews, Warren, and myself, as far as "Free" is concerned, such as "Free Love" (not Free Lust), in the context of love being free from Legal POWER/FORCE/PUNISHMENT/REWARD/FALSEHOOD etc. NOT "free" from moral conscience, and NOT "free" from consequence paid by the individuals involved in LUST: NOT those accountable for LUST and NOT those having those consequences, those costs, passed onto them by some means of deception, threats, or violence.

_____________________________________________________
My question: What if God judges a society, a country, a group of people as well as individuals based upon the morality of that people?

What happens when some people burn with sexual lust towards other people in a society?

What would happen if there was no fornication or adultry in a society?

What would happen if there was no fornication or adultry in the world?

Would there be trafficking of humans, of women, of little girls, of men, of little boys? Would there be rape? Would there be sexual addiction? Would it take more and more extreme to achieve sexual pleasure?
__________________________________________________

To me, in my way of thinking, I can connect a dot that you may refuse to see, still, whereby a utopian human society where no individual passes on any costs to any other individual, where crime does not pay, not in the least, in such a place the demand for criminals is by that measure null.

What happens when innocent people work very hard to send all their power to a few very evil people and then those evil people figure out ways to spend that POWER on making that process invincible?

Do those few evil people occasionally get caught "human trafficking"?

Did I not show you the Franklin Case?

Did you not listen to John Taylor Gatto describe how "Up for Adoption" worked?

"Would there be trafficking of humans, of women, of little girls, of men, of little boys?"

If the moms and dads work hard all day to pay the most devious pedophiles the most money per incident of depravity upon innocent children, then that constitutes a demand, a handsome reward, for the most depraved human beings to be hired to do what they do best, and then there will be no shortage of that supply, as the message becomes clear to all, over time, be the worst among us, and get paid the most by us.

If you don't see that, then I can try harder to show that to you, as have Warren, Andrews, Tucker, and Spooner. We fail miserably in this case?

"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."

Warren the advocate of lust.

Andrews the free from moral conscience.

Tucker the goat fornicator.

Spooner the ignored.

Where do I fit in?

I spent my life looking for something unknown, then I found 1 person, I've been very close to that 1 person for over 25 years now, and I cannot see life without her being anything but poor destitution and abject wandering in confusion, as it was before I met that one person.

Warren, as far as I know was a monogamous husband, reproducing fine children. I think Andrews also had one wife. I don't know much about Tucker or Spooner and their lives separate from their STANDS against Legal Crime (my term).

If you continue to connect the dot of your version of "free love" which apparently you think is "lust", to those people, and me, despite all the evidence proving otherwise, then you may get the goal you seek, which is to discredit those people, and I?

Note the question mark.

"What might be preemted if that very simple formula were followed?"

Good life? It works for me.

"Is the goal with ararchy to have no laws? Is that what is trying to be achieved?"

No.

A saying goes like this: Anarchy is not "no laws", or no "rules", anarchy is no rulers.

In context of your viewpoint, decidedly spiritual (in a true sense), the concept of anarchy is not to say that there are no rulers at all, but instead the concept is to reject the idea of one Man making man made laws, and enforcing those man made laws upon other people, and this is common sense stuff, since that "Ruler" (so called) can be seen for what that "Ruler" is, each time, every time, without exception, when that "Ruler" exempts himself from the "Rules" that that "Ruler" enforces upon other, selected, people.

Warren spells this out very well, as true authority is what it is, not what it is not.

Joe

Thank you for taking time out

of your many things to help me. Please do not rush to answer today either this reply left today or the one left earlier this morning.

I have read twice and will read again. Not because I don't understand, but because I want the words to sink in.

Please know, it is not my goal to discredit. Remember bear? Bear learns by asking questions and more and more questions arise until bear understands and can form an opinion based upon the answers and reasoning. It is very hard for me to separate non-monogamist relationships from lust in my own mind.

