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.

Consent vs Control

IMO this man does not speak the same message as Ron Paul. Ron Paul's message was to engage the system and change it from within. In other words, take it back from the criminals, peacefully.

This man advocates removing concent from the system. I can see how one would be driven to that point, but again IMO, even removing consent will not remove oneself from the clutches of the criminals. One can say they are not subject all they want, but when the criminals decide to subject you, you will be a target and that can turn out several ways.

He is right though, the general population will not turn off their big screens and get involved. As long as we can have the next new thing, follow the carrot on the end of a stick, the pied piper has control.

I think there is a difference between the message of removing control and removing concent. However, both may share the same goal of Liberty.

...

Genuine versus Counterfeit

If it is false consent, as in "manufactured consent" (see Noam Chomsky or a study of Edward Bernays or countless other insights into false consent or counterfeit consent), then it is not Consent vs Control.

In terms of Monopoly versus Competition or Legal Crime versus Liberty there is ONE (crime) Routine versus MANY (moral) solutions.

I like Ron Paul as a future Benevolent Dictator, one who would enter the Castle and open the doors to any moral competitors, and by that peaceful Revolutionary victory (no glory), the good guys would drive out the bad guys soon enough, because people (not suffering from manufactured consent) choose better for worse naturally.

I have yet to do the welcome homework project "Season of Treason" but it looks so far like typical Common Law versus Admiralty Law stuff, but notice, please that this person, like so many, are misdirected because they misunderstand that time period between 1776 and 1788, which is much more important (as far as I can tell: much more instructive) compared to any time after 1788 - here in America.

Much can be discussed from this point of focused interest.

Save to say, rather than Ron Paul OR any Common Law instructor, how about both, they are competitive ways around the Monopoly Power, the more (moral) the better.

Why pick only one way to skin a cat? One way is better than none?

Noam Chomsky on Manufactured Consent
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQhEBCWMe44

Joe

Loose Ends

"I have yet to do the welcome homework project "Season of Treason" but it looks so far like typical Common Law versus Admiralty Law stuff, "

I didn't give you the link to "Season of Treason," so no homework from me in that regard. I have already said what I have to say about that whole line of Common/Admiralty/Sovereign Citizen stuff. I am not interested. I did watch "Season of Treason" because the ID above handed it to me.

I imagine I will watch/listen to the Chomsky Link you handed me. I ran across his name in this book review I found today when working on the public/private stuff:
http://www.nolanchart.com/article6225-radicals-for-capitalis...

Can you look at that book review and see what you think about the book. It looks interesting to me and I found it when looking up Josiah Warren.

I looked to Warren and Andrews today as I worked on Private and I think I could read Equitable Commerce and Science of Society with a new set of eyes. I might even want to discuss some of it, if we can do it without you having steam coming out of your ears and not hearing me as if I am seeing red.

I need to be able to discuss things with objectivity now so I can understand, and the things I need to understand are things that I do not like, and I want to know why I do not like them.

I haven’t replied yet on the definition competition work because I want to read the proposal again and make sure I understand. I feel like I left the John and Jane play floundering and I don’t want to do the same with the public/private thing. You have something in your mind and I need to understand so I can get on the same page and participate if I have the skill to do it.

...

Not digging deep enough?

"I didn't give you the link to "Season of Treason," so no homework from me in that regard."

I see a need to find out who did send me that link at this point.

It was vinceableworld (forum member) who put that link in. I made the mistake of assuming it was you - please excuse the error. History is important in the sense that mistakes can be avoided, so to me the link is welcome homework. You were discussing the link with vinceableworld (another assumption on my part) and I barged into the conversation as if you posted the link - as far as I can tell. My memory is bad, so I may have recognized the source of the link at the time, and the message was important, not so much the messenger. I don't remember.

________________________________________

"In the traditional sense, "socialism" means the ownership and control of the means of production by the workers themselves, whether as individuals, cooperatives, collectives, communal groups, or through the state, and an economic and political system that favors this. One should note that this does not necessarily mean by the people as a whole, nor does it necessarily mean state ownership, nor does it necessarily imply a non-market form of organization; historically, anarcho-individualism (e.g., in the free-market form advocated by Benjamin Tucker) has been an important form of socialism."

That is from this link:

http://www.nolanchart.com/article4246-socialism-and-capitali...

Note the use of name Benjamin Tucker. Tucker was inspired by Josiah Warren's work on Equitable Commerce. Warren rejected false labels, such as socialism, or capitalism, or anything that was not accurately understood to mean exactly what it means - in other words.

Tucker went on to publish a magazine called Liberty.

I like how the book defines "traditional" Capitalism and Socialism but I don't think that I share those definitions because they are too ambiguous, and for that reason I am not personally inspired to read more of that work. The author shows how Capitalism and Socialism went from a one meaning to another meaning, I don't think either meaning is the genuine meaning.

I think that capitalism is a method of pricing according to Carl Menger's work, having to do with value being measured according to scarcity, and price thereby being determined by that scarcity value, such as a perpetual auction of valuable things sold to the highest bidder. Capitalism, so defined, has nothing to do with The State (Leagal Crime) and has no reference to any other types of transactions that may, or may not, occur in a Free Market.

Capitalists, so named, do not have the patent rights on the Free Market, as it exists in the form of all the choices made by all the people at any given moment during their lives as they seek better instead of worse, where they are not resorting to crime.

1. Free Market
2. Crime

One is one thing. The other is another thing.

Capitalism exists in a Free Market, and if someone says no, Capitalism exists when and where I say it exists, as they resort to deception, threats, and violence upon the innocent (Legal Crime) then those "capitalists" are criminals with badges who call themselves "capitalists".

We have gone over where I think the genuine meaning of socialism comes from; at least as far back as Fourier (before Warren and Andrews, and before Engels, I'm not sure about how Marx fits in.).

The concept of terms changing meaning, over time, is very well illustrated with the term Federalist in American History in the 18th Century, so the need to support the idea that words change meaning for a reason is supported in that example.

As you know there is ample support for the idea, the historical warning, of watching out for those who resort to deception, in scripture..

From the link posted:

______________________________________________________
Marxist-Leninists will define "socialism" in the traditional sense, but at the same time refer to examples of "socialism" in the later re-definition, in order to gain support for totalitarian Bolshevik regimes that actually destroy any examples of "socialism" in the traditional sense. Likewise, their "capitalist" opponents will do the same, in order to support the belief that There Is No Alternative (TINA) to "capitalism" other than a tyrannic despotism. (In this connection, one should note that according to Marx and Engels, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a transitional stage between capitalism and socialism/communism, which will not exist until the state has withered away to nothing.)

In the same way, advocates of "capitalism" will define the term with the later re-definition, but actually refer to concrete examples that instead fit the original sense, even citing dictatorships such as Pinochet's in Chile as positive examples. And just as with "socialism", some opponents of "capitalism" will do likewise in order to discredit it in the sense of the later re-definition. At present, state-corporate globalization, in which there is rule by states, corporations, international financial institutions (IFIs), and the like, is the typical form of "capitalism" actually advocated by most avowed capitalists, rather than a truly free market. This effectively means that there are (at the least) three common usages of the terms "socialism" and "capitalism", and so it behoves one to make clear in what sense one is using these and related terms, and to what empirical examples one refers.

One should also note the term "state-capitalism", used by socialists (in the traditional sense) to refer to state ownership and control of the means of production in varying degrees ranging from capitalist dictatorships such as Pinochet's through to Marxist-Leninist dictatorships such as the Bolshevik regimes. This extends the traditional sense of "capitalism", as the state (at least partially) replaces the traditional "private" capitalist class to varying degrees.
_______________________________________________________

I think the author does not dig deep enough to find the genuine (original) meanings of socialism (scientific study of society, where science identifies LIBERTY as the key to human success) and capitalism; where capitalism is a method of pricing based upon scarcity value.

"I need to be able to discuss things with objectivity now so I can understand, and the things I need to understand are things that I do not like, and I want to know why I do not like them."

Self testing is covered very well at the start of the John Taylor Gatto History Lesson link - a good find.

"I haven’t replied yet on the definition competition work because I want to read the proposal again and make sure I understand. I feel like I left the John and Jane play floundering and I don’t want to do the same with the public/private thing. You have something in your mind and I need to understand so I can get on the same page and participate if I have the skill to do it."

If the ideas and the thinking on political economy I try to convey to you works in you as your ideas and thinking on scripture works in me, then persistence works in time. I do not see how it works now, but in time I begin to see, and it helps to have someone who already sees to review my sense of progress.

I think you have moved in a positive direction toward understanding political economy, so persistence may be proving to be valuable.

Joe

Well I have issues

with the whole capital letter name thing. And I don't have brushes with the law and by the time I do the law will be a law unto itself and all the common law defence in the world will not work. Until that time I keep my nose clean.

I enjoyed listening to Chomsky. Some of the Pilger information on East Timor was expanded for me. I do not think I understood from Pilger that the United States funded the Indonesians. I still don't understand why in the world they did that tot he Timor people. The only think I can grasp is that Chomsky said something about the new government that had taken over timor and I am thinking maybe it was communist? Was the whole slaughter of East Timor to "stamp out Communism?"

Yes, Gatto and self testing, he mentioned that he would re-write by hand papers 20 time arguing with himself. That is what reminded me of you.

I like the Radicals for Capitalism link because it explains the shades of grey. Since I tend see black and white, I do not see various shades and ideas regarding capitalism and socialism. I think now after talking with you I have a grasp of criminalism (I wonder if that is a word?) But I did not know there are left, right and center socialist ideas.

"If the ideas and the thinking on political economy I try to convey to you works in you as your ideas and thinking on scripture works in me, then persistence works in time. I do not see how it works now, but in time I begin to see, and it helps to have someone who already sees to review my sense of progress."

Yes, thank you for your patience on my behalf. My mind is more open now, hopefully my brains won't fall out...lol

...

Choices

"Until that time I keep my nose clean."

Whichever choices you make, I hope they are the best for you and yours. I trust that you will do no harm, even if you had the power to do so.

"I still don't understand why in the world they did that tot he Timor people."

They want to destroy things, that is what they do, and I do not, for the life of me, understand how that can be at all confusing.

__________________________________________________
Was the whole slaughter of East Timor to "stamp out Communism?"
__________________________________________________

The whole slaughter of East Timor was to stamp out.

Competition.

Call it any name you want, the idea is to destroy. It is not that difficult to understand.

If YOU place any legitimacy into it, by your own personal invention, as if saying to yourself, self, you say, self, it is legitimate to stamp out those people, so here, have some more of my earnings, and thanks, and good job, and all that, then, that is what you do, without anyone else helping you invent those reasons for stamping out those people.

I trust that you are not that way. So where does any sense of legitimacy, or reason, find it's way into your brain, if that is what your words mean. These words:

__________________________________________________
Was the whole slaughter of East Timor to "stamp out Communism?"
__________________________________________________

Destroy competition wherever, and whenever, competition competes against the monopoly. It is reasonable, and it is legitimate, if you gain at the expense of all that stamping out, so yes, here you are, I'm buying into it, here is my earnings, get moving, and start stamping.

"I think now after talking with you I have a grasp of criminalism (I wonder if that is a word?) But I did not know there are left, right and center socialist ideas."

2 new words (that I can remember) and two new definitions for your list of accomplishments.

Equitablist
Criminalism
Private
Public

It might be a good idea to create a Forum entry on Power Independence - bear dictionary or something.

Our memories are not good.

"But I did not know there are left, right and center socialist ideas."

To me that is all contained within the Criminalism box, the monopoly of crime made legal box, and outside of that box are all the genuine things that the targets do when the targets are not buying into the box, taking seats, and being subjected to criminals in criminalism. There are many, many, many, many, sides, expanding exponentially in complexity, because of the nature of crime, the nature whereby one lie turns into two, then four, then sixteen, then two hundred fifty six, and where the same nature works with violence begetting violence, etc.

Joe

Stamping out

“Whichever choices you make, I hope they are the best for you and yours. I trust that you will do no harm, even if you had the power to do so.”

Those are very kind and generous words, and I return them to you in the same spirit. Thank you.
----------------------------------
I trust that you are not that way. So where does any sense of legitimacy, or reason, find it's way into your brain, if that is what your words mean. These words:
__________________________________________________
Was the whole slaughter of East Timor to "stamp out Communism?"
__________________________________________________
Well, by putting quotes around “stamp out Communism” I was saying, is that the way “they” legitimized it. I am not legitimizing it. I am trying to understand.

“Destroy competition wherever, and whenever, competition competes against the monopoly. It is reasonable, and it is legitimate, if you gain at the expense of all that stamping out, so yes, here you are, I'm buying into it, here is my earnings, get moving, and start stamping.”

1) Something was said by Chomsky about the deep water lane by Timor that US subs could travel through, if I remember right. So, the way my brain connects dots…trying to find reasons for everything…were communists fairly elected to power in East Timor and then the US was afraid they would not be able to use the water way or something? Otherwise, I cannot see how a little group of native people who were in no way dependent on the rest of the world were any competition to anyone.

