6 votes

Land Ownership Rights, Property Rights: What are your thoughts?

How do you define property rights?

Do you believe in our current model of the state administering land ownership and titles?

Most libertarians believe in 'property rights', but how does land fit into your property rights theory?

I believe in the homestead principle which asserts that one has rights to unowned land by productive use:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle
(Wiki has thoughts from: Locke, Rothbard, de Jasay, Hoppe. It seems most libertarians agree on the homestead principle)

Actually the Homestead Act of 1862 was based on this principle according to Wiki. (Note: I think the Occupy Movement should have taken this approach in protest against state ownership of unused land. I also agree with Benjamin Tucker who believed that the 1)money monopoly, 2)land monopoly, 3) tariffs, 4) patents were detrimental to average Americans)

Anyways what are your thoughts? I'm very curious to know.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

No that's not true...

The Indians didn't own the land and probably had a better understanding than us that no one really owned the land. They were just of the earth.

If there were no sun would you have light, heat and food? If no water, would you not die from thirst? If no air, would you not suffocate? I think if we got away a little from our human intellect we would appreciate more the nature that is. It would be humbling, but wholesome...

9-11 Media Fakery: Did anyone die on 9-11?
http://www.cluesforum.info/

http://www.septemberclues.info/

9-11 Actors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aPvJSQtmoE

Pysops.. media.. actors.. propagandists... disinfo agents.. fake videos.. fake photos

The concept of ownership

The concept of ownership is just an expression of "I have a right to be here and live from what is here. From that perspective the Native Americans certainly did "own" the land they occupied and fought to defend it in any way they could.

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."
Thomas Jefferson

Yeah I agree.

It does seem to be an uncomfortable truth and something many libertarians don't want to discuss....

Hey why not call it a 'land partnership' with nature instead of 'land ownership'? I digress, but do you know of Masanobu Fukuoka and natural farming methods? (He's popular in the field of permaculture.) I just read One Straw Revolution and what you say reminds me a little bit about his thoughts of nature and humanity.

9-11 Media Fakery: Did anyone die on 9-11?
http://www.cluesforum.info/

http://www.septemberclues.info/

9-11 Actors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aPvJSQtmoE

Pysops.. media.. actors.. propagandists... disinfo agents.. fake videos.. fake photos

Fukuoka's methods will be a part of our farm.

We are "stealing" from him and Sepp Holzer, although that project comes after we get the AP dome up and running.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Wow..

Great to hear!

9-11 Media Fakery: Did anyone die on 9-11?
http://www.cluesforum.info/

http://www.septemberclues.info/

9-11 Actors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aPvJSQtmoE

Pysops.. media.. actors.. propagandists... disinfo agents.. fake videos.. fake photos

Where are your land rights?

The rights to land are found in the Land Title. What is the Land Title? It is the original document from a sovereign (or agent of the sovereign, ie: United States) that transfers land from the public to private domain called a Grant or Land Patent. In the case of all land on the continent of North America these grants came from the monarchs of England, France, Spain, and on occasion Holland (New York) and Russia (Alaska). The US issued grants as land patents throughout the 19th century, and there are even examples of American Indian grants.

These grants are both a contract, in that they are binding on both parties: the grantor and the grantee, and a law, in that they delineate the extent of use and government that my be exercised on the land by its owner. There are cases where one may erect and own buildings on the land but not exercise the government over it. Others, the reverse. Some grant the power to tax some do not.

But because it is a contract, it cannot be amended by a third party. That means that if there were no zoning laws in place at the time of the grant that pertain to the grant, there can be no zoning laws that can ever apply to the use or occupation of the land. The same goes for environmental laws, or any other federal, state, or local post facto law.

Once the separation occurred between England and the several American Republics, every grant became a patent in allodium for the inhabitants of the land.

There is no higher form of ownership than a land patent according to SCOTUS. Any claim to a land patent is assumed to be valid and the burden of proof to the contrary falls upon the counter claimant.

One needs three things to have legitimate claim to a land patent:

1. A clear line of title to the original grant,
2. Be of the proper status with respect to the government, and
3. Know the law as it relates to your right to make such a claim.

These are not easy things to achieve, but I have heard of people exercising their rights to their land by presenting and successfully defending their land patents.

Learn more here:
http://freedom-school.com/private-property-rights.html
Pleas make sure you download all the material and archive it for yourself.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

Thanks

Are land patent enforcements considered a common law jurisdiction or is it admiralty law?

I don't yet understand these distinctions, and the bonding issue appears to be a keystone in the admiralty law structure.

If the Supreme Court is involved does that identify the power to be admiralty law, a power that is usurped, and is common law considered as the self-evident law of the land, the so called God given rights of man?

Joe

It is a matter of

It is a matter of international law. I do not know enough to say upon what basis international law stems, though it is not a product of mercantile/ maritime law. However it is certain that it and the Law Of Nations were fundamental concepts in the forming of the American union of independent nations, and from which the corporate agent United States was born.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

Curious words

"It is a matter of international law. I do not know enough to say upon what basis international law stems, though it is not a product of mercantile/ maritime law."

Is it the other way around then? Mercantile/Maritime Law is a product of International Law.

Your words appear to suggest that The New World Order is already here, which is something that measures accurately in so many ways that I alone could fill volumes with those measures.

Joe

3rd Possibility

The third possibility is that Mercantile/Maritime Law and International Law have little if anything to do with one another on the land.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

Passing the bar?

I'm confused.

What is the significance of passing the bar?

I went to jury duty not long ago, and there seemed to be a significance associated with passing through a gate, something very weird to me. I was not picked as a juror, a long story, but my failure to measure up was that I told the truth - it seems to me.

Joe

You rent the property your on

You rent the property you're on by way of paying property taxes to the government. This is also why you must ask them for permission (aka get a permit) to make big changes to the property.

We don't have true individual property rights in this country. If we did, you could not be taxed on something you own or have to ask permission to build a new bathroom or bedroom onto the house.

I don't see it that way. At

I don't see it that way.