Here are some "rules" for Believers. Paul is careful to say some of it is his own opinion:

I Corinthians 7:6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment [from the Lord]. 7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. 8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain [sexually], let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. 10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
----------------------------

I cannot understand this:

“A saying goes like this: Anarchy is not "no laws", or no "rules", anarchy is no rulers.”

So does that mean that each individual makes their own personal laws and rules and there are no governing rules to keep people from infringing on other people?

Remember, I am not asking to discredit. I am asking because I have questions and I cannot understand yet.

...

Work on removing false connections?

"It is very hard for me to separate non-monogamist relationships from lust in my own mind."

Your obvious error (obvious to me and to Andrews when Andrews was discussing the topic with James) is to invent this false advocating of non-monogamist relationships. Who advocates non-monogamist relationships? You keep quoting from Tucker the same words that are words where you can invent anything you want about what any person will, can, or may do, but that applies to the individual who will, can, or do anything, and that cannot be applied to Tucker unless Tucker did what you claim he did, which is a false claim that you keep repeating.

Who advocates non-monogamist relationships?

Who advocates fornication?

Who advocates adultery?

Tucker does not advocate any of those things, and what Tucker is advocating is specific to individual people. Find one who advocates something, find out why they advocate something, and you can't end up with Tucker, unless Tucker advocates something.

Tucker, in his words, not your words, advocates the concept of people being at Liberty to do good things or bad things at their own cost.

If they LOVE then that it what they do at their own cost.

If they may Love then that is what they do at their own cost.

If they will Love then that is what they do at their own cost.

If they do Love then that is what they do at their own cost.

Tucker does not explain, in detail, his thinking on how love relationships end up being difficult because of all the problems associated with passing on costs from one person to another person in any loving relationship, by charity, or by other means, because the concept of bringing up the subject of love is only specific to the LEGAL means of enforcing human relationships from one person UPON another person, or more specifically, from one GROUP (collectively) upon another person or group: Legal Means.

You keep failing to apply the context of the words to the situation intended by the words. The subject matter has to do with the supposed justifications for the POWER to PUNISH by this nebulous thing called Man Made Law and ORDER.

That is the subject. So...in essence the messages by Tucker, Andrews, and Warren (and even Spooner) has to do with the phrase "separation of church and state" and in so doing each individual person, once the connection between "church and state" is separated, are at Liberty to find God, or find ONE person to Love, without being forced to do so by some Group, or by some individual, where those individuals in that Group, or any individual "officer" may be even more mislead then the one individual being PUNISHED for failing to OBEY without question.

Categorically different are the human beings who set about to defend Liberty and those who set about to PUNISH people who do not OBEY without question.

The subject matter is specific to that focus of attention, and once focused with that attention, it is more than obviously WRONG to allow those people who are criminals to give them all the power they need to punish anyone failing to obey without question, since the opposite of your concerns happens.

If you don't think people should fornicate, then why do you keep paying the worst people, such as that Franklin Case of Child Sex Slavery, traced back to Washington, and "The Federal Government", so much money?

You keep paying them so well for fornicating, because you think they should be powerful enough to end fornication?

Here have more of my earnings, and then God's Law can be enforced by the worst people among us?

That is the context of Tuckers message. You distort that message, and you invent that distortion yourself.

You falsely claim that Tucker advocates non-monogamous relationships.

He does no such thing. He says that if people may love, then they may, and if people will love, then they will, and if people do love, then they do love.

YOU are the one saying that if people will fornicate then they will, and if the do fornicate then they do, and if they may fornicate, then they do, and even that does not suddenly, magically, turn into YOU advocating such things, does it?

Who is responsible for what people may, will, and do?

The State?

Tucker's message is clearly a message that states how it is an individual responsibility, and it is not a state responsibility.

Why is that turned into Tucker advocating things not advocated by Tucker, in your mind?

I could be wrong, of course, but so far your picking and choosing of that specific paragraph written by Tucker does not constitute Tucker advocating non-monogamous, fornicating, adulterous, human relationships no more than a confession by you as to your advocating the same thing.