2) So a 2nd reason I can think of is the whole military industrial complex wereby not only is competition stamped out but war is done for fun and profit at the tax payers expense funding the military industrial complex, but I thought the idea there was to fund both sides and then shortcut one side.

3) Or a 3rd reason I can think of is perhaps Indonesia was worried that the government of East Timor would build up arms and invade them so they wanted to stamp out a threat “preimtively.”

4) Or thinking back to watching the Pilger Documentary, there was something to do with grouping land masses together under the Globalism effort and the island was given to Indonesia, but I cannot remember that storyline well.

So stamping out competition, yes, that may be a big heading, but exactly what kind of competition, and was it true competition, was it to absorb and manage resources, or was a perceived threat being removed?

Do you know? Am I bothering you?
-------------------------
“It might be a good idea to create a Forum entry on Power Independence - bear dictionary or something.
Our memories are not good.”

Your telling me :) Thank you for starting a dictionary page for me in your forum. I went there and saw it. I am wondering, perhaps the word criminalism could gain currency so then the words socialism and capitalism could actually have untainted meanings.

What form of government does xxx practice? Criminalism. And then perhaps we could start stamping out criminalism instead of competition.
-------------------------
"But I did not know there are left, right and center socialist ideas."
Joe: To me that is all contained within the Criminalism box, the monopoly of crime made legal box, and outside of that box are all the genuine things that the targets do when the targets are not buying into the box, taking seats, and being subjected to criminals in criminalism. There are many, many, many, many, sides, expanding exponentially in complexity, because of the nature of crime, the nature whereby one lie turns into two, then four, then sixteen, then two hundred fifty six, and where the same nature works with violence begetting violence, etc.

Well, when I was looking at the link, I saw this: http://www.nolanchart.com/article6225-radicals-for-capitalis...

“This is significant, as the traditional anarchist movement had used the term "libertarian" for itself for about a hundred years before anyone even suggested using the term for the movement that Doherty covers. Doherty hardly mentions the traditional anarchist movement, usually only when it has some direct connection to the Libertarian Right. The anarcho-syndicalist union IWW (Industrial Workers of the World), probably the largest American traditional libertarian group, is barely mentioned. Noam Chomsky, the most prominent libertarian socialist of the last forty years, is only mentioned twice, both times when the Libertarian Right was reaching out to the Left. Of all the traditional anarchist movement, only the individualist/mutualist wing of Josiah Warren, Benjamin Tucker, and Lysander Spooner (which falls toward the center of The Political Compass's Left/Right axis, while the much larger collectivist/communist/syndicalist wing falls on the Left and the anarcho-capitalists on the Right) is treated in any detail.”

So I wasn’t thinking about criminalism. I thought maybe if I read that book, I could understand the form of though regarding these ideas outside of criminalism.

I ran across a link to Bastiat: The Law: http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

I think I remember one time you said you read The Law. I glanced at the link and it looks interesting to me. If I remember right and you did read The Law. What did you think of it?

I hope I am not taking too much of your time. If I am, please say so and I will try to stick to the Public/Private Land game we are working on. But I want to go over to that Castro comment and ask a question or two as well on the link you gave me for the Cuban hospitals.

I have not been editing my comments, I hope they are not too poor quality. But it does save a little time at my end.

...

Persistence

"Well, by putting quotes around “stamp out Communism” I was saying, is that the way “they” legitimized it. I am not legitimizing it. I am trying to understand."

My question was meant to be persistent, I am becoming more confident in the concept of you not "seeing red" and I did notice the quotation marks, but the effort to persistent goes forward in time to help identify this type of moving toward legitimizing in anyone, not just you or I.

I asked a question where I was nearly sure of your answer being the answer you just published:

"Well, by putting quotes around “stamp out Communism” I was saying, is that the way “they” legitimized it. I am not legitimizing it. I am trying to understand."

Loud and clear on my end, and thanks.

"So stamping out competition, yes, that may be a big heading, but exactly what kind of competition, and was it true competition, was it to absorb and manage resources, or was a perceived threat being removed?"

You are not bothering me. The work you are doing (and showing your work) may bear fruit for you and for me, as I know I've missed a whole lot, and I know that I need help in knowing better.

But the end result as to where this path goes in finding out which competition must be crushed so as to perpetuation which POWER is the Legal Money Monopoly Power.

One small group of people can write themselves a check/work order/law/demand for payment/fraud and extortion document/legal POWER TO PURCHASE which is an amount of POWER equal to the amount of POWER that everyone else has combined.

If that is not understood, then these wars won't be understood, and in my opinion your efforts to explain why this, or why that, is done, will miss the mark.

The Legal Money Monopoly Power exists, the proof is in their own official documents, as well as numerous confessions such as the Tragedy and Hope book, and actual events recorded accurately by those who take the time and effort to record those events accurately.

The only way that the Legal Money Monopoly Power can exist is if competition does not exist.

How does that not make sense?

The fact that money quality goes down, and money cost goes up, proves the case, and if your money quality is going up, and your money cost goes down, then you are one of the monopolists, in that club, by that measure.

Is your money the dollar?

Is your money quality going up?

Is your money cost going down?

If you are a money competitor then show me that money.

If your money is offered in a Free Market then your money has to be better than the competition, and your money has to be less costly than the competition, or your money is not traded for anything since someone else produces better money and your money is left on the shelf.

What explains the current "Currency Wars"?

The Monopolists are buying War materials and they are on the schedule to depopulate the number of victims because the victims are beginning to know better.

POWER

POWER

POWER

How is power measured?

What is money?

If it is not powerful enough to purchase, it isn't money.

The "for public consumption reasons" for this local battle between this criminal group and that criminal group, each having their own badges, is paid for with a transfer of POWER from those who have it to those who will do something for money.

Millions of people trained to do something, anything, for money.

Hey you.

What?

Go stomp on those people over there, and do that now.

Yes sir.

Why?

A few people have the Legal Power to write a check for as much money as everyone else combined.

What do they buy?

They buy wars.

The only way they can stay in power is if they destroy any competitor anywhere, and if they fail, they are not in power anymore.

Where are these few people?

Follow the money, there they are, and if they are just following orders, for money, too, then who writes their checks?

"What form of government does xxx practice? Criminalism. And then perhaps we could start stamping out criminalism instead of competition."

That happens. People start learning how to communicate accurately with each other, and the slaves move to the edge of being powerful enough to stop being slaves, peacefully, easily, by simply stopping the flow of power that they earn as that power flows to those few who own everything.

That is why they have to destroy everything with minor exceptions. They do not destroy their own power.

They except themselves from the list of things to stomp.

After each War, follow the money, who gained power?

How is that power measured?

Follow the gold?

Not some poor sap who turns in some nebulous retirement account into a box of gold to bury in the yard.

Tons of gold.

Where does it go?

What is the mystery?

Sure, when we invent ways to communicate accurately, again, We The People (those targeted for exploitation because the targets produce something worth stealing) stop being victims.

Republicans?

Democrats?

Federalists?

How can anyone know who is friend and who is foe?

Are you providing the means by which we suffer?

Are you in any position to blame anyone else for what is happening?

How about Ben Bernanke?

Can you write a check, and get away with it, for as much money as everyone else combined?

If you could, what would you buy, would you buy a way to stop being a victim, would you buy a way to stop your having to provide the means by which we suffer?

Would you buy World War III?

How much POWER is as much POWER as everyone else combined?

Is that something, that POWER, powerful enough to explain the often resort to stomp the life out of any potential competition?

"Of all the traditional anarchist movement, only the individualist/mutualist wing of Josiah Warren, Benjamin Tucker, and Lysander Spooner (which falls toward the center of The Political Compass's Left/Right axis, while the much larger collectivist/communist/syndicalist wing falls on the Left and the anarcho-capitalists on the Right) is treated in any detail."

I'm going to bookmark that page, it is very rare, nearly non-existent, for anyone to treat "in any detail" Equitable Commerce, or Spooner's A New System of Paper Currency.

Murray Rothbard, for example, sidestepped Josiah Warren's work, and his hit piece on Spooner's work was to ignore it, and to make up lies about it.

"I think I remember one time you said you read The Law. I glanced at the link and it looks interesting to me. If I remember right and you did read The Law. What did you think of it?"

I think The Law is dictatorial, a criminalism light, as if to say a person can screw (toned down version) their way back to virginity.

It is a book worth reading but not on the same level, to me, as Spooner's much smaller work on The Science of Justice, or the Golden Rule.

The Law can't hold a candle to Equitable Commerce in my opinion.

Please feel free to wander off any topic as far as you want, so far your inventive paths are mutually beneficial. Castro is an interesting anomaly, as is Hugo Chavez.

Joe

OK

"Can you write a check, and get away with it, for as much money as everyone else combined?

If you could, what would you buy, would you buy a way to stop being a victim, would you buy a way to stop your having to provide the means by which we suffer?"

That is an interesting thought. I would like to alleviate people's suffering if I could write a check for as much money as everyone else combined. And just let people live peacefully and happily in whatever way seems best to them. And if everyone would just follow the Golden Rule, then writing that check would not even be necessary.
---------------------
"What explains the current "Currency Wars"?"

That makes me wonder if a Global currency is created will it be done when the dollar hegemony is on top to cement the win in stone so that no other currencies can gain currency.
---------------------
"It is a book worth reading but not on the same level, to me, as Spooner's much smaller work on The Science of Justice, or the Golden Rule."

The thing I liked about that The Law link is that it is a modern translation so it is easy reading.

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G002

"This translation of The Law was done by Dean Russell of The Foundation staff. His objective was an accurate rendering of Mr. Bastiat's words and ideas into twentieth century, idiomatic English. "

You know, I jumped into this Liberty thing without knowing much about anything except that "we" are in trouble so I don't have all the intellectual background that so many people here on the DP have. I had never even heard the words Political Economy until you said them.

...

What is ideal money?

"That is an interesting thought. I would like to alleviate people's suffering if I could write a check for as much money as everyone else combined. And just let people live peacefully and happily in whatever way seems best to them. And if everyone would just follow the Golden Rule, then writing that check would not even be necessary."

I hope, beyond hope perhaps, that I can get you to see a valid perspective on this and I can be no part in it. Set me aside, set any messenger aside, see only you, and see everyone else other than you as everyone else other than you, and I ask that of you, so as to leave me out, and I ask that of you, so as to focus attention on the viewpoint, not me, the viewpoint is valid or it is not, and I have nothing to do with the validity of the viewpoint.

I can't make the viewpoint better because I see it, and I can't make the viewpoint worse because I see it, because the viewpoint, if you can see it, is not me, it is what it is, on its own, if you see it too.

The valid questions was asked as to what would you do if you could write a check for as much money as everyone else combined, so as to better understand how much POWER is concentrated, collectivized, focused, accumulated, controlled, in the hands of, a few people, like Ben Bernanke, ObamaNation, and any other person on that side of things.

You are not on that side of things. They are on that side of things. You can't write a check for as much money as everyone else combined and buy things with that much POWER. They can.

That is demonstrably factual.

That is recent history, me asking you to consider the check writing POWER, if you had it.

Now, please, know this, or try this viewpoint on for size, which is another question, and then some background on why I am asking the question and why the question is valid, important, vital, meaningful, and leading to knowing better.

What is ideal money?

See if you can find anyone who can answer that question, and before you do, before you ever get any closer to an accurate answer than you are right now, consider your recent history on the last question concerning the POWER to write a check for as much money as everyone else combined.

If you had that much power, and you could write a check for as much money as everyone else combined, you would not do it, because you would realize very quickly, in actual practice, that what you were doing was wrong, dead wrong, very wrong, evil, and very destructive, or, and this is why it is important, or, you would not realize it, and you would go ahead and write the check, and they you would go ahead and spend the money that was as much money as everyone else combined.

How do the two questions interrelate?

1.
If you had the power to spend as much money as everyone else combined what would you purchase with all that POWER?
2.
What is ideal money?

The easy to see perspective has to do with the fact that the POWER in question is fraudulent. You would not resort to that power, knowing better, you would not injure so many innocent people willfully, even if you thought you could help some people, at the expense of other people.

Does that make sense, and have you ever asked the question concerning ideal money?

I don't want to get far off the Public/Private work that interests me at the moment, because I need help on that subject, and you provide that help, but here is proof that your wild, seemingly random, seemingly directionless, wanderings off the focus of attention is very instructive trail blazing being done by you, with some help from me. Lewis and Clark blazing trails in political economy?

If you have the power to write yourself a check, and spend it (on World Wars or anything), that constitutes a fraudulent power, since you take the POWER away from everyone else using that money, once you spend your counterfeit check (not counterfeit according to your group because you made your counterfeiting operation legal), everyone else has their Power to Purchase reduced by half.