At least in this country, property is protected by the government. The system of property rights, where everyone agrees to protect property, and everyone agrees to abide by laws that punish theft of property, is not free. That is why we tax property owners to pay for the upkeep of a system that they benefit from.

With mob rule, property rights become irrelevant.

Permits can be troublesome, but they are often an extension of the idea that property rights end at the nose of others. Just because something is your property doesn't mean that everything that happens on it is OK. If you are beating and abusing your children in your home, and the government breaks down your door to arrest you, they are violating your property rights. But I am OK with that, since they are violating your property rights to protect the rights of the children.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Don't pay the taxes and they take it

Could it have really ever been yours?
I can't build a new home without a sprinkler system and I have to get 15 permits before I can put up drywall. I don't feel much like the owner of anything and all the folks think it's great, FREEDOM!!

Taxes=Rent=You don't own it

I am all for owning land. I don't mesh with the "Earth owns the land" stuff some others are subscribing to. However, if you have to pay taxes, then you don't own the land. You are renting it. If you don't own the land, then you don't own part of your means of productions. If you don't own 100% of your means of production, you can't be considered a free market capitalist. If you have to pay the state to stay on your land, then you are not free.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

I feel like that is

I feel like that is saying:

"If you have to follow laws, then you don't own yourself. You are owned by the state. You are not free".

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

deacon's picture

we get taxed for benefits we recieve?

how is that?
i get taxed on my property(which isn't mine)
for what benefits?
i get taxed on my car for more benefits?
which do i receive for the privilege of driving?
i get taxed on things i buy from the store,is there another benefit
i am receiving i know nothing about?
permits are issued for the reason we rent,and have to ask
permission to say,build something
to get a permit from another boils down to one snooping on
property they do not own,nor have any vested interest in
which benefit do i actually receive that i also have to pay the upkeep on?

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

Please

Consider explaining the "Labor Theory of Value", as would be attributable to Benjamin Tucker, in particular.

As far as my study goes the person Benjamin Tucker, the one who published a magazine called Liberty, was a person whose principles were based upon the work of Josiah Warren, and if so, then this "Labor Theory of Value" concept may be, as it turns out, no principle at all, unless there is accurate communication concerning the "theory".

I may not be communicating well at this point, so it may be better to link the source of Benjamin Tuckers "theories", if my understanding of that is accurate.

And then I can quote from it.

http://tmh.floonet.net/pdf/jwarren.pdf

_____________________________
Now, among this multitude of values, which one should be selected to set a price upon? Or, should the price be made to vary and fluctuate according to these fluctuating values! and never be completely sold,* but only from hour to hour?

*Ridiculous as this appears, it is actually carried out in limited leases on land, which is never completely sold, but subject to have a new price set upon it at the expiration of each lease, according to its fluctuating values!
______________________________

If I may be more precise in communicating my question, please, the connection between an ambiguous, or nonsensical, or even worse a devious "Labor Theory of Value" (whatever that means exactly), connecting that "theory" with Benjamin Tucker may be undeserved, inaccurate, and misleading.

The connection between Tucker and Warren has been made, it seems, and that may help, if the idea is to know what Tucker considered to be equitable in the commerce of land, as in "Free Market" land markets, where "free" does not mean "free from moral conscience".

The cost of something is accurately measurable as the limit of price in a free market since those who offer land, or anything, for sale, in competition with other sellers, will be presented with a free market choice, made by the buyers, to buy the higher quality and lower cost land being offered for sale in that free market, and as anyone knows, the buyers will choose the lower cost and the higher quality land over the higher cost and the lower quality land, and that force, that free market force, does, in a free market so defined, force price down to cost.

If somehow, by some odd device, The Labor Theory of Value, whatever that may be, somehow it is connected to Tucker, by any way, including by way of Warren, then that method, that device, of making that connection, it seems to me, aught to be known, and known accurately. Otherwise there is a measurable case of misdirection occurring for some reason.

Making information scarce, especially vital information, high quality information, directing people away from it, is done for a reason, by those who do that, and I think their reasoning is such, a common practice, to jack up the price of that which is in higher demand, due to the effort to make that which is in demand scarce.

Land, for example, all of it, can be gathered up and owned by a few people, and then the price of existing on any land, anywhere, is a price set by the few who manage to own everything.

The same "system" applies to the demand for such things as currency, whereby there is made, by executive fiat, or simply fraud, ONE and only ONE legal money, making legal money scarce, and thereby making the sole provider of that ONE legal money powerful enough to set any price including this ridiculous price:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Please consider defining this "Labor Theory of Value" if possible. I'm curious.

Joe

Joe

Labor Theory of Value
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value

Usually the Labor Theory of Value is associated with Marx who emphasized labor as the sole component of value.

(Note: If you could distinguish more clearly between quotes from Josiah Warren and your own words that would be great.) I like Warren's take on Individuality and Sovereignty of the Individual, but not his economic solution.

#1 I disagree with Warren's 'Cost as the Limit of Price' idea. (Tucker may have believed in similar ideas)

It is contradictory to the Austrian economic school of thought to have an objective theory of value such as the 'Cost as the Limit of Price' idea. As I stated previously in response to another post:"It seems to me people who focus on labor theory of value don't realize the value of intellectual capital in capitalism /free market process. Just because I grow oranges doesn't mean there is some objective value in them that I deserve to get. There's subjective value in them (Mises). Hence if I sell oranges for $3 a pound to a merchant who turns around and sells it for $5 a pound to someone else that is not 'theft' as some anarcho-leftists may claim. The merchant is just identifying people who would buy oranges for $5 a pound instead of $2 a pound. Furthermore there's sales/marketing, logistics/distribution, research & development, operations/product development etc that all add value to products. Ultimately if you agree voluntarily to sell oranges at $3 a pound instead of trying yourself or hiring a sales team to get a higher price price that's too bad. Next time just try to find a higher price for your oranges or just keep them. It was a voluntary exchange. The free market is really simple."