"So does that mean that each individual makes their own personal laws and rules and there are no governing rules to keep people from infringing on other people?"

Who has the accurate answer?

If you ask me, then you are asking an individual person, me. If you ask someone else, Ben Bernanke, then you are asking an individual person who may find reason to lie to you.

My answer is that you do not understand the message intended, and I can adjust the message in the effort to remove any room for you to misunderstand the message in the way that you are misunderstanding the message offered: generously.

Here is the message offered: generously (by an individual: me):

Anarchy is not "no laws", or no "rules", anarchy is no rulers.”

Here is an obvious, measurable, case of you misunderstanding the message that I, an individual, offers to you, in the hope that you get the message intact, but you don't get the message intact, instead you make up some other message and no such message was intended by me, to you, generously.

Your false version:

"So does that mean that each individual makes their own personal laws and rules and there are no governing rules to keep people from infringing on other people?"

Now, if you will, may, or if you do get the message intended intact, with an additional word, for your consideration, a rewriting of the message with the same intent of transferring the message intact, without distortion by you.

Anarchy is not "no laws", or no "rules", anarchy is no false rulers.”

I hope that that can clear up the message intended so as not to have the intended message distorted into meaning the opposite of what the message intended means.

Joe

Thought you might like this link

http://www.crispinsartwell.com/josiahwarren.htm

in case you haven't had ocassion to see it.

I suppose the answer to these questions:

"Who advocates non-monogamist relationships?

Who advocates fornication?

Who advocates adultery?"

might be it is the right of any sovereign individual who wants to and it is none of anyone’s business what any sovereign individual does as long as they don’t pass on costs.

If I am understanding more correctly.

I suppose under the comstock laws we would not be engagine in such conversation thru the means of the post office.

I suppose I am passing on too much cost to you by asking questions and should do my own reading.

...

Thanks

I spent a few hours replying to the unfinished Tucker discussion and at a point of decision making I deleted the reply.

If you do not understand that Tucker does not advocate the things you say he advocates then there is no amount of words I can write to defend him from misrepresentation.

I can leave it at that, and move on.

"I suppose under the comstock laws we would not be engagine in such conversation thru the means of the post office."

I don't know what are comstock laws. What do you mean in that sentence?

Passing on costs can be the receiving end of charity - in my opinion.

When fraud, threats, and violence are used to pass on costs, then, to me, there is a victim made by a criminal.

I think all of this was made clear to me when I began thinking in terms of a power struggle.

Your Tape Worm Economy Link is very good in that respect, and I have yet to finish watching it.

Take care bear, these powers in this struggle are dangerous to say the least, so there is no need, in my mind, to help ourselves into being less powerful victims. We can find competitive ways to defend Liberty and share our findings.

Joe

Josf, "If you do not

Josf, "If you do not understand that Tucker does not advocate the things you say he advocates then there is no amount of words I can write to defend him from misrepresentation."

You do not have to defend anyone to me. I was trying to understand. I was not trying to judge, be hardheaded, or be vindictive. I hear words differently than you do. So, if I don't understand something I ask questions until I understand. The questions are the expression of the mis-compute going on in my mind. That being between my worldview and the new words I am hearing.
Do I need to understand Tucker and Warren and Andrews in order to understand Liberty?

If I think I disagree with something should I find out why? I am sorry I did that at your expense.

Comstock Laws are what put Moses Harman in prison a couple of times for sending explicit publications thru the postal service. I read about it yesterday when I was trying to understand better. He had a publication called “Lucifer: The Light Bearer” in which he advocated free love and contraception. He was put in jail for publishing a letter about marriage rape. He was put in jail again at 70. His 16 year old daughter and her husband which had a non-conventional marriage were also jailed.

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2001/0220....
"Harman and Shaw had an intellectual bond. They shared the same opinion of 19th century traditional marriage: namely, they believed such marriages were defined by laws and customs that enslaved women, who were stripped thereby of the right to their own wages, custody of their children, and the legal ability to defend themselves against sexual attack by their husbands. As an alternative, they favored 'free love' unions in which there was no state interference into the voluntary sexual contracts of couples.