Now, before I leave you half in the dark, PLEASE understand the fine print here, which involves the concept of productive investment. If you were a benevolent dictator, not just buying World Wars so that you can keep your Fraud going, all nice and legal, if instead you spent that stolen loot on something productive, then it is TRUE, demonstrably factual, that you could spend that money on creating more power out of less power, which would then raise the purchasing power of all your victims back up to full power, or more, if, and that is the huge if, if you were a benevolent dictator (Legal Criminal).

So, the two questions are windows into a room full of knowing better, if you have eyes to see, and again, it has nothing to do with me, the things I see can be seen by anyone, so I don't need to be involved at all, and PLEASE understand that the reason I am involved falls into The Pursuit of Happiness category, since you are worth every ounce, or every calorie, or every measure of expense, in trading with the enemy, or discussions with fellow friends of liberty, whichever the case may be, and the fun of it is fun, even if it turns out that you are not as you say you are, which is possible, but as far as my power to know better goes, you are truly generous, demonstrably kind, and fun to go exploring into the abyss of falsehood with, into the valley of the shadow of death with company, because I need help, and you help.

My sentences can run on for too long.

"That makes me wonder if a Global currency is created will it be done when the dollar hegemony is on top to cement the win in stone so that no other currencies can gain currency."

That sentence measures my opportunity to repeat something I try to repeat to anyone who will listen. The Dollar Hegemony is (not if) a Global currency POWER, and it replaced the former Global currency POWER under a different name, and it will continue under a new name after World War III. Your sentence appears to suggest to me that you miss the point.

The point is to access to tools required to subject the producers of wealth into an involuntary association whereby power flow from the producers of wealth to those who steal it. The producers of wealth are the great majority of people, those who steal it are the few who are sociopaths, psychopaths, liars, thieves, pedophiles, rapists, torturers, and mass murderers.

The criminals, with criminalism, have taken over, and their principle tool is Legal Money Monopoly Power and they use that tool to divide and conquer the targets (those who produce something worth stealing are the targets).

If all the targets knew that the Single Money Monopoly Power existed, they would no longer be divided, they would all band together to fight the single enemy.

Your sentence again:

"That makes me wonder if a Global currency is created will it be done when the dollar hegemony is on top to cement the win in stone so that no other currencies can gain currency."

No, that is wrong, demonstrably wrong, the New World Order has existed for centuries, it is already working, use your new word, the most fearful enemy of human success already plagues mankind, this criminalism stuff, is already in POWER, and it has been in POWER for centuries. Anyone wanting to know better does not have to go back in History for more that 2 centuries to realize the fact, but further back in History repeats the same facts, so go ahead and go even further back, but 2 centuries is sufficient to find, and accurately measure, the criminalism POWER at work, in the form of a Legal Fraud and Extortion Money Monopoly Power.

Before The Dollar Hegemony there was the English Central Bank, or The Bank of England, whichever multitude of words, labels, Legal Fictions, covered up the Central Bank in operation at that time.

Remember, please, the POWER in question, is that POWER to write yourself a check for as much money (Legal Power to Purchase) as everyone else combined, and they you can buy something with that POWER.

Does it exist?

Yes, in their own documents, their own Web Pages, they shamelessly report that power to "Double the money supply" at will. They doubled the money supply in 2008 and doubled it again since, if their own reports can be trusted, and what are they buying? They are buying drones, ammo, concentration camps, military bases, jet fighters, aircraft carriers, boots, mercenaries, the best liars that money can buy, fellow frauds, fellow extortionists, fellow pedophiles, fellow sociopaths, fellow psychopaths, fellow torturers, fellow serial killers, fellow mass murderers, and all of that is very expensive, so where do all those pay checks, and purchase orders, "made good", made legal, come from?

Your sentence again:

"That makes me wonder if a Global currency is created will it be done when the dollar hegemony is on top to cement the win in stone so that no other currencies can gain currency."

You miss the point. Monopoly is Global, it has been Global for centuries, demonstrably so, in fact.

The Wars are orchestrated, by definition, by actual, demonstrably, fact, they are orchestrated, paid for in advance, the money does not simply fall from trees, the money falling into the wrong hands by accident, and then suddenly, randomly, like nature, a War "just happens".

All that searching for tactical reasons for this officer to fight this battle, tactically, misses the point. The tool used is a Legal Money Monopoly Power, that tool moves Power from those who create Power to those who steal it, and they the tool used to keep that power, a very expensive hobby, is dividing and conquering the targets, because failure to divide and conquer the targets will allow the targets to grow to a level of power in which they won't be targets anymore.

Your sentence again:

"That makes me wonder if a Global currency is created will it be done when the dollar hegemony is on top to cement the win in stone so that no other currencies can gain currency."

Criminals using criminalism are one step ahead of what?

"You know, I jumped into this Liberty thing without knowing much about anything except that "we" are in trouble so I don't have all the intellectual background that so many people here on the DP have. I had never even heard the words Political Economy until you said them."

If I have been the slightest help in your goal of knowing better, then in that way I repay you for your help: equitably.

Joe

"What is ideal money?"

One that has unfettered monetary competition under which all are chained to the Golden Rule
--------------
"I don't want to get far off the Public/Private work that interests me at the moment, because I need help on that subject,"

Am I supposed to be doing something on that right now, or are you preparing the ball for return?
--------------
"even if it turns out that you are not as you say you are,"

I certainly am not perfect. I am just a regular person. It is funny, today I was wondering if you were trying to entrap me because you said the words “trading with the enemy.” Like you might be baiting me down some road that I don’t even know I am going down…like some kind of sting and I am going to get in big trouble for being the publisher of “Joe Quotes.” Especially after you handed me that Castro blog about some one’s eyes being gouged out…thinking some day that I will have to answer the hard way for talking to you.

I am sorry the Russian guy did not write back. It makes me feel a twinge of sadness for you because I think you were enjoying the opportunity to engage with him since his ideas come from a different mindset. I am glad you are talking with you brother. Josf, you are hard to understand. I think it is your genius at work. You understand what you are talking about inside out and can see everything at once since you have circled it so many times. Some people, like me, are at a different level and have to work to understand. I can understand a lot of what you say now. Maybe I have changed, maybe you write different. I don’t know. I just know I appreciate your help. I have learned a tremendous amount of information and have resources to go back and someone to bounce ideas off of.

Like this one: Granger seems to think the US Government should make a treaty with the Nation of Islam. I cannot for the life of me figure out where she is coming from. And when I read her comment it sounds like she is saying one thing and then goes and says the complete opposite. http://www.dailypaul.com/275610/louis-farrakhan-the-liberty-...
--------------
“You miss the point. Monopoly is Global, it has been Global for centuries, demonstrably so, in fact.”

When I say one world currency I am not seeing the big historic picture like you. I am thinking of everyone everywhere using the same kind of money. A Global Currency with no exchange into other types of yen or euros or pesos or dollars whatever.
--------------
“Yes, in their own documents, their own Web Pages, they shamelessly report that power to "Double the money supply" at will. They doubled the money supply in 2008 and doubled it again since, if their own reports can be trusted, and what are they buying”

This guy in this video is telling Bernanke about the fact that the people’s money is being diluted
http://www.dailypaul.com/276245/rep-pearce-to-bernanke-they-...

Bachmann had the nerve to ask if we could get our money loans from someone besides the fed:
http://www.dailypaul.com/276306/michele-bachmann-drills-bern...

I was going to attach those links to your Liberty Day Challenge as I thought they would be interesting to you, but I have included them here since we are talking about printing money.
----------------------------------
“All that searching for tactical reasons for this officer to fight this battle, tactically, misses the point. The tool used is a Legal Money Monopoly Power, that tool moves Power from those who create Power to those who steal it, and they the tool used to keep that power, a very expensive hobby, is dividing and conquering the targets, because failure to divide and conquer the targets will allow the targets to grow to a level of power in which they won't be targets anymore.”

Seems to me they need to get a life and quit ruining everyone elses.

Thank you for your help.

...

Things shared

I posted your rare answer to the ideal money question in the bear dictionary.

"Especially after you handed me that Castro blog about some one’s eyes being gouged out…thinking some day that I will have to answer the hard way for talking to you."

Here is where scripture helps me, since the concept of one person having their eyes gouged out is as much a crime as any other: presumably to God. Humans doing bad things are what they are, and so it might be a good idea to avoid those things instead of working all day so as to pay people to do those things better.

What I mean to say, feebly, in too many words, and failing to accurately share an understanding, is that an attack upon one person, anywhere, anytime, is an attack on one person, and I'm not so special, so why them and not me, and one person attacked is one too many, no matter where it is, no matter who it is, so again, like my broken record, why keep sending every earning earned to people who make a living out of attacking people for fun an profit?

"I have learned a tremendous amount of information and have resources to go back and someone to bounce ideas off of."

Current event answer to that:

Wouldn't it be nice is the people closest to us teach us tremendous amounts of information and have resources to go back and bounce ideas of of?

What is close?

I say that is a current answer because my daughter and I spent a lot of time talking out in the cold, in the car, last night, concerning current events, and from her viewpoint, as far as I could tell, this is the first time I ever spoke with her about current events. I told here I loved her, for example, and her response was that I don't tell her that often. I say that my way of telling her that I love her is doing every favor she asks, almost without limit. She is having doubts about her future, doubts about herself, doubts about her "boyfriend", doubts about her driving. I was critical of her driving, according to her, as she drove, with a "divers permit", and I tried desperately to communicate accurate information in such a way as to convey that information without error or misunderstanding.

She was alternating from crying, aggressive, passive, personal attacks, and shear determination to prove me wrong, as if, perhaps, to get back at me for something.

What can I say? Focus attention upon being independent, because that is the way it is in fact, and other things are other things, relative to that condition of life. My wife then spent time in the car with the daughter, as I was allowed to go to bed, and I have yet to know if the new version of our specific genetic soup managed to find a more competitive perspective, since both mother and daughter are now asleep and I am up again woken by the battle that never seems to stop between angles and devils - in my head.

"And when I read her comment it sounds like she is saying one thing and then goes and says the complete opposite."

I read that last night, before the driving and discussing experience with my daughter, and going from memory I think one thing sums up that person. If that person confuses accountability of people with accountability of things then that person is going to be internally messed up in ways that can be obvious to a disinterested observer. That person may often contradict herself in one sentence, whereby the sentence invented by, produced by, and published by that person stands alone as a self contained example of a contradiction. I've seen it before, and if you look for one sentence, having self contained contradiction, then you remove yourself from the argument, and the argument is contained in that one sentence. If I can see it too, once you find one, then there is an opportunity to ask the person who produced the contradiction if they see it too. If they don't, then the sentence is still there, even if no one wants to see it for what it is in fact.

Things being blamed for the actions of people is not my imagination working overtime, it is a real phenomenon, and it is very destructive for many discoverable reasons.

"When I say one world currency I am not seeing the big historic picture like you. I am thinking of everyone everywhere using the same kind of money. A Global Currency with no exchange into other types of yen or euros or pesos or dollars whatever."

I asked you for, and you provided, a working definition of ideal money. Your quoted words above, your invention above, is a definition of the opposite of ideal money, and that can be summed up with a term called World Reserve Currency.

What is, I'm asking, World Reserve Currency, and when you find an answer to the question, we can compare notes.

From the Bernanke link: "we are being punished for living our lives correctly"

That exposes the lie, Noble Lie, whatever words convey accurate meaning. People are led to slaughter by the promise of a free lunch, by using the ONE MONEY they are "guaranteed" a "nest egg" in the future for "living our lives correctly", and now that it is not panning out, like me sitting with the judge asking if "Social Security" is an insurance policy or a big lie, and having the official answer "don't call us we will call you".

They says it was not an insurance policy, they confirmed my suspicions, it is a crime in progress.

Social Security is a false front covering up a crime in progress.

So what can be expected?

I read a quote from another Ben, not the Bernanke lair, but the Franklin "founder" whereby he says that if you make yourself into sheep the wolves will eat you.

The concept of that "hearing" being something legitimate is false, and it is known to be false if you, or I, or any of the self made sheep care to look, going back to The Dirty Compromise in 1787, when the wolves divided up the sheep.

The POWER to collect National Debt, a false front for a crime in progress, was taken, by fraud, and by threats of violence, and by violence, all nice and legal, in 1787, and the sheep are led to think that they can complain for some strange reason.

"I was going to attach those links to your Liberty Day Challenge as I thought they would be interesting to you, but I have included them here since we are talking about printing money."

"Hearings" are side shows, because they are not Jury Trials, but having that information made public (for use without prejudice) is an obvious step in the right direction, if the sheep care to be something other than sheep.

"Seems to me they need to get a life and quit ruining everyone elses."

They have a life of crime made legal, so what is their incentive for shopping for a less profitable life?

1.
End the FED
2
End the IRS
3.
Bring the Troops Home
4.
Do so by July 4th 2013 or sooner, but not too late.

Joe

Wqrds

"...so why them and not me...