9-11 Media Fakery: Did anyone die on 9-11?
http://www.cluesforum.info/

http://www.septemberclues.info/

9-11 Actors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aPvJSQtmoE

Pysops.. media.. actors.. propagandists... disinfo agents.. fake videos.. fake photos

Why fail?

"The free market is really simple."

So why is there a failure to communicate?

In a free market the force of competition forces price down to cost.

Is that not understandable?

If you disagree with Equitable Commerce by Josiah Warren, then you could explain why you disagree with Equitably Commerce by Josiah Warren.

If you create a Man of Straw to then disagree with, that would be what you do.

Joe

It will fail because Cost Limit of Price is unnatural...

Free market capitalism is natural and there is no need to communicate it because it happens. You need very little thought about why it works. You can just observe. It happens whether or not you have any economic theory or not. You place 100 people in a community and free market capitalism will happen. An exchange happens between people when both parties agree voluntarily and many exchanges will continue to happen thereafter.

BTW I read Equitable Commerce and I enjoyed it. Thanks for the link.
The very idea of Cost Limit of Price is contradictory to the idea of Individuality Warren talks about. Mises and Menger's subjective theory of value on the other hand is perfectly consistent with the idea of Individuality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value

On the supply side: The cost and QUALITY of all products vary. (There is Intellectual capital/logistics/operational management/distribution/sales & marketing/research & development that determines both cost & quality.)

On the demand side: The desires of each individual is different. As individuals, desires are temporal. One day a person may want to buy a Tickle me Elmo doll before Christmas for a child for $1000 and another day the person may lose his job and know that he would not pay $1.

That is why Carl Menger and Mises subjective theory of value is consistent with Warren's explanation of Individuality. Value is determined by each individual at any moment in time and constantly fluctuates.

In one of Warren's last chapters, he encourages that people write down their desires and needs in a book and to display it to others. This is not only unnatural it's impractical and a direct contradiction to all the points he made about Individuality. Why would I right down that I desire 1 bushel of oranges for $10 or an IPad for $400 next winter when I won't know my desire nor my capacity to pay in the future.

Supply & Demand
In classical economics one of the fundamental theories is supply and demand. However most people overlook the fact that when you create a supply curve each supplier has a different cost structure (and also different quality).. it may take $10, $20, $30, $40, or $50 to produce a bushel of oranges from different suppliers and they will all have different profits. The suppliers together at different quantity and price levels will create a supply curve. The demand curve is similar. The buyers will each desire various quantities at various price levels. Each person has a subjective value of what they would pay for an orange... $10, $20, $30, $40, or $50 etc. When the supply at various cost structures meets the demand of different desires you will have an overall equilibrium price and the overall supply will meet demand at a certain price. Let's say the equilibrium price is $30 with some aggregate total of supply in this case. Some people will make more profits because their cost structure is lower (ie. $10 vs $30) and some buyers will feel like they'll get a great deal because they are buying oranges at $30 when they would be willing to pay $50 (vs. $30). Those that do not produce at a cost low enough from the equilibrium price will decide not to produce until there is more demand at a higher price and those that desire to buy the oranges at a lower price than the equilibrium will not get any oranges unless supply at a lower price increases.

Over time in a truly competitive free market the marginal cost will equal price in aggregate. However there will be a variety of different profits for each supplier and various levels of satisfaction from buyers. Furthermore the supply and demand curve in this case assumes a static supply/demand curve. The Austrian Economic school's subjective theory of value shows that the supply and demand curve always changes so any objective analysis is fruitless. Who knows whether bell-bottom pants will make a come back, if the low carb diet will continue in popularity or if people will keep watching American Idol.... maybe even the ideas of liberty or anarcho-capitalism will be the next big thing in the free market and more people will pay for Ron Paul books in the future...

Hope that helps...

9-11 Media Fakery: Did anyone die on 9-11?
http://www.cluesforum.info/

http://www.septemberclues.info/

9-11 Actors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aPvJSQtmoE

Pysops.. media.. actors.. propagandists... disinfo agents.. fake videos.. fake photos

Counterfeit

"The very idea of Cost Limit of Price is contradictory to the idea of Individuality Warren talks about."

I read your words and you discredit, by way of ambiguity, Warrens' words, and so which words are genuine and which words are not?

Note how I quote your words, and then I describe your words in the context of the discussion.

If I had asked for your opinion of what you think about your understanding of Warren's work on Equitable Commerce, then you could offer your opinion, and thereby supply the demand I ask, if that were the case.

Instead, your words, quoted above, are couched as if your opinion is more powerful than mine, and your opinion is more powerful than Warren's work, since your words state, as if your words constitute fact, and so again, here are your words:

"The very idea of Cost Limit of Price is contradictory to the idea of Individuality Warren talks about."

Those words appear to communicate factual things.

Yes or no?

The, bla, bla, bla, IS contradictory to bla, bla, bla.

The Sun IS a large mass.

OK, well, then, that closes that case.

Now what?

This is a discussion?

I don't think so.

""The very idea of Cost Limit of Price is contradictory to the idea of Individuality Warren talks about."

That looks like dictatorial statements of absolute fact, when, as I see it, that above is patently false.

"Mises and Menger's subjective theory of value on the other hand is perfectly consistent with the idea of Individuality."

Perfection!

This is not a discussion.

If it were, then I could ask the person who was engaged in the discussion to explain the following and then I would be the happy recipient of a competitive angle of view, with which to then have as a source of comparative analysis, side by side, on the same shelf, as my current view of the following:

http://mises.org/etexts/menger/two.asp

Principles of Economy
Karl Menger

CHAPTER II. ECONOMY AND ECONOMIC GOODS
________________________________________________
Here human self-interest finds an incentive to make itself felt, and where the available quantity does not suffice for all, every individual will attempt to secure his own requirements as completely as possible to the exclusion of others.
_______________________________________________
________________________________________________
We saw that economic goods are goods whose available quantities are smaller than the requirements for them. Wealth can therefore also be defined as the entire sum of goods at an economizing individual’s command, the quantities of which are smaller than the requirements for them. Hence, if there were a society where all goods were available in amounts exceeding the requirements for them, there would be no economic goods nor any “wealth.”
________________________________________________

What do those quoted words mean in English?