As a personal matter, Harman believed in monogamy. He conducted his life accordingly and without scandal. But as a point of social theory, he demanded that all voluntary sexual arrangements be legally tolerated and that women be treated as full equal partners. His insistence upon speaking out for 'true' marriage and the rights of women led to his many years of legal persecution under the Comstock Act (1873), which forbade circulating obscene information -- such as birth control advice -- through the mails. "

I suppose I fail to see outside my world where everything that is mine is Jeff's and everything that is Jeff's is mine because Jeff & my world consists of OURS.

If I lived in a world where everything was Jeff's alone and I was just in that world as property, I might understand better.

I suppose I also confuse the term free love with the idea of the sexual revolution of the 60's?

From my reading today, the only thing I am taking issue with is that love ends which then ends marriage. My understanding of Love is that it is not a feeling. Love is a practice. Love is patient and kind and not proud. It is giving and gentle and seeks the other person's good. Sometimes I have to work at those things because sometimes I am not a nice person.

These are the apostle's words that I began quoting yesterday and are probably more pertinent now as I try not to see black and white, but a world of individuals:

I Corinthians 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

Perhaps the grey area is based on the words “be pleased to dwell with.” If a man is pleased to dwell with a woman, I suppose he will treat her in a pleasing way and vice versa.

I think the other word to look at is the word “believeth.” In corporate churches where people are baptized as infants or confirmed on schedule perhaps the meaning of believe is lost. One can believe with the head and one can believe with the heart. Belief with the heart is what constitutes faith and changes a person’s actions. What I mean by belief with the heart is that it is not just believing facts. It is believing facts coupled with trust and dependence on those facts.

I wonder if the person who said the constitution was for a moral people said that because liberty can easily turn in to tyranny as immoral people take advantage of those who are moral or weaker. Liberty can also be turned in to licentiousness as people begin to practice immorality. The other thing that happens is people try to prohib licentiousness in such a way that tyranny is caused as well.

http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/05/victory-through...

"If, then, we apply Valentine’s 1887 definition of marriage to our own time, then any couples that are joined under marriage statutes that fail to require the wife’s legal subordination to her husband, or fail to require her to take her husband’s last name, or do not give the husband total control over his wife’s body, property, and children, are not married at all. If Greeley and Valentine were to timewarp their way to the present day, they would see no unions that they would recognise as marriages – not, at least, if they were to “hold fast the form of sound words".”

That article also says:

"In Judge Valentine’s eyes, then, the “essentials” of marriage apparently included not only an intended commitment for life but also the wife’s duty to obey her husband and take his last name, and the husband’s right to rape his wife, to control her property, and to control her access to her children (rights that the husband did indeed traditionally enjoy under 19th-century American law – and which survived longer into the 20th century than you may think)."

Now, I have not read any of Judge Valentine's words, so "apparently included" may be subject to review. But, I believe I understand better. I cannot imagine a husband controlling access to children, except I suppose I hear and see people fight over kids in divorce situations.

I am sorry you spent hours writing yesterday only to have to erase it. I had looked forward to your reply. I realize you had a lot to do yesterday and I am sorry I caused your time to be spent in that way.

I am glad you liked the Catherine Fitts link. Jeff hasn’t been able to finish it either.

On the link I just gave you for Josiah Warren, It looks like they are trying to collect all of his works and have transposed some of his handwritten unpublished works on the forum. Some that were available from the University of Michigan. There is also a link on that page to: john humphrey noyes on josiah warren, from the classic book "history of american socialisms"

I was wondering if that perhaps was the work you were looking for, but it wasn’t written by Warren.

It looks like a lot of people are trying to put together works. I found this one today and it looks like it has a lot more of Josiah Warren’s periodical publications: http://libertarian-labyrinth.org/wiki/index.php?title=Chrono...