Of course the concern to me is not only my own skin, but the eyes of the innocent that depend on me.

“What is close?”

I think you described it with the interaction between you and your wife and your daughter. Close is what you all did.

“She was alternating from crying, aggressive, passive, personal attacks, and shear determination to prove me wrong, as if, perhaps, to get back at me for something. “

I remember having so much anger built up toward my father and expressing it shortly after being married. I expressed those things on a couple of different occasions and the last time his reply was something to the effect, “I am sorry, I had no idea I did that.” Those were not the exact words, but they were very meaningful and very freeing. They were very sincere words and very unusual for my father. It didn’t fix the past, as in the past cannot be changed, but it made the future better. I still appreciate that moment in time that melted so many angry feelings I was holding.

“What can I say? Focus attention upon being independent, because that is the way it is in fact, and other things are other things, relative to that condition of life.”

I wonder if there are additional issues with being kept as children too long as explained by Gatto. I wonder if maybe it is actually easier to be independent when one is young and fearless…before the reality of adulthood settles in.

“our specific genetic soup”

That is a neat concept. I made me look at my children differently this morning. A soup of me and my husband! That is closeness too. Closeness: 2 parents spending time with one another as well as with their genetic soup. I think closeness can be in proximity as well as vulnerability where one is not threatened by either location or exposure.

“…battle that never seems to stop between angles and devils - in my head.”

The Amish sing cheery tunes while they are working. I wonder if that keeps the negative self talk away and reinforces happy thoughts. I don’t know. I wasn’t raised that way. I continually talk to myself…a lot of it negative.

There are 2 Bible verses I think of in that light:

• Isaiah 26:3 KJV
Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee.

• Ephesians 5:19 KJV
Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;

Oh, and 1 more:

• 1 Thessalonians 5:17 KJV
Pray without ceasing.

It seems to me if one were disciplined to practice:

1) Keeping one’s mind upon the Lord
2) Making melody in one’s heart to the Lord
3) Continually talking with the Lord

It would be a great benefit so as to keep the devils at bay. If the mind is focused on the Lord, there is no room to focus otherwise.

"And when I read her comment it sounds like she is saying one thing and then goes and says the complete opposite."

Thank you for your advice regarding contradictory sentences and blaming things for the actions of people.. It is much appreciated. I think I expended a lot of effort in trying to prove points regarding Farrakhan by throwing information into the ring that I did not engage in the underlying issues that may have thwarted the ability to communicate. It is unlike me, but I feel worn down and no longer want to engage the person. I wanted to ask you earlier, but didn't want to drag you into my issues.
-----------------
“What is, I'm asking, World Reserve Currency, and when you find an answer to the question, we can compare notes.”

OK, I am editing to add this...you may want to read my complete response about World Reserve Currency because I did some thinking out loud and maybe by the time I got to the end I found the answer. Then again, maybe not.

I am a little embarrassed, but I don’t know what World Rerve Currency is. I really don’t know what the International Monetary Fund is. They are vague financial concepts/institutions to me.

World = would include all
Reserve = back-up
Currency = Medium of Exchange

I think the part I don’t understand is the word “back up” Why does the world need a back up supply of money? So I do a search and find this link: http://www.prisonplanet.com/russia-new-world-reserve-currenc...

“Russia: New World Reserve Currency a Decade Away…:
“Russia has said the bond purchase would be in line with obligations it took upon itself at the G20 summit in April where it stressed it wants more power within the financial institution.”

Honestly it is Greek to me. All I can imagine is that governments are buying bonds so that they can have a share in making money on the providing for the use of money.

“The issue of IMF reform should therefore be raised “in earnest, in a bold way,” Kudrin said, adding countries should be “represented in proportion to the strength of these economies and their role in the world economy.”

I found that tidbid of information in the article as well. It seems that IMF reformation is wanted so that all countries have a vested interest & profits based upon their economies.

So world governments borrow money from each other and make money off of each other and it is funded by a pool of money?

The US Dollar is the World Reserve Currency, right? Does that mean that the US is the loan guarantee. Maybe not the US but the Federal Reserve? Those are my thoughts out loud. I guess you toss out a lot of terms that I really don’t have an in depth understanding of and I find it a little embarrassing to take note of that now.

And now I am wondering...maybe this monetary reform where all countries have a vested interest is a heist in disguise? Who is collecting all of that “bond” money? And what form of currency is being collected?

“They have a life of crime made legal, so what is their incentive for shopping for a less profitable life?
1. End the FED
2. End the IRS
3. Bring the Troops Home
4. Do so by July 4th 2013 or sooner, but not too late.”

Joe, even if we quit sending them our earnings, won’t they just print their own money like they are already doing?

...

Working on fundamentals.

"Joe, even if we quit sending them our earnings, won’t they just print their own money like they are already doing?"

Stretching before a serious work out can be an illustration of how it helps to define the meanings of words before engaging in the mental gymnastics required to discover the underlying deceptions invented by those who intend to deceive and those who merely parrot deceptions.

Many people can't even read that last sentence, in English, and even begin to understand the meaning intended, let alone make up a meaning in their own mind, since they have other interests focused upon willfully, or unwillingly, as if by some other power external to their own: washed brains.

Remember our work in applying Equitable Commerce to your own efforts to live better as you might resort to printing Tomato Jar Money, then with these coupons you trade other people for things you need, and they get a piece of paper that is worth a jar of tomatoes, or a piece of paper that is worthless if your word is as good as Ben Bernanke's.

Your money, if you dare to compete in the money making business, is as good as your word, not better, no worse, and if your word turns out to be worthless, then your money is as worthless. If your tomatoes are rotten, your money is worthless, in time, as the currency you produce fails to gain currency.

If your word is good, and if your tomatoes are good, then word gets around that your coupons, your money, is worth more than gold to those people who prefer easy money instead of costly money such as gold, since gold is no where to be found, and since you are printing as much money as you can to keep up with the demand for tomatoes in jars.

There you have an exercise in making money the Equitable Commerce way, the ideal money way, the golden rule way, so you can see, by that exercise the force that makes money powerful - in that case.

What if Ben Bernanke resorts to lies, and so does Hugo Chavez, Castro, Putin in Russia, The Communists in China, etc.?

Which lies?

The lie that says hey, you guys, yes you, you tomato jar producers producing jars full of tasty tomatoes, and all you other people producing things of value, yes all you guys, how about a deal, and don't even question the deal, just obey it, and the deal is that our little group of a few people here, we, not you, get that straight, you are there, we are here, and you producing things, and we don't, and we, not you, are going to borrow from you and yours, got that?

That isn't the lie part.

Those few dealers, who call themselves Central Bankers, are going to borrow from all those productive people, and that is the true part, as those few Central Bankers do borrow from The Good Faith and Credit of the American people, or the Russian people, or the Chinese people, or the German people, or the Cambodian people, and not just any people, but the productive people who produce anything worth borrowing, and that is the true part.

The few non-producers (they produce lies) borrow from the many producers.

Then, as the deal goes, those few charge the many interest on the National Debt.

I skipped a lot of lies, and I went right to the central lie in central banking, as you can probably see by now, where most people will simply stare at me, and shake their head, and wonder why they ever wasted a breath on me at all.

They borrow and then they charge interest to the lenders on the money they borrowed from the lenders, so that the lenders are then paying interest in the money the loaned to the few people who are collecting interest.

Now there is a case of mental gymnastics.

If that is not true, then stop loaning those "tax liabilities" to those people and then you won't have to pay anymore interest on the National Debt that they create with the money they borrow from you, and see if I am not right in exposing the lie.

If that is not true, then what part of that is not true, and who are you going to ask if it is not true?

1.
The person in the mirror
2.
Ben Bernanke
3.
Someone other than me who has a more accurate understanding of the facts

I want to know too.

Why would "we", the lenders of last resort (World Reserve Currency Power) be loaning money to China if by all accounts any cares to look for, China will be the major antagonist to "US" during World War III that has already started?

"We" are loaning our surplus wealth (a term that is censored from common usage for some reason = surplus wealth) to people who then loan what they borrow from us to the people who will win World War III and if I'm wrong, then I am fine with being wrong, I'm wrong often, but leave me out of the whole false perspective and just look at the facts yourself, leave me out, personally, and see the facts as they exist.

We are the sheep in America.

We are the sheep in China.

They are the central bankers in America and China.

If that is not patently absurd, to any thinking being, but true, absurd but true, if that is not absurd but true, then call me a sheep, or just call me stupid, and I'll be fine with that, since it is not true, and since it is not patently absurd for this to repeat again.

This:

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."

How much is the measure of how patently absurd it is to work as hard as you can to make your life as miserable as it can possibly be since all your earnings (surplus wealth) flow to a few people who then use the stolen loot to buy world wars?

All those central bankers are in the game, reading from that script, arming up, spending their borrowed money like it was worthless paper, like it was falling off a money tree, buying everything needed for hell on earth act III.

Act I and Act II weren't good enough?

Joe

Fundamentals are Important

“Your money, if you dare to compete in the money making business, is as good as your word, not better, no worse, “

So, when the Amish appear at my door asking for transportation…wanting to buy it, but me not selling, because truly, if I were doing it for money, I don’t think I would enjoy it near as much…but that being said, I could hand them some kind of ride voucher that when I pick them up, they return it to me with the number of hours they will pledge to me in effort?

Personally, I am not comfortable at all in naming my wage. That is half the trouble. The other half is that I like to do for others, not to be paid by others. But I would not mind if they did something for me that I did not have to purchase with FRN’s. And really, if I truly tried to compute the cost of my time and cost of my vehicle it would probably be outrageous. And then the other concern is perhaps the steady stream of Amish that may appear at my door all of which I could not help even for exchange of time.

This discussion in money (really the first time I have understood how I was supposed to use tomatoes in jars:

“Remember our work in applying Equitable Commerce to your own efforts to live better as you might resort to printing Tomato Jar Money, then with these coupons you trade other people for things you need, and they get a piece of paper that is worth a jar of tomatoes, or a piece of paper that is worthless if your word is as good as Ben Bernanke's.”

This discussion reminds me of your book title Political Economy for Children…except that book was not for children. It also reminds me of MN’s words: http://www.dailypaul.com/276429/bradley-manning-americans-ha... :

“The idea that somehow I'm doing this, at least enabling it with my taxes is disturbing. Worse yet is that I'm doing nothing towards stopping it. What can one do, aside from throw one's body on the gears of the machine? “

One can join the Liberty Day Challenge. I wonder if people could figure out how to trade coupons on the DP…or perhaps in their own communities?

“Why would "we", the lenders of last resort (World Reserve Currency Power) be loaning money to China if by all accounts any cares to look for, China will be the major antagonist to "US" during World War III that has already started?”

Reminds me of reading these words this week http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2975480 :

“Submitted by Mark Twain on Wed, 02/27/2013 - 16:31. Permalink

Certainly reason to know the about any casino where you place your bet. Whom are you betting for & against? Know with some degree of familiarity. Many will take bets. The Swiss excel in holding both sides of all international money bets. Escrow you might imagine. Then after the ponies run, the Swiss settle bets.

I prefer to stay away from the tables. Piloting is my way.”
----------------------------
Josf, I am floored by the simplistic profoundness of the way you have made mental gymnastics easy in your comment returned to me.

It is funny. It is as if so much of what you have said to me all these months has gone over my head without me even knowing it. Or perhaps I was too busy learning other things from you that some of the things I didn’t quite understand I let go.

I am wondering if perhaps an answer to MN’s quandary of paying for our own demise answered in simplistic explanation of how to create one’s own currency might help some of us who have never thought along those lines.

The Liberty Day Challenge is a Challenge, but maybe some of us need step by step help.

1) What do you have that someone else wants
2) Make a coupon (A model of a coupon like Warren made might be helpful)
3) Use it as a means of exchange

I guess what I am saying is that even though I read Equitable Commerce earlier and even though I have signed on in spirit to the Liberty Day Challenge, it was not until I came to understand that the Amish are not liking my free services, that perhaps I can create my own trade currency with them. Perhaps it would catch on. I don’t know.

I still haven’t said what I am trying to say. Some of us people need simple instructions for the stupid because we don’t even know how little we don’t know.

Maybe a step by step in how to create your own currency would be a topic that would gain currency? Maybe some of us need a leader to complete the challenge?

...

Vital work

"So, when the Amish appear at my door asking for transportation…wanting to buy it, but me not selling, because truly, if I were doing it for money, I don’t think I would enjoy it near as much…but that being said, I could hand them some kind of ride voucher that when I pick them up, they return it to me with the number of hours they will pledge to me in effort?"

To me, not knowing the situation, it would be the Amish that sell you money for you to then spend on the privilege of giving them a ride here and there, since you are gaining something otherwise you would not make yourself available.

You have to work it out, I'm not there, I don't know the specifics, and we are not speaking about charity as a commodity or service for trade when we are speaking about money, or we can if we want, but why confuse charity with trading commodities, or services?