I quote the source and as for your opinion of those quoted words and then I can offer my own competitive opinion of those words.

What do you do?

You tell me what Equitable Commerce means.

Now I'm supposed to agree with your statements of absolute fact concerning something that I see as nearly opposite of your supposed statements of absolute fact, because you say so?

So...shifting gears, onto this Menger fellow, and the quotes above, ball in your court, as if this were a discussion, and you have a request before you, to tell me, and anyone else, YOUR OPINION, of what those words, quoted above, mean - in English.

Then, again, in the effort to discuss, I can offer my version of what those words mean, quoted above, in English.

"Value is determined by each individual at any moment in time and constantly fluctuates."

If you shift back to your interpretation of Warren's work, without quotes, and your interpretation is opposite mine, I can do what?

Point to your version of Warren's work and contend with it?

What is the point?

"In one of Warren's last chapters, he encourages that people write down their desires and needs in a book and to display it to others. This is not only unnatural it's impractical and a direct contradiction to all the points he made about Individuality."

Quotes could identify exactly what you intend to turn into your version of the genuine article, and then I don't have to waste my time working on the counterfeit versions.

The concept of advertizing wants and needs is called advertizing.

If you think that advertizing is unnatural then that is your exclusive opinion, so far, and if you have an army of people who agree with you that advertizing is unnatural then that is fine by me, I don't.

I think that advertizing is natural, and my measure of just how natural advertizing is is all over the place in all the various forms of advertizing that exist.

One example is the demand for and the supply of something called make-up.

"This is not only unnatural it's impractical and a direct contradiction to all the points he made about Individuality."

Quotes may help, if the idea is to make a valid point.

"Why would I right down that I desire 1 bushel of oranges for $10 or an IPad for $400 next winter when I won't know my desire nor my capacity to pay in the future."

What do you call The Want Ads?

http://www.thewantads.com/

If the concept is foreign to you, unnatural to you, and your army, it seems to me that there are many individuals who consider the concept to be as natural as breathing air.

How does your dictates as to what is real, to you, become fact to me, in your mind?

I'm done, I have no interest in reading any more of your dictates, the above effort, in my opinion, fills the demand for discussion, as I see it.

Joe

Josf: Counterfeit?

It's very difficult to understand 1)the logic 2)vagueness 3)wordiness from your responses especially in contrast to your subject line headings.

Feel free to reread my posts if you are genuinely interested in learning. The internet is a great resource and reading and understanding those references (ie. Mises/Austrian Economics/Classical Economics-supply vs demand) straight from the original sources is better than trying to ask someone else like me to explain those references for you. Good luck in the future.

9-11 Media Fakery: Did anyone die on 9-11?
http://www.cluesforum.info/

http://www.septemberclues.info/

9-11 Actors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aPvJSQtmoE

Pysops.. media.. actors.. propagandists... disinfo agents.. fake videos.. fake photos

Good luck?

There is no need for luck if YOU think you know something then YOU could stop pretending to be an authority on anything and YOU could then actually inform someone who may not know something.

Your pathetic counterfeit version of Equitable Commerce is exactly that, a pathological example of a false version of the genuine thing, and since you refuse to take on the challenge of quoting the words that you falsify, refusing to actually improve upon, or actually denounce, that original work of inventive science applied to society, your omission of actual reason, uncovers the thin veil of pretense of authority.

Then you have the audacity to drop names, in particular a fellow named Menger, so as to do what, send me on the wild goose chase I've already managed to travel?

Rather than take up the new challenge, to explain the meaning YOU get from the words of Menger, again, your thin veil of authority is lifted, and your pathetic response is exactly that, again, a pathological regurgitation of the same old lies, diversions, political deception, as if you know of no other game in town.

If you post a topic on a forum, and you can't even muster up the courage to defend your own words, then what does that make you?

Counterfeit authority?

Menger:

http://mises.org/etexts/menger/two.asp

Principles of Economy
Karl Menger

CHAPTER II. ECONOMY AND ECONOMIC GOODS
________________________________________________
Here human self-interest finds an incentive to make itself felt, and where the available quantity does not suffice for all, every individual will attempt to secure his own requirements as completely as possible to the exclusion of others.
_______________________________________________
________________________________________________
We saw that economic goods are goods whose available quantities are smaller than the requirements for them. Wealth can therefore also be defined as the entire sum of goods at an economizing individual’s command, the quantities of which are smaller than the requirements for them. Hence, if there were a society where all goods were available in amounts exceeding the requirements for them, there would be no economic goods nor any “wealth.”
________________________________________________

Item 1 and Item 2 go together like falsehood and violence.

Item 1 is a very long way to stretch the truth as such:

"every individual will attempt to secure his own requirements as completely as possible to the exclusion of others"

Note the dictatorial statement of fact common to dictators who prop themselves up as an authority over everyone, note, everyone, note the words "every individual" note the word "will".

What ever happened to the concept of charity?

It no longer exists?

Item 2

"there would be no economic goods"

As if suddenly hell broke loose on the earth as people produced necessities, and even wants, into a state of abundance, because a magic wand was waved and at that moment of abundance all those things vanish?

No, Joe, that isn't want Menger is saying at all, as Menger isn't actually claiming those English words written in English, he is saying, in English, is factual meaning of words, he is saying something entirely different than your interpretation, and allow me to tell you that you won't know about what he really means to say because, ahhhh, well, because you must be stupid.

So good luck with your poor condition of stupidity, in your fantasy world of charity, where you may have this fancy notion of a condition of abundance where people actually find ways to live, and let live, without resorting to deceit, threats, and violence.

Deceit, if you have not yet heard, is the name of the game, do unto others before they have a chance to do unto you, and if you don't, well...

Good luck with that, since these quaint notions of equity, although they may sound nice, is just so much gibberish, these associations with Marx, and his Labor Theory of Value, etc., are to be pinned onto you, even if you don't like it.

Yea, right, and so that I can tally up the score accurately, I'll put you in the no column.