"Passing on costs can be the receiving end of charity - in my opinion."

If or when I pass on cost to you, please tell me so I can quit. I do not want to wear out my welcome or take advantage of your generousity.

...

Liberty

"Do I need to understand Tucker and Warren and Andrews in order to understand Liberty?"

I've been working on book thing today, doing chores, and wrestling with formats, confusing stuff, mind boggling puzzles, too much for someone too simple like me. But it is still fun, it is still a challenge, and for some reason I have been built to take things easy, even things that other people think are hard things.

I thought about your confusing what Tucker says with your own experiences. Suppose, I thought to myself, suppose that you were kept from God by a man with a badge, and a gun, and a license, and an order to be followed without question, and therefore you were made to abide by rules, and orders, and things that someone else thought was good for you, and so those events that led you to realize God, in your own special way, was delayed, or removed from your life by that man made law man, or group of men, and women, dictating to you what you must do, and what you must not do, according to you.

You, are taken out of the equation, and in between you, all your faults, all your mistakes, and all your lessons that you pay for dearly on your own, are removed from you, by some guy, some group, some license, some badge, and some man made authority, suppose, I think, suppose that happened to you, or instead of you, that happens to a million, a hundred million, other people, because that happens that way to all those people?

Instead of being unrestrained by man made laws that dictate what can or cannot be done, without question, there is instead a very powerful group of people, all men and women of flesh and blood, preventing all those millions of people from learning their own way through life, and what does that actually mean in reality?

Is it possible that instead of an individual having free access to God, if they will, if they may, if they can, instead of that, there is in place a very powerful man made road block?

I think that is the message Tucker offers, even if you refuse to see it.

"If I think I disagree with something should I find out why? I am sorry I did that at your expense." If I accept the challenge then it is not my expense, it is my fortune, not my expense.

"As an alternative, they favored 'free love' unions in which there was no state interference into the voluntary sexual contracts of couples."

Here again is the message in context with Man Made Laws that inevitably pervert God's Laws, so why invest so much into such things, when they are evil things?

That is the message. It is as plain as day to me. It is not what you keep claiming it to be, some nebulous support, investment, advocating, inventing, creating, producing, and maintaining of lust, adultery, and whatever some people will, may, or can do, if they are not aware of the error, or if they are not threatened with physical harm, and unfortunately some people do have to learn the hard way, and unfortunately there are not enough people who can stand as warning signs saying don't do this, because this will happen to you too, and unfortunately not enough people actually caring enough to listen for warning signs offered generously by people having the power of true authority.

"I suppose I also confuse the term free love with the idea of the sexual revolution of the 60's?"

I think that we both know that much of the supposed "Free Love" thoughts and actions were abuses of "public" access major media sources as supposed "communists" (Legal Criminals) were effecting their own plans to shape "society" in their image. That is exactly the kind of wrong that is traveled when people are led down false avenues such as a supposed need to "regulate" love and marriage.

Regulating love and marriage is just another false front covering up the real game at play which is making crime legal for the criminals.

Innocent targets fall victim to that false front as well as many other similar tunes played on the same fiddle.

"From my reading today, the only thing I am taking issue with is that love ends which then ends marriage. My understanding of Love is that it is not a feeling. Love is a practice. Love is patient and kind and not proud. It is giving and gentle and seeks the other person's good. Sometimes I have to work at those things because sometimes I am not a nice person."

Good examples can be ignores as well as bad examples and so what can be done to help other people avoid repeating the bad example, and help other people find even better examples to set?

The message offered by Tucker is to say, well, one obvious thing to not do, if the goal is Liberty, is to not, please don't, send all your earnings to the worst people on the planet, because those people will use the power they get to steal more power, to then define the meaning of crime as being what they do, and to then crush anyone else daring to do what they do so well, as they pay themselves liberally for what they do so well, and then they hand their victims the bill.

"If a man is pleased to dwell with a woman, I suppose he will treat her in a pleasing way and vice versa."

You can lead a horse to water, but making him, or her, drink is another matter entirely.