It has been said that human beings have, can, and will coexist without money, and I agree, but meanwhile there are people who do need specific information inspiring them to produce specific things demanded by other people, so money, competitive money, ideal money, offers that information for reaching toward that goal.

Hey.

What?

I want to earn a living.

Really?

Where do I start?

What do people want?

I think they want Tomatoes in Jars.

I have an idea.

What is it?

Print Tomato Jar Money and see if anyone will buy it?

"Personally, I am not comfortable at all in naming my wage. That is half the trouble."

OK, I have to raise my hand in the classroom, waving it around vigorously, pick me, pick me, teacher, pick me, I'm raising my hand.

Note: I used to do that in class, and the teacher left me waving until exhaustion, not wanting my viewpoints disturbing the class - I suppose.

I got the message.

On naming your wage, I see a problem, since I never did that either, and I spent my life in wage labor. There is no point to it, the price is dictated by a scarcity of legal monopoly money flowing only to those special subsidies where the labor force can be perpetually abundant relative to the demand for labor. Were anyone afforded access to money (see Equitable Commerce) there would be an opposite situation whereby the demand for labor was abundant and the supply of labor scarce, and in that situation then you would have the power to name your price.

"Personally, I am not comfortable at all in naming my wage. That is half the trouble."

No such power exists when labor is scarce relative to the demand for it, so why bother doing something meaningless?

There are cases, I'm sure, where someone somewhere is very specialized at a specific job and that one individual is demanded by the employer and therefore the one individual has "leverage" in this regard; otherwise there are thousands of replacements in the labor bin whenever one laborer dares to compete in price fixing.

Labor Unions come in two forms too: genuine and counterfeit.

"And then the other concern is perhaps the steady stream of Amish that may appear at my door all of which I could not help even for exchange of time."

When generosity is the regulating principle, the mode of conduct, things work out, and that is not the subject matter with Equitable Commerce.

Equitable Commerce is not counterfeit, it is equitable, and it is not generosity. What is half way between theft and gift?

“The idea that somehow I'm doing this, at least enabling it with my taxes is disturbing. Worse yet is that I'm doing nothing towards stopping it. What can one do, aside from throw one's body on the gears of the machine?“

Here is the battle between socialism and legal crime exactly.

One person can't defend everyone. People have to collectivize all their defensive power at once, or people will be picked off like baby sheep, sick sheep, and old sheep on the edges of the herd, but it is much worse than that since we are human, not sheep.

The best and brightest are being taken first by those of us who wear those sheep suits covered with wolves costumes covered with another sheep suit, covering a lion costume, covering a cheap suit, covered with a robe, covered with a very good suit from a very expensive suit maker, covered with blood, covered with mirrors, covered with smoke, covered with lies that grow exponentially larger in size and absurdity.

We can agree to defend ourselves, and you can call that collectivism, or you can call it an agreement to defend ourselves, and whichever does happen, either way, defies the words used to get from here to there.

Human sheep are slaughtered until none are left.

Humans, more than one at a time, throw our bodies into the gears of the machine, effectively.

1.
End The FED
2.
End the IRS
3.
Bring the Troops Home (not in little bitty pieces)
4.
Do so by July 4th, sooner is better, too late is too late.

"One can join the Liberty Day Challenge. I wonder if people could figure out how to trade coupons on the DP…or perhaps in their own communities?"

If I could sell knowledge coupons, would anyone buy one? What is this Forum Topic?

Many people figure out ways to throw their bodies in the machine and that ought to be recognized, for example my other cousin told me about how their business community had to form a barter association, I was visiting at the time, and I can only speak about these things to the limit of the demand for them, so I was not able to explain, in detail, how Equitable Commerce works - so much better than barter.

Barter works - it is still costly - better than enforced scarcity of money.

"“Submitted by Mark Twain on Wed, 02/27/2013 - 16:31. Permalink"

Investors invest, it is all speculation, unless you have inside knowledge, like a casino that alters the rules in their favor, then it is fraud, it is crime at that point. World War III is crime, as high a crime as can be, including treason.

Example:

http://www.roberthjackson.org/the-man/speeches-articles/spee...

“The charges in the indictment that the defendants planned and waged aggressive war are charges of the utmost gravity. War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

Note:

http://www.roberthjackson.org/the-man/speeches-articles/spee...

"The World Wars lead the world community to pledge that “never again” would anything similar occur. But the shocking acts of the Nazis were not isolated incidents, which we have since consigned to history. Hundreds of thousands and in some cases millions of people have been murdered in, among others, Russia, Cambodia, Vietnam, Sierra Leone, Chile, the Philippines, the Congo, Bangladesh, Uganda, Iraq, Indonesia, East Timor, El Salvador, Burundi, Argentina, Somalia, Chad, Yugoslavia and Rwanda in the second half of the past century.(2) But what is possibly even sadder is that we, meaning the world community, have witnessed these massacres passively and stood idle and inactive. The result is that in almost every case in history, the dictator/president/head of state/military/leader responsible for carrying out these atrocities – despite in Nuremberg – has escaped punishment, justice and even censure."

Hey!

What?

They know they are criminals and they even confess.

They do?

Can't you read?

Oh my God! (in vain?)

Yup.

May God have mercy on our souls.

"It is funny. It is as if so much of what you have said to me all these months has gone over my head without me even knowing it. Or perhaps I was too busy learning other things from you that some of the things I didn’t quite understand I let go."

So you watch a video like the one offered by John Taylor Gatto and the group that call themselves Tragedy and Home and you say, that sounds familiar, and you do so because you have my help, but you do so because you are persist in intolerance of lies. That to me is a saving of grace - to borrow a phrase.

When Gatto reports a message about how it took years to figure something out, I thing that that sounds familiar.

When pieces fit, suddenly the room that was dark fills with light, but you have to open the door to get in the room.

We are killing dragons, finding the keys, and opening doors that I already have found the light switches, turning on the lights, and I see you in the room, with your rose colored glasses on, and those glasses are blinders, not glasses.

At least when you do take the glasses off, now, you don't immediately put them back on and chastise me for asking you to take them off, to take a peek past those blinders.

"I am wondering if perhaps an answer to MN’s quandary of paying for our own demise answered in simplistic explanation of how to create one’s own currency might help some of us who have never thought along those lines."

Who is MN?

Sure, competitive money, even Utah Gold money, turns off Legal Crime, where people then have a choice. It is that simple.

"The Liberty Day Challenge is a Challenge, but maybe some of us need step by step help."

Barter
Common Law (no more federal tax liabilities, and redeeming in lawful money)
Utah Sovereign State money (11 other states follow, then more)
Personal coupons as money
Bitcoin (paypal was taken over so Bitcoin can too, but lessons were learned with paypal I'm sure, on both ends: Liberty and Legal Crime)

All that can work toward a move from Legal Crime back to a Federation, which is anarchy in a true sense, because it moves from Legal Crime Monopoly to Free Market Government choices, it is not false anarchy which is a nebulous human condition where everyone, everywhere, are criminals running amok (Legal Crime).

Anarchy was once explained as "no rulers", not "no rules".

"I guess what I am saying is that even though I read Equitable Commerce earlier and even though I have signed on in spirit to the Liberty Day Challenge, it was not until I came to understand that the Amish are not liking my free services, that perhaps I can create my own trade currency with them. Perhaps it would catch on. I don’t know."

I passed over that first report by you of that specific idea you have in mind, and to me you should focus your remaining power in that direction, it is a perfect fit, you can exemplify equity in commerce, where charity can still be charity, and where no one is passing on costs to you, or you to them, and no one feels bad about anything. You might find all your time being used up running an equitable taxi service, and you may find the Amish scratching their heads wondering why they are being taught a lesson about charity by you, not the other way around.

"Maybe a step by step in how to create your own currency would be a topic that would gain currency? Maybe some of us need a leader to complete the challenge?"

I can help, but the leader is in the mirror. Step by step sounds great.

Tell me if I have this Amish Taxi Service Idea correct, please.

You want to help more Amish people travel from here to there but you are running out of power, your vehicle is depreciating, fuel costs, etc.

If you can figure out a way to cover costs, then you can help more Amish people, and they, presumably, have something that they have, that you can get, so as to cover those mounting costs.

Does that scratch the surface?

Joe

See how you are?

"I told you that God owns it all."

So...a man can't serve two masters?

"The truth is, we don’t own things, but rather “things” own us because they demand our care and time and energy."

Well, now, as far as I can tell we are wandering off the requested topic.

If you have this concept of Public that required a Union Lawyer to explain, or categorize, or employ one of the many possible definitions, applicable to just about anything wanted, then that sounds like duplicity to me.

If you have this view of one thing, but it is a view of many things instead, then we get no where on the path I requested.

We step backwards.

I do like the scripture version of public, if I understand it, which is to say that it does not exist.

That is my thinking from the start. The word is a lie.

The word is a lie produced by a criminal who finds a place he wants and then places a flag on that place and then sets about to torture and murder everyone on that place, subject to his will, and the will of whoever else will employ the lie or be subject to it.

So, if we are to get anywhere, why not tell me what you think the word means.

I'm looking for the truth that is the genuine tool, where the word has an actual meaning, a productive, honest, useful, workable meaning, a meaning that is accurate, genuine, unchanging, and relevant, something that works to communicate accurate perception, and I don't ask for, and a don't want anything to do with, any more counterfeit versions of any words.

If there is nothing but lies to that word, maybe it is a good time to find that out. If there is a genuine meaning of that word, something that the Legal Criminals want to cover up, to counterfeit, to distort, to falsify, then it may be a good idea to find that out too.

How about it?

If you prefer to wander off that topic, then lets wander, but let me know which way we are intending to go - please.

"Now if those words above were a tangent, then you need to tell me because you say you appreciate my spiritual viewpoint in so many words. When you say that it encourages me to give more spiritual viewpoint. If you do not want me to do that you must say so."

That is how you are, and I see it, and I appreciate it, but that is wander off the specific focus of finding YOUR definition of the word Public in a way that I don't need a Union Lawyer to find out what you mean by the word Public.

I can certainly appreciate the scripture as a means of making sense of life on earth, with or without Union Lawyers telling me what isn't mine.

"Does Josiah Warren speak the right language concerning ownership?"

Yes but in that context the word is the same word as control, take out ownership, place control in the same place, and control is ownership. Warren goes into more detail concerning the amount of control someone earns as someone expends their own costs on said "ownership" (control) and in that explanation there are references to a competitive arrangement that he calls Civilized Cannibalism. That is where I found my Power Law.

We can discuss Warren, with Equitable Commerce in great detail, and I prefer to do so, taking out quotes and explaining a competitive way to deal with Land ownership as compared to the system currently in force (by fraud and extortion), but I think that is jumping the gun.

I think there may be a lot to gain by having you find in your brain your concept of Public. If you please.

It is diversionary to cut and paste a dictionary version of the definition, unless you think it is a good idea to go at that dictionary definition one word at a time, as we try to narrow down the concept into something useful, instead of having as many meanings as may fill a law library to fit any occasion.

"I saw in the Northwest Ordinance that land was to be passed to heirs. When a person dies, they cannot take anything with them…except their soul and that can be lost as well."

Here is very important stuff, in knowing the actual laws that the Legal Criminals say that they are enforcing, since much information I am finding can help someone defend Liberty, their own Liberty, as well as everyone else needing defense of Liberty, as The Courts are tied down by their own rules, if they are held to their own rules.

Who holds the Legal Criminals to their own rules?

Which ones?

There may be a time when anyone of us, anywhere, may be in need of some current knowledge concerning the rules currently being enforced by the so called authorities.

But for now, please, can you find a few sentences in your brain where those sentences describe to me what you consider to be this thing called Public?

We can move to land ownership, a very good thing to know in my opinion, but I think we are on something significant with this Public Dragon.

"It seems to me that both Andrews and Warren use the word public. A lot of times the word is used to mean “the people in general” from what I can tell."

OK, so you are working toward the requested goal precisely, that is great. It may still be a good idea to find that version of Public that swims around in your brain, to see it, recognize it, and write it down for you and I to look at, and discuss it, before it can escape into some shadow of thought. Please.

I do want to get back to both Warren and Andrews and their viewpoints on land. Note how The Federal Government, so called, owns and makes sure that no one else owns a lot of very good land.

Why? But we can get back to that, please.

" Lots of people can hunt on that public property so people here are happy that the land is open to “public” access."

So now you are using quotes around the word "public", and it may be a good idea to narrow down the working concept that works in your own mind, to see it, and then evaluate what is in your mind.

"So, it appears that a right is a privilege."

There is much on that having to do with finding better government instead of worse government during that time period between 1776 and 1788, not just those years, but specifically those years to focus attention on much work along those lines. While many people were honestly working to figure things out, as usual, there were people working to perpetrate crimes, to make things false on purpose, to threaten, etc.

I don't see much use in either word, rights or privileges, since control (power) is more accurate, more to the point to me.