Thanks anyway, "teacher".

Joe

Josf,

How is it that in a free market the force of competition forces the price down to cost?

I was always taught that in a free market that the price will be what the market will bear...thus supply and demand comes into play which will set the cost.

Take an example

Illustrate the question and the answer with some THING.

I think a Personal Computer works very well to accomplish this goal, since there is less Legal Crime working to "subsidize" one competitor over another competitor, and therefore that specific THING, a Personal Computer, illustrates how a Free Market works well.

Another illustration is E-Bay, where a Free Market is working very well, right now.

Put any THING, such as a Personal Computer, on E-Bay, and tell me how the price is determined as many sellers have to compete with many sellers.

Take a Web Page like Price Watch, for example, too.

Who loads page 145 where the prices are highest?

Who loads page 1 where the prices are lowest?

What is the FORCE that is at work to alter the price?

Is that FORCE working to raise the price?

What is the minimum affordable price that any seller in competition with any other seller will be FORCED to price the item for sale in a highly competitive market where many sellers are selling abundant THINGS to too few buyers?

What you end up with, in abundance, is PRICE AT COST.

A seller selling below cost goes out of business.

A seller selling above cost, but not lower than another seller at a lower cost, does not sell anything, and goes out of business.

So, as we have discussed, what is the determining factor between "what the market will bear", bear, and "price at cost"?

1.
Scarcity
2.
Abundance

When something is made scarce, on purpose, the few remaining sellers then have the POWER to set the price at "what the market will bear" - bear.

When no such power is FORCED into existence, to make things scarce, the many competitors are FORCED to price at cost, or fail to sell anything, as the few buyers will choose the lower price, because they can, because there is abundance, because no POWER has FORCED the competition out of business.

When Productive Power is used to make Power abundant, what is the limit of Power Production?

When Productive Power is stolen and then used to steal more, the result is scarcity.

That is easy to measure accurately right here:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

So you have, easily, before you, a number of things to view, measure, and know, and understand, as to how the price is determined, and by which POWERS the transactions are FORCED from equitable exchanges into inequitable exchanges.

1.
Personal Computers sold on E-Bay
2.
Federal Reserve Notes
3.
Offer for discussion another THING (how about Land) sold in real time right now, so as to answer the question you ask, and you find the answer yourself, because God gave you the power to do so.

"How is it that in a free market the force of competition forces the price down to cost?"

If you have the will POWER to answer the question accurately, then you will get the accurate answer.

I hope that I can help.

This is vital information in our time, in my opinion.

Joe

Not all forces are forced

I understand that illegal criminals are at work in the current market so as to make abundance scarce. Isn't that the illustration you gave?

My question is how does the free market work to make the value at cost?

I say that in a free market there are no nefarious forces at work to willfully hedge and deplete markets.

However, there are natural forces at work. Drought, storm, fire, etc. If much of the wheat in America is destroyed and there is not enough to go around the highest bidder who has the most money and who wants the wheat the most will get the wheat.

Take eBay for example. A rare item no longer stocked. The price to make the item does not come into play. The rarity of the item comes into play and the demand for the item.

I could by a box of stuff for $10 bucks and sell the items in the box by the piece and can get $100 bucks for a single item. The box only cost me $10, but there was a single thing of value in that box and someone, or a lot of someones wanted that single piece that no one else had so the original retail of that single piece may have been $30 and I paid $10 for it and sold it for $100.

To me, an un-manipulated auction is the best view of the free market. Land sells by auction around here. It brings what the market will bear depending on who wants the land and how much money they have and how much land is being sold at the time...and of course how much people are making in their savings account which may be the not so free part of the picture.

How do Product 1 and 2 play into a FREE market and COST at limit? Everyone has plenty of money to buy the wheat that is scarce because they have relatively free money to buy houses and energy so the price of scarce wheat may go way up?

That is how I understand things. That is my power at work. That is my experience at work. Am I wrong?

...

Fantasy?

"I say that in a free market there are no nefarious forces at work to willfully hedge and deplete markets."

You can say that and you can even believe it. I can even agree. In fact the average producer of something will avoid overproduction beyond the demand for the item produced, because overproducing something will render the thing produced valueless.

But that does not work with power.

Setting aside the production of power and returning to non-power products.

Not until more people demand something will the producer find reason to reproduce new versions of the same thing, like chairs.

That is not nefarious use of making chairs scarce on purpose for profit.

Nefarious scarcity is exemplified in modern monopoly money markets, which is as plain as day, and if you can't see that then I don't know why you are so blind.

Other forms of nefarious scarcity include anywhere on earth where productive people are starving to death as any human being allowed to compete in a free market can figure out how to produce food.

In a free market, absent crime, absent fraud, absent the willful censorship of accurate information required, as in full disclosure, for buyers to know if they are being taken to the cleaners, taken advantage of, victimized by false advertizements, in that free market, absent those lies of omission or outright fabrications of falsehood, there will be relative abundance compared to modern times.

What, exactly, do you see, in a free market, where the things needed, or the things wanted, become so scarce that millions of people are starving to death, and millions of people are torturing and murdering each other for the last bits of necessities?

What are we talking about here?

This is simple math.

Equitable exchanges are costs traded for costs.

Inequitable exchanges are costs passed onto someone who pays those costs passed onto the one by the other one by some device.

A = B

That can be mathematically understood as equity.

A equitably trades with B

Both know everything the other person knows about the trade, both are fully satisfied in getting something for something not something for nothing at the expense of the other.

A = B

A > B

A < B

That is mathematically understandable as an inequitable trade, whereby the costs of the trade are passed onto one from another.

If that is not understandable then 1 plus 1 does not equal 2.

"However, there are natural forces at work. Drought, storm, fire, etc. If much of the wheat in America is destroyed and there is not enough to go around the highest bidder who has the most money and who wants the wheat the most will get the wheat."