"I wonder if the person who said the constitution was for a moral people said that because liberty can easily turn in to tyranny as immoral people take advantage of those who are moral or weaker. Liberty can also be turned in to licentiousness as people begin to practice immorality. The other thing that happens is people try to prohib licentiousness in such a way that tyranny is caused as well."

That is well understood by me to be factual except the details on what you mean by "the constitution", do you mean a State Constitution or the Monopoly False Federal ONE?

"(rights that the husband did indeed traditionally enjoy under 19th-century American law – and which survived longer into the 20th century than you may think)"

I contend with that on the grounds that there are many supposed laws, many supposed claims to authority, and if the idea is to limit crime, such as rape, then it may be a good idea to entertain the man made laws that actually worked toward that end, such as Trial by Jury based upon Sortition, and voluntary, competitive, free market government designs such as the example set with The Articles of Confederation in America between 1776 and 1788.

"I am sorry you spent hours writing yesterday only to have to erase it. I had looked forward to your reply. I realize you had a lot to do yesterday and I am sorry I caused your time to be spent in that way."

I did not "have to" do anything, not at that moment, not in my own mind, I had a choice, and there was no need to flip a coin for me to decide on the right choice. My tone was not kind, and there is no need for more of that from me, even if I am pretending to defend someone like Tucker from being misrepresented - as far as I could tell.

[There is also a link on that page to: john humphrey noyes on josiah warren, from the classic book "history of american socialisms"]

I have that link bookmarked. Maybe there is a path to find Stephen Andrews book on The History of Socialism.

"I was wondering if that perhaps was the work you were looking for, but it wasn’t written by Warren."

I don't remember where I read that Stephen Pearl Andrews wrote a History of Socialism, but I've been looking for that book, even if I am misdirected.

"If or when I pass on cost to you, please tell me so I can quit. I do not want to wear out my welcome or take advantage of your generousity."

That works both ways.

Joe

Can you please explain these words to me:

"I think that we both know that much of the supposed "Free Love" thoughts and actions were abuses of "public" access major media sources as supposed "communists" (Legal Criminals) were effecting their own plans to shape "society" in their image. That is exactly the kind of wrong that is traveled when people are led down false avenues such as a supposed need to "regulate" love and marriage."

I cannot read and understand the English language. Could you please restate those words like you are speaking to the little girl in red. She cannot understand doctors, lawyers or political economists, and I want to understand what was going on in the 60's.

You do not have to write me a book, just a simple explanation will do, for if you should write a book, I will probably remain as misabled as I am now. Joe, it seems what little brains I thought I had have flown the coop and left me with as little as a bird's.

Without trying to misrepresenting you I read your words to mean that the Criminals who were supposed communists were reshaping society into their image of perversity. (And the reason for doing the social upheaval is so that "we," the victims, are easier pickins.)

Is that what you are saying to me. Because that is what I think was going on, except I always thought the communists were "they" as in Russia as opposed to us, not as in me and you, but as in those in our own land: The enemy is within in the form of the FUND. I understand better now about they not being Russian communisits. Because "we" were the Russian Communisits. Not me and you, but the FUND that FUNDED the performance of The Routine gratice America. But can't WE be America? Does America have to be The Fund that does The Routine?

Speaking of the FUND, I also have a question as to you view of this: http://www.dailypaul.com/279585/another-nail-in-the-us-dolla...

Is what you mean by moving the FUND to China?

...

Joe Speak

What I mean to say is that I think we both know that much of the "women's lib" type behavior acted out by modern women has roots, beginnings, in false advertizing, or lies told by liars on television, and lies told by liars in magazines, and lies told by liars on radio shows, on commercials, in school books, and even in those orders on papers called legislation.

If the genuine, natural, progress of mankind is to go forth and multiply, to make the best of what there is in reality, then it is likely, and evidence suggests, that the genuine, natural, progress of mankind is being side tracked with willful lies told by very effective liars.

Case in point:

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/02/27/torches-of-f...