"Please, why don’t you say the specific things you want to say and then I can discuss with you until I understand…or until we decide I will never understand, or perhaps I will just disagree."

What is the goal?

If you can find the meaning of the word Public as it works in your mind, find it, and get it written down in a way that can communicate how that concept works in your own mind, then we can compare notes.

We may find a genuine working concept and we may also find a counterfeit version of the words in parenthesis.

"So when they sell me the paper, they have to recoup the cost and I suppose they make a profit as well to make it worth their time."

Jumping past Warren, Andrews, and Equitable Commerce, you have already demonstrated a measurable feature of paper, as you did with chairs, those things are powerful things, they burn. Those things can be measured as calories, or kilowatt/hours, or newtons.

Paper is powerful in that sense, and accurately measurable as power in that sense, but if there is no water, no food, then paper can be used to make a sign?

Will work for food?

Can I stand in Public with my sign or will that buy me a trip to the county jail where I can get a free meal?

How does public work in your mind, where is it, find it, get it down on paper, and we can focus on that, and I may be wrong in this focus of effort, there may be nothing there to see.

"I would gladly front your $25 as well as mine so that the $100 from your brother goes for printing good copies or marketing or whatever you want. Josf, you will accept a gift from your brother but not from me? My words are in the book too."

Your costs are better, more efficiently, spent on your end, and we went through this so don't give me this "not from me" stuff.

I like the Zulu idea, as a prototype, but my brother may send the 100 dollars, I can then buy 10 copies, send him 5, one signed, and he can try to get other people to read the book, or if he says that he only wants one, then I can start sending copies to people who have already expressed an interest.

Howard Bloom has not answered, and that may never happen, or it may take awhile, the guys is currently selling his new book, as far as I know.

If next week starts and I don't get a check from my brother, and no other things happen, I can take another step. Some of the competitors in the on-line printing business offer proofs at an extra price, and my thinking is to find not necessarily the least expensive on-line printing business but one that offers marketing and e-book services. I see a need to cut past the marketing information and contact a salesperson. These days a good company will have a chat feature to use to ask questions and have a person answer the questions in type. I could call too, on the phone, once I find, among the many choices, a few of the choices that appear to fit the best.

I was out today in Real Estate land, and a lot of my study on land titles is applicable in that business, in so many ways.

"You, though, are able to do many things at one time."

Two things, and even that is questionable, but three things, or four, as in four part harmony on the piano, was out of my reach, and on the guitar I'm now able to just start singing two voices - crudely.

If focus is required then only one thing at a time can be done, I think that is how most brains work, with some exceptions. I think that brains are binary, ones or zeros, so something else is at work to explain the expanded power beyond ones and zeros.

"I do however find discussing with you challenging, but that may be for you about as challenging as playing chess with me. There would be no challenge."

Sure, the additional perspectives work both ways, all the time, new ideas, new ways of seeing things, like, for example:

To fear God is to hate evil.

How can I proceed from here to wherever I will be without that now a part of my thinking?

When I'm doing routine things, no one is nearby, I talk to people, to you, you can't hear me, I talk to my parents, their ears don't hear me, but I talk, and I work on things, this Public thing now, and I work on exactly what you just offered, NONE of it is ours, it is all owned by God, so what is all the fuss about?

We can work things out, it is what we have been doing, it works, so discussion helps both of us, and then it makes sense that more discussion is on the schedule.

The book is an idea, but the value, to me, is in the chess game.

"You expose error in thinking too. But what are the contentions?"

I told him that I know of one absolutely true fact, and every attempt to disprove this fact proves it.

I do that as a challenge. Most people care not to know, they hear me, and then we move onto other things to talk about. Some people are curious, and they want to know. Then my routine is to ask them to guess. Most people end up asking for the answer and I tell them the answer. They they say ahhhhh!

The Russian refuses to have me hand him the answer. It is turning into what is beginning to look like an argument, so I now tell him that I don't argue, and I ask to move onto other things, there is no point in his work trying to tell me what is this fact, which he calls a notion, it is a fact, as I say it is, but he calls it a notion, on and on.

I don't argue. He may change the subject, he may discover the fact, he may ask for it. I don't know.

"Who says socialism is the study of society? I say that is not the correct definition. You say it is. So how do you know you are right?"

I am saying that socialism is the study of society. I can be wrong, and that is why I want to get the book written by Andrews titled The History of Socialism.

I want to find out how socialism started, to see the genuine article, and from that point a chronological order of what happened to the genuine article over time can be understood.

Most people have this idea (lie) working in their brain where everyone is bad and therefore some guy, and some group, has to force all those bad people to be good. That is legal crime. It is a lie. It is might makes right, and they attach important sounding names, false fronts, to that lie, like socialism, capitalism, fascism, communism, nationalism, liberalism, imperialism, whatever keeps the lie going for the liars and for the victims.

So you can call legal crime whatever you want, socialism works for you, and I'm not going to argue what works for you, so there is no contention in that way.

I say socialism is the study of society. Andrews studied society, and I can quote from his book. So what? Where is the contention?

Your definition of the word is more important than mine? I see no problem, for you. I use the word because it is accurate.

You use the words for what? You want to help the criminals cover up their crimes with another lie?

"So how do you know you are right?"

I don't, and so I'd like to find The History of Socialism, it may have been crime made legal from the start.

I know the meaning that I use is the right meaning for the word because that is the meaning I use for that word, how can that be wrong? I am lying to myself? That makes no sense.

"How do you know the legal criminals did not use your definition of socialism to figure out how to steel power? Did they apply science to society and figure out how to game the system?"

They do, and they know it is false. The study of society proves out that falsehood can be employed to destroy people and to make slaves out of everyone, sure, that is a demonstrable matter of fact, but threats of violence are also needed, and so is violence as needed.

Capitalism is a tool too.

A gun is also a tool.

Who uses it, and what are they aiming to do with it?

Is it held accountable for the willful actions of people?

Pork Chops!

Back from dinner.

"I see no reason to make things scarce."

Think about that some more, please, and consider simpler things like making sugar scarce for the kids. What happens?

"Why would someone engineer something to break on schedule?"

Ask someone and see if they make the truth scarce.

" It is better not to try and just do the small talk and get my "intellectual" fill at the DP."

Trying is worth-less, succeeding is worth something.

How does anyone get from point A to point B, and there is no way to be somewhere else, we are stuck with what God gave us.

Joe

Open

When I think of public this is what is in my mind: 6. Open to common use; as a public road.

I have said that to you in many ways and you tell me it is nonsense. You are telling me what is in my mind is nonsense. To me public is opposite of personal or private. I might have a personal driver. Someone who drives me and only me. I might have a public driver. Someone who drives me and anyone else who wants a ride. We have private roads here in MO. They are dirt and are maintained by the people who occupy homes on the roads. We have public roads which are maintained by public funds. Or funds that are collected from the public as in from the people and the roads are to be used by the people. Whoever wants to use the road can use it in general. But there are rules to follow. I wrote you a whole comment http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2825878 but I never answered the reply.

• ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-------------------
"I think public is something that all people are invited to access. Private is something that does not include access to all people. I think that is simple."
That is nonsense.
---------------------------
Why is it nonsense?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Do all the people invite all the people? If such an event occurred, anywhere, then you could demonstrate such an event as having happened once, or if it is happening now, then you can demonstrate it happening now. Unless I misunderstand what you mean, that which you write, is nonsense.
If public is: "all people are invited to access", then who does the inviting?
---------------------------------------------
So now I am on the hook for using the word invite. I don’t mean formally, I mean here it is have at it. Here is the road…use it. Here is a park…use it. Here is a water fountain at walmart…use it. (except I understand the water fountain belongs to walmart, but they provide it for “public” use. For use by people in general. It is not in the boss’s office to be used only by the boss. It is next to the “public” bathroom which is open for general use in general by general people in general. Maybe public has to do with general use as opposed to limited use?
----------------------------
So I ask that person that I walk close to: “What is public?”

He says, “What do you mean, what is public?”

I said, “What does the word public mean?”

He said it means, “Open.”

There he doesn’t even make a sentence but gives a single word. Public = Open.

Well when you go back to my definition at the top: 6. Open to common use; as a public road.

I see the word open. But when he said open I did not remember it as a part of the dictionary definition. I suppose open as in Open Invitation as in No Invitation Necessary.

By the way. Most of the time when Warren and Andrews use the word public, they are referring to “the” public as in people.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/74696547/TRANSCRIPT-The-Ultimate-H... “Walter Lippmann said … You steal the key language of the person or group you want to overthrow and you redefine it and people then become confused.”

Sometimes that is what I feel like you are redefining language. I saw a comment on the DP that said Anarchists would throw away the dictionaries.

By the way, I think I read about Andrews here: http://mises.org/daily/5161/Stephen-Pearl-Andrewss-Fleeting-...

I thought it was interesting. I found it when I was looking for the book written by Andrews titled The History of Socialism. I'd like to read that book too.

“I say socialism is the study of society. Andrews studied society, and I can quote from his book. So what? Where is the contention?”

Socialism = study of society

Andrews studied society.

Andrews socialism.

That is why I have a problem with your definition. Does one study society or does one study socialism? If the single word socialism = study of society, then one could just say Andrews socialism and that would mean Andrews studied society. No one says “Andrews socialism. That sentence would not make sense.

Did Andrews write a book called History of Socialism? Is that the same thing as saying the History of Studying Society?

I want to know. Did you ever tell me that you know one absolutely true fact, and every attempt to disprove this fact proves it?

I am not like the Russian, I want to be spoon fed.

Really, when I wanted to send a memorial for your mother's passing, I was thinking of the book. It is in memory of her. What good are flowers in the long run? But what price is there on publishing her son's words? I could not send enough to meet the value of that opportunity, so a token representing the value was my wish.

...

Hold on bear

I may not be as guilty as your words appear to suggest.

When I say "that is nonsense" I usually quote the words that I think are nonsense, and then I explain why I think the quoted words i quoted were nonsense.

You are there, I am here, and the words are in between us, and I did not invent the words that I think are nonsense. Who did?

Example 1a:
"When I think of public this is what is in my mind: 6. Open to common use; as a public road."

Example 1b:
"To me public is opposite of personal or private."

Which is it?

If it is both at the same time, then that is nonsense to me.

Your words that convict me:

"You are telling me what is in my mind is nonsense."

No trial, no defense on my part, just you punishing me for that crime by convicting me of that crime right out here in public.

"You are telling me what is in my mind is nonsense."

If I said that, then you can quote me, and I can then know of my error. I don't think I said that, and I think my focus of attention was on the medium of exchange.

You are there.

I am here.

I ask for focus on the concept of Public, and you reply with words that appear to be nonsense to me, or duplicitous, or of a character of ambiguity to which the words I read can be read any way I care to read them, since the definitions of the words can mean any number of things where the many possible meanings can be opposite meanings.

You are there at one moment typing this:

Example 1a:
"When I think of public this is what is in my mind: 6. Open to common use; as a public road."

You are there at another moment typing this:

Example 1b:
"To me public is opposite of personal or private."

How can I know if the concept changes on a whim?

If the concept is unchanging then why are two sentences used instead of one sentence?

If one sentence is better than the other, how about picking the better one for me to begin understanding and I won't be confused by the second, lesser, sentence?

If both sentences are required, then why separate them with other words in between where I can be further confused as the focus of my attention wanders off the requested focus of attention?

What is public?

Please nail down the best possible explanation in the fewest words so as to then allow me to begin to know what you mean, not what someone else means, but what you mean by the concept Public, if that is a working concept in your brain at any given time.

If you have Public working as a concept in your mind one minute, and then another minute later you have another concept working in your mind under the same Label, this Public stuff, then why is there one word for two things?

If I am constantly thinking about having Jesus following me around then, OK, I've tried that, and as a consequence of that perspective there is no longer any private time for me, or do I misunderstand the concept of private as much as I misunderstand the concept of public?

I can wander in many directions all at once or I can focus my attention upon a sentence of your own construction whereby you nail down the working concept of Public in your mind, and then you tell me that is it, a finished product, a medium of exchange, that is yours, you own it, I have not even seen it yet, so then you transfer that POWER of understanding through the wires and it arrives on my computer screen.

You are there.

I am here.

There, all said and done, is the working concept of Public, from you, as requested, to me.

I then begin to try to understand how that concept works in your brain/life/existence/reality/day to day living.

Example 1a:
"When I think of public this is what is in my mind: 6. Open to common use; as a public road."

Example 1b:
"To me public is opposite of personal or private."

Illustration: You are circling it, I am looking where it is, but so far there isn't much of anything to see, a ghost of something in the dark, there it is in your mind, as we both figuratively circle this thing called Public.

What is it?

This:

Example 1a:
"When I think of public this is what is in my mind: 6. Open to common use; as a public road."

or this:

Example 1b:
"To me public is opposite of personal or private."