In an African country where so many people are starving to death the American Dupe is sending money to a person or group that can afford a television add to take in money from many people, pocket the money, pay taxes, the taxes are used to subsidize the price of wheat, the African people can no longer afford to grow wheat and sell it at cost, let alone enough extra cost to expand their farm business beyond mere subsistence, and those same taxes "collected" are then used to finance bands of murderers to slaughter the starving population and who profits, and who passes on costs?

Had the same drought conditions existed without the false advertizements, the inequitable transfers of purchasing power by fraud, by threats, by violence, those same threatened people, facing drought, could have banded together, cooperating, and independently figured out how to feed their starving children just like any human being ever born into this world, what is so hard about finding water and growing food?

When food and water is scarce one person may have a hard time surviving. One color of people in one nation can't find water and food for what? Subsidized wheat scarcity so as to jack up the price of wheat?

"If much of the wheat in America is destroyed and there is not enough to go around the highest bidder who has the most money and who wants the wheat the most will get the wheat."

Really? If that were true then what do you think is going to happen when the money drought grows into hyperinflation, what do you think that is, exactly?

If money can buy all the wheat, who do you think can simply cut themselves a check for as much money as everyone else combined?

There is a drought here in America. It is a sound (accurate) money drought, who is buying it?

Frauds.

Criminals with badges.

Liars.

People who torture and mass murder for fun and profit.

I had a discussion with my older brother today, he asked about the weather. I said, OK, I watch for the persistent vapor trails. So I get laughed at, and I say, OK, you think it is funny. I say I don't.

What are the persistent vapor trails causing?

"If much of the wheat in America is destroyed and there is not enough to go around the highest bidder who has the most money and who wants the wheat the most will get the wheat."

Scarcity.

Why?

What is money?

Do you mean fraud money? If so then why add the word money?

Can I rewrite your sentence, I think I can.

When much of the wheat in America is destroyed and there is not enough to go around the highest bidder who is best at fraud who wants the most POWER will get the most POWER.

Wheat is power. Wheat contains energy/power, sustenance, calories.

What is a calorie?

http://www.onlineconversion.com/energy.htm

If there was a free market who would care to help each other get past a drought?

A = B

A > B

A < B

What is charity?

Is charity the opposite of equity?

No, charity is the opposite of passing on costs to a victim who does not agree, voluntarily, to take on those cost past on, the victim may take the costs, under duress, but the person or persons passing on cost do so with prejudice, willful intent to injure the innocent victims.

Charity is taking on costs willingly.

Where does this practice of making things needed scarce, by resort to false advertizements, omissions of pertinent information, omissions of inculpatory information, threats of injury, and violence upon the "consumer" fall, where does this practice fall, in the mathematical, accurate, measure of the actual transfers of power?

A = B
A > B
A < B

If it is charitable then the one assuming the costs knows full well what costs they are assuming and they do so willingly.

When it is equitable, there are no costs passed onto someone from someone and therefore the price is the cost.

OK, how about another angle of view?

What is the fixation on price?

If one person has something and another person has something and both exchange things willingly, and no one is passing on something counterfeit, so each knows what the other is getting, and giving up, and the exchange is voluntary for both people during the exchange.

Got that?

Why is one person considered a seller and one person considered a buyer?

Thing A is exchanged by person 1.

Thing B is exchanged by person 2.

Why is person 1 a seller?

Why is person 2 a buyer?

You tell me.

"Take eBay for example. A rare item no longer stocked. The price to make the item does not come into play. The rarity of the item comes into play and the demand for the item."

OK, take that person, who has Thing A.

How is that person a seller and not a buyer?

If an exchange is made, from the person selling Thing A, then why is that person not buying the thing gained when transferring Thing A to someone else?

How is the person who gives upon Thing A any different than the person giving up Thing B to get Thing A?

Thing A, says person 1, will only be sold to a buyer, and that is final?

Person 2 calls up and says hey, bud, I have Thing B, and it is even more scarce than thing A.

Really?

Yup

How much more scarce is Thing B?

Who is the buyer now?

Person 1 says, OK, that Thing B is much more scarce than Thing A, so I'm buying it. What do you want for Thing B?

Thing A.

But Thing A is not so scarce, not as scarce as Thing B, are you taking me to the cleaners?

Not at all.

A trade is made.

Is it a seller selling to a buyer?

I think you may be filled with dogma.

That is an equitable trade.

What if Thing B turns out to be worthless paper?

Fraud is committed.

No problem, it happens all the time.

Caveat Emptor, so I've heard.

What works best during extreme hardship?

Equity?

Charity?

That which the market will bear?

"I could by a box of stuff for $10 bucks and sell the items in the box by the piece and can get $100 bucks for a single item. The box only cost me $10, but there was a single thing of value in that box and someone, or a lot of someones wanted that single piece that no one else had so the original retail of that single piece may have been $30 and I paid $10 for it and sold it for $100."

How is that not cost price? If you deem the item to be worth keeping, because to part with it is for you to lose 99 dollars, then set that price, or 1000 dollars, set that price, you make up your cost, and if it is what it is, not a counterfeit, and someone can afford it, the cost to them of not having it is greater than 100, or 1000, then how is that not equitable trading?

A = B?

Cost is whatever you say it is whenever you say it is your cost, no matter how you figure out your cost. If you base your cost on the scarcity value of parting with something based on how much other people will fight each other to get your item in their hands, then that is what you set the price, or cost, of that item, to you.

If you feel at a loss, you feel a cost, knowing that you could have sold the item at twice as much, then that is a cost to you, how is it not a cost to you, and why did you give that up, that way.

Were you charitable, taking on that extra cost to you?

Now, since you are charitable, you do not feel that you lost out?

Here, have this, at half the cost to me, I prefer that you have it, charitably, compared to me giving it to the other guy for twice the cost to him?

Or no, neither of you get it, I am going to wait for someone to pay 10 times the cost to that person, because he works for The Federal Reserve and I know he has as much money as everyone else combined if he wants to write himself a check?

We were on this trail awhile ago, as to why there are Buyers and Sellers, not just traders.

Why are there Borrowers and Lenders, not just traders?

Why two instead of one?

What raises one above the other, or lowers one below the other?