One person can have a huge effect on the behavior of a large number of targeted victims.

That is my point. You can call Edward Bernays a communist too, and I don't think that your word choice would be inaccurate so long as we can agree on the meaning of the word communists. The problem there is that the same guy can be called a capitalist.

Case two:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZatGAkBZcW4

That can be called a communist too. If you grew up as a conservative republican then the later example may be easier to understand that the former.

"Without trying to misrepresenting you I read your words to mean that the Criminals who were supposed communists were reshaping society into their image of perversity. (And the reason for doing the social upheaval is so that "we," the victims, are easier pickins.)"

How many ways can a criminal stay in business?

1.
Deception
2.
Threats of Violence
3.
Violence

How many sub variants of the 3 ways a criminal can stay in business are there?

1.
Deception
a. We are the authorities, give us your earnings and we will save you from harm.

"The enemy is within in the form of the FUND."

Eward Bernays was most certainly in the group of most powerful people who are still all connected by the FUND, which is the one most powerful FUND, also known as World Reserve Currency.

If the same FUND, through the False Front called Wall Street, funded Stalin into POWER, and Stalin stopped following orders, is that a bad thing, or can those operators of the FUND employ a crisis to their advantage?

I can ask my Russian friend too. He has a new angle of view that I have yet to even understand, but I see a very interesting new way to look at the same problem I call Legal Crime.

"But can't WE be America? Does America have to be The Fund that does The Routine?"

As much as we may both agree to disagree with The Mormon Religion, I think your answer is competitively answered by The State of Utah, and I mean a list of names that belong on the list that constitute The State of Utah, I don't mean an entity called Utah where the entity is a thing that can be held responsible.

Utah, which happens to include a lot of Mormons, is offering a competitive money supply, as far as I can tell so far, in direct opposition to The FUND.

For all I know it is true that the resent Earth Quakes were Underground Bases destroyed by opposition to The FUND operators, thus taking away their hiding places. That can be good news, or that can be bad news, I don't know the answer.

I know that World Reserve Currency POWER is based on FRAUD, or DECEPTION, THREATS, and VIOLENCE, and it (World Reserve Currency POWER) cannot exist where there is competition, where the employers of money, those people who earn their existence in life, where the employers of money have a choice between the two best choices of money, instead of Absolute Abject Belief in Falsehood Without Question.

More Joe speak?

"Does America have to be The Fund that does The Routine?"

Call someone up in Utah, find out what they are thinking with their Gold Backed Legal Money System Effort.

I think you can find the answer you seek, in a measurable way, that way.

I spoke very briefly with the Speaker at the resent Liberty Convention in Reno, who was advising the "Government" in Utah as to how Gold Backed Money works, and other things.

I asked the Speaker if it was game over for the FED and I asked if the people in Utah understood the risks, and it was unsaid by me, but obviously understood by the Speaker, that such a move could me Civil War, with Federal Troops sent in to crush the competition in Utah.

The Speaker told me that he warned the governors in Utah about the inherent risks associated with competing with The FUND (not a quote at all, since I speak Joe Speak, as you know).

No, certainly not, we not only do not have to be a part of the FUND, and the Routine, we can stop being a part of it by July 4th of this year, without any trouble whatsoever.

We merely wake up one morning with a conscience.

"Is what you mean by moving the FUND to China?"

Yes, if you can read past all the False Fronts, and the False Language, you can see that Monopoly Legal Money Power is a shared (criminal) enterprise, all the players are on a ship of their own construction, built on lies, threats, and violence, and on the deck of that ship are all the captains having the time of their lives, when they can finish their daily work load, daily lies, daily threats, and daily violence, and below deck are the people being burned for fuel.

China has deck captains too, with their Legal Money Monopoly Power.

What is the prize?

World dominance.

What is World Reserve Currency Power?

What would a good evil criminal do to get it?

1.
Deceit
2
Threats of Violence
3.
Aggressive Violence

Is that more Joe Speak?

Joe