It is not mine, it is not yours, per se, it will be a sentence, the one sentence, or the two sentences, whichever is the final product, and then I can circle it, and I can look at it, and I can ask you if I am seeing the same thing. I can quote the sentence you offer, and I can ask things about it, to see if my view of it is the same view you have of it, and if not, then why not, etc.

Isn't that how it works? Is there a point? Do we get to the point?

What is Public in no uncertain terms, and then I can circle it, and find out if I think I am looking at nonsense, and then you can help me see that it is not nonsense.

You keep your brain working well enough, and I don't attack your brain with insults.

I keep my brain working as it so far does for me, and I don't suffer attacks of any kind like this:

"You are telling me what is in my mind is nonsense."

I can even apologize for "telling" you "what is in" your "mind is nonsense."

Do I know what is in your mind? How do I know? If I assume to know, without taking the required steps to know, as well as I can, before concluding such a thing as knowing what is in your mind, then I have certainly made a serious mistake and I feel compelled to apologize by working to never repeat such a mistake again.

"We have public roads which are maintained by public funds."

Since I don't have a nailed down copy of a working definition for Public, from you, I have now 3 examples to toss up in the air, like a juggler.

Example 1a:
"When I think of public this is what is in my mind: 6. Open to common use; as a public road."

Example 1b:
"To me public is opposite of personal or private."

Example 2:
"We have public roads which are maintained by public funds."

Of the 3 examples categorized above the last on the list is most troublesome for me.

I am asking for a time out, and I am going to call in a fellow Friend IN Liberty (at least I think he is a fellow) to help me think:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJMoMPtM58s

I'm taking advice, using my own brain, and I don't want to settle for parroting what someone else said.

"We have public roads which are maintained by public funds."

What is "public funds"? If there is a flow of POWER flowing from those who earn that power, flowing, flowing, along the medium of exchange called Federal Reserve Notes, then in that case, "pubic funds" are criminally moved by fraud and extortion made legal, from the many people who honestly earn those measures of POWER, flowing, flowing, each victim working roughly half their working lives to keep the criminals in POWER, so that the criminals can live in the manner that they have grown accustomed to, and some of those measures of POWER are spent on Road Building.

Yes, that happens, and it is convenient for most people, and the "tax collectors" can arrive at your door more readily.

So I circled one example of many examples, I looked at it, and I am not finding it to be of much use to me.

"We have public roads which are maintained by public funds."

If that one serves best, then I need to know which fund is the working example of a public fund. Is it a Gated Community road, a family road, a county road, a corporate road, a city road, a State road, a "Federal" road, or an International road, where this list of people here, this guy, that gal, is afforded (through THE FUND) to enforce any behavior deemed right, or wrong, on that specific road?

Is that what Public means?

I don't know. I'm circling one of three, which are not yet known to be the best one, the working one.

"So now I am on the hook for using the word invite."

So now I'm fishing?

I can care less as to what your working definition of Public is at any given moment. I can play my guitar. I can read. I can play games. I can make a cup of tea. It is 2 am and I woke up after a dream where I was crying and hugging my mom. I did not want to leave my wife in bed, but had I stayed in bed she would not be able to sleep. I was awake, having just hugged my mom, who is dead as you know, so why was I crying in my sleep? I can care more about that, or I can care less about that, what do you want me to do?

I am yours truly. I thought that was understood. Take the hook out, I put no hook in.

"I don’t mean formally, I mean here it is have at it. Here is the road…use it."

So we are working on the Public Fund used to build Public Roads concept now, and that is fine, are we sticking with this, or moving on soon?

The criminals need to have their subject making them things to steal, so they build roads. If that is Public, and nothing more, then I can return to that understanding henceforth whenever speaking to you and I see you use the word Public again.

Public means criminals who steal anything they can and then using the stolen loot to steal more from their victims.

Are we now on the same page?

Please take the hook out.

"Here is the road…use it. Here is a park…use it. Here is a water fountain at walmart…use it."

City park, State park, International Park?

I'm not fishing, no hooks.

The correct word, the accurate word, as far as I can tell, is "questions" not hooks.

You can bypass any question as you see fit, there are plenty of other worthwhile things for both of us to be doing.

Walmart may or may not be intimately connected to Legal Crime, in ways not limited to the Single Money, or the "Federal" roads, or The IRS, and that is another avenue or branch off this public tree, added to the list.

Public corporation? Private corporation?

Without a working definition of public to have, to see, to circle, to inspect, to measure, to know, to understand, I'm wandering at this point. I request one working sentence, and then a point, getting to the point, and then a point from which to know better.

I can repeat my request many times. I am not fishing. Fishing is a person in need of something to eat, and a fish is caught, for fun, for profit, for fuel to feed and nourish the living body. If you think you are a fish and I'm out fishing, then you have me mistaken with something other than me, or I am so far gone into falsehood that I don't even know what I have working in my own brain.

"For use by people in general."

I could work on that too. What is "use" and are any "people in general" not invited? Can I use it to make money? Can I guard the door and charge people to pass through the door?

You were not put on the hook by me for asking who does the inviting.

It is a valid question when working on one of the many definitions of the concept of Public.

“Walter Lippmann said … You steal the key language of the person or group you want to overthrow and you redefine it and people then become confused.”

My daughter won first prize in a college essay contest, while she was still in High School. In that essay she sent a similar message as the one offered by Walter Lippmann.

Open

Then closed.

The open.

Who does the opening?

Who does the closing?

Who cleans the toilet?

I clean toilets. All my life I've found that I get the dirty jobs. The dirty jobs are open.

"Sometimes that is what I feel like you are redefining language. I saw a comment on the DP that said Anarchists would throw away the dictionaries."

I'm not fishing. If it is a good idea to find out what you use as a working definition of Public, then that is what you will do, with or without my help. Why should I care?

I'd like to hear what someone at the Mises Institute has to say about Andrews since no one, ever, touches Equitable Commerce from that group, it is like crytonite to superman, or sunlight to vampires, or water to the Wicked Witch of the West, no one from the Gold Bugs. Imagine, I can't, a Gold Bug honestly discussing Equitable Commerce.

Thanks for the link, I'll book mark it and work on it later.

"Did Andrews write a book called History of Socialism? Is that the same thing as saying the History of Studying Society?"

I can cut and paste the words as they were published in 1848 to "back up" my definition of the word socialism. I will cut and paste a small portion of the book, and so this is merely a reference, the book, in it's entirety, is the entire substance, root, source, of my use of the word socialism by my definition of socialism being the study of society. I've also found in The Communist Manifesto a rejection of socialism by the communists and it is that same socialism, in my opinion, spoken of by Andrews, same names of the same people involved, such as Fourier.

http://www.anarchism.net/scienceofsociety.htm

"What, then, if this be so, is this common element? In what great feature are Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism identical? I will answer this interrogatory first, and demonstrate the answer afterward. Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism are identical in the assertion of the Supremacy of the Individual,--a dogma essentially contumacious, revolutionary, and antagonistic to the basic principles of all the older institutions of society, which make the Individual subordinate and subject to the Church, to the State, and to Society respectively. Not only is this supremacy or SOVEREIGNTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL, a common element of all three of these great modern movements, but I will make the still more sweeping assertion that it is substantially the whole of those movements. It is not merely a feature, as I have just denominated it, but the living soul itself, the vital energy, the integral essence or being of them all."

If I don't nail down the definitions of the words I use, then I don't think that I can actually say anything to anyone where the meaning intended is the meaning received.

Good enough for government work?

_________________________________________________________
I want to know. Did you ever tell me that you know one absolutely true fact, and every attempt to disprove this fact proves it?

I am not like the Russian, I want to be spoon fed.
__________________________________________________________

Ask me one more time and I can consider the interval of time between now and then as a challenge to you. Once you see it, and work on it, you can then help me disprove it to no avail; meanwhile let me know if you figure it out yourself. Remind me in the nest reply, and I'm not fishing, I do not target you for consumption, remind me, and my next reply will offer up the one truth that every attempt to disprove it proves it itself, and I'll spoon feed it with a silver spoon, from a silver platter.

"so a token representing the value was my wish."

I take your messages to heart, or those messages that you pass on to me, such as, over, and over, and over again, to fear God is to hate evil, and I hate Federal Reserve Notes, so I am off the mark, not understanding well enough, and so I need help, measurably, accurately measurably, in need of help.

I keep asking.

Help may arrive in Federal Reserve Notes, and I can work on Hating Evil, not Federal Reserve Notes.

You help, so thanks a million.

If I were Federal Reserve Chairman I could say thanks a Trillion, and make good on it.

Joe

Upon a Silver Platter

I haven't stopped since 5:30 this morning...long day...car trouble...almost a quarter of a million miles on the van now so we have had 3 hickups in the last 2 months...anyways, I have church tonight and I am going to rest for a few mintues. I read your reply early this morning and had hoped my day would have yielded some time. I may be worthless tonight so it may be tomorrow before I can give a single definition of public. Almost asked an Amish woman today, but didn't :) However, I have thought about the word "community" in reference to a phone and I have also thought about who says something is open and I have thought about your dream too. I have words to say. Words that say I have had some dreams of passed loved ones. The first time it was a little alarming, but now I treasure them. They are rare. Sometimes I am awake before I realize I am "spending time" with them. Tho, I believe it only to be a dream, I still bask in the experience. I'll be back with discussion when I can muster the strength to discuss :)
------------------
What, then, is the meaning of this word PUBLIC? In what great feature are the words Open, Available, and Accessible identical? I will answer this interrogatory first, and demonstrate the answer afterward. Open, Available, and Accessible are identical in the assertion of the USE of the thing that is PUBLIC,--a dogma essentially inviting, welcoming, and hospitable in opposition to the basic principles of all the Private institutions of society, which make the Individual subordinate and subject to the Owner, to the Club, and to Class respectively. The individual now being unfettered from meeting societal expectations prior to participation in or use of things within the public realm, but I will make the still more sweeping assertion that is substantially the whole of this word pubic: Without Prejudice is not merely a feature, as I have just denominated, but the living soul itself, the vital energy, the integral essence or being of PUBLIC.
------------------
Now sir, if that is too much of a sentence, please speak with Mr. Andrews and ask him to whittle it down a bit. Otherwise, I believe that I have captured the word Public to mean: For Use Without Prejudice.
------------------
And now sir, if you be so inclined to deliver upon a silver spoon, please, what is that one absolutely true fact, and every attempt to disprove this fact proves it?
------------------
Proverbs 25:11 KJV
A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver.

...

Wordy is out of fashion

Sound bites are in.

"For Use Without Prejudice."

All that work for that?

And it is a very fine, competitive, construction, if ever one existed.

You should get a gold star, made of gold, and weighing 100 pounds for that one.

I have to say, at least I am inspired to say, that I am once again jealous, that bit of work of yours has me on the floor, and if that definition does not replace all the former, non-competitive, definitions in all the dictionaries in all the languages on Earth, then I'd like to know why, because it appears to be, at first blush, while I'm on the floor, to be THE working definition.

Public:
1. (and only 1)
For Use Without Prejudice.

Now can we list all the counterfeit definitions to compare to the genuine article?

I must say, gushing here, that you prove to be a genius with this, not like those exceptional people born with smart things that just fall out of their mouths, but by God and a lot of work you become the messenger of smart things.

As I get up off the floor figurative, but literally as I try to make sense of that definition, I will continue reading your welcome response.

Wow, again, that is a treasure. Good work dear bear, good work. Wow!

"And now sir, if you be so inclined to deliver upon a silver spoon, please, what is that one absolutely true fact, and every attempt to disprove this fact proves it?"

I can assume, or I must assume since I can't know, that you have tried to find it, and now you are expecting something tricky, or hidden, in this puzzle.

The one fact that is a fact even while every attempt to disprove it proves it instead is...

...

...

Perception exists.

Proverbs 25:11 KJV
A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver.

For Use Without Prejudice.

Joe

You must know,

that it was not until I finished filling out Mr. Andrews word equation that without prejudice found itself. I have told you before, I am but a mixer...what goes in comes out and finally with that quote from Mr. Andrews once again, given to me many times, filled the bill. I was actually tring to goad you abit with Mr. Andrews lengthy words, and you trying to get a single sentence out of me, but in the end I found a beautiful product. I am glad you like it.

But Joe, the words "without prejudice" have never been in my vocabulary. You have said them many time...I really didn't know what they meant, nor did I spend much time thinking about them. So, like the word equitablist, the definition of Public cannot be claimed by me. It is a product of your goading me, Mr. Andrews equation, and your words "without prejudice." I only added the words "for use." This exercise has been quite fun, and yet aggravating as you continued to reject my notions of the word public. See, the definition is a product of Joe’s input into bear’s mind. You know the old saying “garbage in, garbage out.” Well, you can see by your appreciation of the definition of the word public what your efforts have produced.

Now as far as the answer delivered on a silver spoon: “perception exists,” I should like to hand it back upon a silver spoon: “what doesn’t exist?” I think when you try to answer that question you will find there is not anything that does not exist.