Why are there employers and employees?

Why are there financiers and workers?

The boss does not go to work to work?

The worker does not go to work to buy some dollars, selling his time and energy (power)?

"To me, an un-manipulated auction is the best view of the free market."

I think you are deluded. One look at Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports show a criminal transfer of vast amounts of productive power flowing from those who produce that power to those who steal it by that crime in progress, that fraud of keeping two books, and that is one of many ways that document two separate classes of people in this country as those who gain by that fraud and those who suffer from that fraud.

How many of those who suffer from that fraud are not even able to compete in those "un-manipulated" auctions?

How many more people would have as many things to sell as every other person on E-Bay if the current legal frauds were not being perpetrated right now?

Pick one item sold in any auction and then add 3 more of that same thing you are selling in that same auction, what happens to the price?

Scarcity price, or "that which the market will bear", or one thing and 5 people who have an abundance of things to trade for it all wanting the scarce thing at the same time, is scarce, not abundant, non-competitive, from the "sellers" viewpoint.

No one else is "selling" (trading) the unique item that is scarce.

The "buyers" (traders), all 5 of them, are "selling" (trading) the abundant things, competing with each other, and the market force of competition is doing what to their prices they set on their THINGS to sell?

"Buyer" (trader) A, B, C. D, and E, in competition to sell their abundant things they are selling, to you, as you are the one "seller" (trader) with the scarce thing.

"Buyer" (trader) A sets his price too high for you.

You say, no, sorry, I can't afford that, that costs to much for me.

"Buyer" (trader) B sets his price lower for you, please, take my stuff, to trade, since "market forces" are at work, driving my price down (he has to pay a higher cost).

"Buyer" (trader) C sets his price even lower for you, again market forces force him to give up more cost, give up more profit, give up more value, lower his price for this trade, because of those market forces forcing him to give up more, or go out of business.

"Buyer" (trader) D, the winner of the price reducing competition, as market forces force him to lower his price, gives up the most profit, the highest cost to himself, setting his price to near charity, almost giving you more than he gets himself, and you finally say, OK, that is my cost to part with this thing, and I'm being charitable, since I know that Mr. Federal Reserve himself wants what I have, and he will be at the auction tomorrow, but alas, I am very charitable, so here you go, at my loss.

Is trader A, B, and C non-competitive in that free market?

Why did they feel as if they were being forced to lower their prices?

At what point were any of those traders forced to the point of giving away too much for less in return?

At what point did anyone reach the point at which their costs were too high in that competition, and they could not cover those costs in that exchange?

Who is responsible for accounting for your costs?

Who is responsible for accounting for trader A, B, C, or D's costs?

Who is responsible for accounting for Mr. Federal Reserve's costs?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Internet E-Bay auctions are almost perfect market anarchism or perfect free markets for all those people who are not currently priced out of those markets due to legal crimes being perpetrated currently, and those crimes are well documented in Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports and National Debt, not even counting, if possible, International Debt.

Which way do you look at those near perfect forms of market anarchism or free markets on E-Bay?

Master/Slave
Seller/Buyer
Employer/Employee
Lender/Borrower
Equitable Commerce

When deceit is employed, threats are employed, and violence is employed as a factor in any movement of power from individual to individual, by definition, that is an inequitable transfer of power.

The language used to describe an inequitable trade includes: taking someone to the cleaners, making a killing, leverage, etc.

For good reason?

"Land sells by auction around here. It brings what the market will bear depending on who wants the land and how much money they have and how much land is being sold at the time...and of course how much people are making in their savings account which may be the not so free part of the picture."

Many competitors are seeking to trade their things for land, each will be forced to lower their price so as to stay in business, and failing to lower their price, to stay in business, is not competitive, so the number of competitors eventually narrows down to the one with the lowest costs.

How did the one with the lowest costs acquire that condition of having such low costs?

There are bundles of foreclosed properties now being sold, right here, where a person has very low costs (money to burn), and 10,000 homes will be purchased for 300 dollars each.

10,000
300

2,000,000

One home may sell, in a month, at today's "market price" for 150,000.

Auctions are better, since the bundles are priced where only a few competitors, if any, are bidding on those bundles at 2,000,000 each.

From which end of the stick do you see the following:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

If 90 percent of the population dies tonight, what happens to the cost of a house?

Entire tracks of new 200,000 dollar homes are empty all over.

What is the cost of building a new house?

What if all the carpenters, all the concrete finishers, all the electricians, the wall boarders, the painters, the plumbers all died.

What is the cost of building a new house?

All those new houses, rows upon rows, all empty, and no one claiming ownership?

What is the price of a new house?

"How do Product 1 and 2 play into a FREE market and COST at limit?"

In the detailed explanation of Product 1 and Product 2 the intention is to begin to employ math to account for actual banking costs. How much, if banking services were priced at cost, because banking was now competitive, how much would banking services cost you if you were trading your costs, your services, with bankers?

You offer to bankers your things, representing your costs of doing business, to bankers, and bankers offer their things, to you, things representing their costs.

High interest rates are high when bankers can make banking a monopoly and they can charge whatever the market will bear.

If there is competition in banking then a competitor with lower costs can afford to trade at a lower price, which is less interest, leaving the higher priced banker out of business.

What is the cost of banking?

What is the lowest cost of the best banking competitor?

Now you know the interest rate.

"Everyone has plenty of money to buy the wheat that is scarce because they have relatively free money to buy houses and energy so the price of scarce wheat may go way up?"

The illustration of Product 1 and Product 2 intends to add any farm, including Modular Vertical Farming Units into Power Producing Product 2 loans, so why would there ever be a scarcity of food?

Food is accurately measurable as calories.

Food is almost a perfect Power Product, the item of food reproduces, creates seeds, one become two, two becomes four, on and on.

What makes wheat scarce?

Back to the famine scenario?

If everyone is alive tomorrow that is alive today and when everyone wakes up tomorrow with no food on Earth anywhere, do we all eat each other to survive, or do we cooperate equitably to do the necessary work required to make food abundant again?