I have been listening to this man: John Taylor Gatto. I am asleep before I can hear much, but he is very interesting. I hope I stay awake sometime long enough to follow his words to completion. He speaks with a slur, so is a little hard to understand. The way he thinks of things reminds me of talking with you. He has a website: https://www.tragedyandhope.com/ and I am listening to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQiW_l848t8&list=PL463AA90FD0... The first of a 5 hour lecture on The Ultimate History Lesson.

Have you ever heard of John Taylor Gatto? I ran across the link to him here on the DP.

...

I know one thing for sure.

If there are other things I can know, it seems to me, I have to use the one thing to know other things: perception.

"Now as far as the answer delivered on a silver spoon: “perception exists,” I should like to hand it back upon a silver spoon: “what doesn’t exist?” I think when you try to answer that question you will find there is not anything that does not exist."

I can't find something I can't find.

Example:

I'm not finding the right way to understand your perception as you work to convey that understanding of your perception, intact, to me, with these words:

What doesn’t exist? I think when you try to answer that question you will find there is not anything that does not exist.

Have you ever heard of Zeno's Paradoxes? My new Russian friend has heard of Zeno's Paradoxes; letting me know in an enthusiastic way as if to say: Who has not heard of Zeno's Paradoxes?

There isn't anything tricky about the one fact. I don't claim ownership of it, but I know, because it works every time, that it is true, always true, and so that is how I base my thinking, from that one fact.

I do not claim that your understanding of scripture is more or less true, and here is my jealousy again, I can't believe in scripture, as you do, certainly not supported by evidence that I can measure, with my power to perceive. I perceive and I can perceive that God gave me that power, knowing that my power to perceive exists, and it came from somewhere, so God is in that way understandable to me.

A matter of fact. I can't claim to see God, but I know for a fact that I perceive, and no matter how many times I try to disprove my power to perceive I fail to disprove that fact. Where did my power to perceive come from; speaking of vital questions and not settling for anything other than the accurate answer?

I don't know.

I belief in God, for sure, in that context, whereby a power exists by which my power to perceive originated, but even the word originated is subject to errors in perception; errors based upon measurable human capacity to fail to perceive accurately.

I don't yet know what you mean by this:

"Now as far as the answer delivered on a silver spoon: “perception exists,” I should like to hand it back upon a silver spoon: “what doesn’t exist?” I think when you try to answer that question you will find there is not anything that does not exist."

I think, after awhile, that we may want to do some more work on the word Prejudice since that is a new word that has managed to find currency in my thinking recently. I just recently started employing that concept often, using that concept often in my thinking, since the Bonding/Common Law topics were picked up by me on this forum; recently.

I told you about my friend Bill Faust, or I think I did, and he was shot and killed by a person with a Police badge in Arizona.

Here is Bill Faust again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9IMWshb9Vk

Prejudice can be a confusing word or it can be a defined word that does not change and become a counterfeit version. I know this is troublesome redefining words, but errors in communication can be costly so I think it is a good thing to do, to know better as to how to communicate accurately since the alternative is to communicate inaccurately which is very close to communicating deceptively.

I will check out the link to John Taylor Gatto.

Joe

I think you have defined Prejudice

as Pre Judgement. That is the definition I had in mind when I used For Use without Prejudice as the definition of Public. That definition was given in Joe Quotes. That is probably why the information is fresh on my mind.

Now, I want you to tell me something that does not exist. One thing, and I will try to prove to you that it does exist.

I have never heard of the paradoxes of Zeno. I am not like your Russian friend. Anyways, I thought the friend bus left a long time ago. I didn't even make it onto the bus, but now it has stopped in Russia and picked up a friend? :) I must know, are you planning on filling up that friend bus? What could be better than a bus load of friends! The times are perilous, surround yourself with friends, but do not ever disclose what made people go missing in the gulag, for one never knows whether a friend is a friend until it be too late?

John 15:13 KJV
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. 14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you...17 These things I command you, that ye love one another.

Full context http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/john/15-audio.html

...

Great discoveries and inventions

bear,

Thanks so much for the link on John Taylor Gatto. I'm Irish!

Darwinism, to me, was an obvious understand that those life forms that learn how to survive are the life forms that do survive. It makes sense to me that any power of knowledge can be counterfeited and here again is another measurable case of that same ROUTINE.

To find out that the Irish Race, so called, is on the bottom, according to the "authorities", is truly a badge of honor to me.

I'm not getting much done today; but I did do some essential things.

Thanks so much for the discoveries and inventions.

Joe

Off guard

Your definition has floored me, so I'm off guard, thrown out of orbit, and I'm grasping for straws.

"Now, I want you to tell me something that does not exist. One thing, and I will try to prove to you that it does exist."

The productive power of a lie.

I can offer that off the top of my head, but I want to get finished with your reply and return back to John Taylor Gatto. I stopped in here, and I have other pressing things.

Friends and foes are like night and day, foes hide in the dark, friends can't hide since the only thing dark is their shadows, and it has been said that it is wise to keep your fiends close and keep your enemies closer. So you can see just how far out of orbit my thinking has gone since the invention of your working definition of public was created by you, and offered to anyone caring to listen.

I care. Is that the stuff of friendship?

I like much of the scripture, thanks again, I'm off for more history lessons. Now I have a new working definition for "Up for adoption." too.

Joe

You're a breath of fresh air!

I see you have run into Mark Hanson. I think I stumbled upon him last week and then once again today. I haven't spoken with him until today, and have asked a question and now need to look into the answer he supplied.
-----------------
Imagine a bear knocking and Irish man out of orbit! Is it not the words of the Irish that have been returned to the man?
-----------------
"Now, I want you to tell me something that does not exist. One thing, and I will try to prove to you that it does exist."

The productive power of a lie.

Might one say that the "productive" power of a lie exists within the perception of the liar?
-----------------
I am enjoying Gatto as well! I have finally made it to hour 3 without sleeping.
-----------------
I think a bus load of friends is a great idea.

Proverbs 18:24 KJV
A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly: and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother.

Proverbs 27:17 KJV
Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.
---------------
Maybe the Irish are put at the bottom of the heap because they are natural free-thinkers and must be marginalized. I like to connect dots you know.

The Granger to bear: "If working so hard to understand someone suited you, then good on you! Josf could be a lump of gold, but since I'm not seeking gold, I'm not interested in digging to get there."

That 100 pound gold star is you my friend.

...

Lies are destructive

"Might one say that the "productive" power of a lie exists within the perception of the liar?"

I think you are describing the concept of stealing, so no, the answer is no, that does not work, and it does not work in a measurable way, if a lie works, then a lie works to transfer power from a victim as the power flows from the victim to the liar. That is not productive, that is destructive, or at the very least it merely moves power from one to another (distribution of power "wealth") as it were, you know, the "collectivist" ROUTINE.

If we can find the answer I think we have to be able to demonstrate the answer in an accurately measurable way, and if we can't, then some other power must provide us with the answer, since our own power of perception can't provide the answer. Does that make sense to you?

________________________________
Proverbs 18:24 KJV
A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly: and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother.

Proverbs 27:17 KJV
Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.
________________________________

I am in the odd position to be discussing anything with my Russian friend, who is helping me, because he obviously cares, to know better, as you demonstrate the same careful application of your scarce power, on my behalf, where my odd position is to be a proponent of scripture, of the concept of God, as my viewpoint is compared to his, which is, as far as I can tell so far, someone who does not believe in formal religion.

The odd part is that I don't believe in Institutionalized Religion per se, or so named, and therein, in words, is a problem to be solved, if anyone cares to solve language problems.

"Maybe the Irish are put at the bottom of the heap because they are natural free-thinkers and must be marginalized. I like to connect dots you know."

Yes, and the general understanding of the meaning of those words can be such that you have not yet had all your natural curiosity beaten out of you with lies, threats, and violence. Connecting false dots, on the other hand, should not be confused with a genuine curiosity and a demand for accurate perception or the truth depending upon which words you choose to convey the meaning you intend to convey.

"That 100 pound gold star is you my friend."

I'm all yours: truly, and I'm not digging for Gold either since it is way too costly to own for my general sense of wealth.

To use without prejudice.

Now, bear, that is out of memory, it has been awhile since I read your quoted definition of Public, so I'll have to go back and check to see if I remember well.

This is much like my experience in reading Proverbs 8 and the words To fear God is to hate evil.

I don't remember the entire quote, there is no period (if I remember right) after evil in Proverbs 8, but those fewer words (out of context) keep working in my thinking, as now does your definition of Public.

I have to let those concepts work before I get one of those light bulb moments. I just had one of those light bulb moments concerning The Revolution here in America, concerning Ratification of The Constitution, and concerning Land Patents - but that is another subject.

"For Use Without Prejudice."

To use without prejudice.

I was off some, but the message stays the same, I think, so now I have more to consider in a few word changes that have happened in between your invention, publication, and offering of that definition and my feeble attempt to recite the definition from memory.

This may not be as much fun as going shooting with my brothers, but it is close.

Joe

Is Perception in the eye of the beholder?

"Might one say that the "productive" power of a lie exists within the perception of the liar?"

But I might say that since perception exists that all things can exist within perception whether they be true or not.
You: “If we can find the answer I think we have to be able to demonstrate the answer in an accurately measurable way…”

When Ben Bernanke prints himself some money he has produced a lie. The money is the evidence of the production of a lie. The money becomes productive for Mr. Bernanke because he has perceived a lie. The perception is that he is doing the human race a favor by eliminating those at the bottom of the pile...with kindness.

Is not beauty in the eye of the beholder? So is not perception the eye of the beholder? If the beholder is a liar, then the perception is a lie, but not to the liar as the liar perceives productive ends to justify the means.

I’m not hung up on this, I am just messing around. But I think I have a point if perception exists.
-------------------
“The odd part is that I don't believe in Institutionalized Religion per se, or so named, and therein, in words, is a problem to be solved, if anyone cares to solve language problems.”

It is my understanding that religion became an institutionalized with Constantine. I believe he baptized his whole army to fight under the banner of the cross. So the question is, did each one of those soldier each one individually place their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ? Or did the church become an institution of the state? Here is a scriptural application of baptism:
Acts 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said , See , here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

The eunuch had been reading the scriptures but did not understand who he was reading about. Philip explained the scriptures to him. The eunuch wanted to be baptized. But the condition prior to being baptized is believing with all ones heart that Jesus is the Son of God. Here is a scripture about that:

Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved

The Greek word church is Ekklesia which means called out assembly. Believers are those who have placed their faith in Christ and they assemble together. There are all kinds of churches, or called out assemblies. Some meet in homes, some meet in schools, some have their own buildings. Some are institutionalized in that they have a governing body over them. Our church does not have a governing body over use. The head of the church is Christ and we voluntarily meet together. Jeff was invited by the people at 500 S. Griswold to be their pastor. Jeff accepted the invitation. At any time the people of the church or Jeff can dissolve that relationship. We have no governing body. The people of the church make the decisions and the church finances are transparent. Our church was started nearly 130 years ago.

My sister’s husband that has cancer started a church about 15 years ago. They are not Baptist or part of any organization. They meet in a school building and in homes.

The reason Christians gather is because of this:

Hebrews 10:24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: 25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

We meet together to encourage one another to love and to do good. We are to do that even more as we see the return of the Lord coming. And of course you know, each day it is closer!

I believe religions has become institutionalized to harness power. Jesus said that those who worship God worship in spirit and in truth. Not all people who belong to a church belong to Christ. At the end of time there will be people who say:

Matthew 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. 21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

You might think of that verse in I Corinthians 13 that say tho I speak with the tongues of men and angels and have not love I have become as a sounding brass or tinkling cymbal. There are many reasons people are in or not in church, and I am speaking only of Christianity, which is a way of life, not an institution.
-------------
“I'm all yours: truly, and I'm not digging for Gold either since it is way too costly to own for my general sense of wealth.”

There are things in life that hold much more value than gold; things that money cannot buy: A family, friends, a home (not a house), a relationship with the Lord, going shooting with a brother, health.
------------------------
The fear of the Lord is to Hate Evil:

Proverbs 6:16 These six things doth the LORD hate : yea, seven are an abomination unto him: 17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
----------------------
“I have to let those concepts work before I get one of those light bulb moments. I just had one of those light bulb moments concerning The Revolution here in America, concerning Ratification of The Constitution, and concerning Land Patents - but that is another subject”

Have you read the Northwest Ordinance?
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/bdsdcc:@field(DOCID+@lit(bdsdcc22501))
“Be it ordained by the authority aforesaid, That the estates both of resident and non-resident proprietors in the said territory, dying intestate, shall descend to, and be distributed among their children, and the descendants of a deceased child in equal parts; the descendants of a deceased child or grand-child, to take the share of their deceased parent in equal parts among them….”
----------------
In my mind one would use something that is for use, and that in turn, would be to use something.

...