Some will know how to make food better than others, and so they become richest overnight, or in a week, because they price what the market will bear?

Might it be better for those who know how to make food best to volunteer to be teachers, in exchange for enough food to feed himself and his family?

"Everyone has plenty of money to buy the wheat that is scarce because they have relatively free money to buy houses and energy so the price of scarce wheat may go way up?"

If I had a Product 2 loan, and I used it to buy 10 Modular Vertical Farming Units, and a plot of land in the country, some Solar Panels, a well, and to pay off the loan, according to the current price of wheat, because I can make what in 5 of the units, make algae motor fuel in 2 units, leaving 3 units for tomatoes, carrots, and radishes, then what does that do to the price of wheat near me, when all I have to do is sell it at cost, to pay the bills, including the payback on the loan?

How much do I pay for wheat then?

How much do I pay for electricity then?

How much do I pay for gasoline for my car then?

Who do I pay back the loan to if the loan, borrowed at cost from the banker, is basically the same thing as me borrowing from myself, and hiring bankers to keep the books at their cost?

"That is how I understand things. That is my power at work. That is my experience at work. Am I wrong?"

You are right if you do not confuse the free market working where it does work with a market that is pricing many people out, since many people are taken to the cleaners, and they can't afford to be in any other market other than starvation.

Ok, so set those people aside, and other people are priced out of the free market because they have to work all the time just to keep from being homeless.

Ok, so set those people aside, and other people are priced out of the free market because they see no way to work other than joining the military, and then they are given the choice to obey unlawful orders, against their own Universal Code of Military Justice, or become a victim of those unlawful orders.

Ok, so set those people aside, and other people are priced out of the free market because they learn how to play the un-free market game as well as any other legal criminal, and they are now on the receiving end of the un-free market fraud, which is accurately accounted in both Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports and The National Debt.

Not to mention the International Debt.

I think you understand at least half of what I think I understand in this topic, and I am very poorly armed to fight this battle - unfortunately.

Joe

Joe, I never understood

what you meant when you asked about who is buyer and who is seller and who is employer and who is employee until today. It is a completely different mindset to see everyone as “traders.” And yet one side of the trade has been given some type of “lordship” status by the words applied to that side, as if the other side of the trade equation is beholden.

I am filled with dogma and I see the world on such a small scale.

It is too generous for you to say:

"I think you understand at least half of what I think I understand in this topic, and I am very poorly armed to fight this battle - unfortunately."

I am sure I understand very little of what you know, but today I understand more. You are able to play 3 way chess, I can barely move one move ahead of myself or my opponent.

Thank you for your time and effort once again. Probably the thing from my reply below that I need to understand the most is the word cost. I think of cost as exact cost of production without any living profit added. I will say though when I bought a box of stuff for $10 and sold 1 item for $100 I felt like I was making "a killing." Of course perhaps not by the time taxes and time and fees and the cost of living were subtracted and certainly there is some type of fee for my shopping experience to be able to offer that one item uncovered from the box.
-------------
That retired lady who went to Arizona and couldn't sell her house and the bank reposessed. It was sold to some type of property agent for half her asking price. Now some man in a truck comes everyday hired by that property agent and does who knows what for weeks on end inside of that house making it ready to sell. It seems strange to me. See my small world? It is a strange one but does not know about those false advertisers taking donations for Africa and the circle of shame there or about $2M lots of houses. Just the house across the street and the poor lady who worked in a hospital cafeteria all her life who could not sell her house. Both her situation and the circle of shame perpetrated on the victims in Africa makes me sad, to tears today, at least she is eating and physically unmolested though.

They are starving sick children in the UK now. The evil is almost unbearable.

...

Setting your own mind according to...

Bear,

This is where your teaching, or your help in learning, the word of God helps so much. The base principles, the rock solid place where the buck stops, the safe place, the unmoving, unyielding, no excuses, judgment day type end of the road, is DO NO HARM.

It is all through religion, if I understand the instructions offered by religion.

"It is a completely different mindset to see everyone as “traders.” "

So...I ask if the mindset that is completely different is acceptable to, or in concert with, or parallel, or even converging, agreeing, harmonious to, the word of God?

How can it not be?

At what point does any exchange of any power whatsoever tip from equity into any measure by any individual trader into charity?

And is that bad?

Is it inadvisable to allow any exchange of any power whatsoever by any person at any time, ever, to allow such an exchange to tip into the balance of charity?

What other options are there, if it is not charity, and it is not equity?

Equity, or a trade where traders are as satisfied with the measure of the trade to be as good for their own satisfactions as the other trader, in fact, in accurately measurable fact, having no regret, no sense of loss, no inequity whatsoever in any way, is a condition of trading or a condition of commerce that can be mathematically representing with three easy to understand symbols.

A = B

Charity, on the other hand, as it may be ill advised by some, or advised by others, can also be mathematically represented if A is understood to be the charitable person taking on costs, and B is understood to be the person accepting those voluntarily given costs that are costs to A.

A < B

Where the measure of the exchange can, in many cases, be a measurable exchange of actual POWER.

Such as:

Young person, man or now women, in their prime of life, joins a voluntary military force, engaged in self defense against an army of criminals with badges, such as cases that may be well representing in history, such as The Revolutionary War, and A, the charitable person, dies, as their power is gone, and B is the person alive and living IN Liberty if the criminal army is defeated and driven off.

A < B

Person A bears a child and raises the child.

A < B

Sleepless nights are a measure of power.

Giving up lavish meals at expensive restaurants to feed the kids is a measure of power.

A < B

What about the remaining quality of trading that is neither charity nor is it equity?

What symbols can be used to measure iniquity?

Person A resorts to deceit, threats of violence, or violence to exert those powers that result in A passing on costs to B without B being able to afford any other option, because it happens, than to pay without question?

A > B

I may have lost my mind, sure, but the English word for that is crime.

"You are able to play 3 way chess, I can barely move one move ahead of myself or my opponent."

Did I say that I was good at it? If you have 6 people, and 3 chess boards, and nothing better to do, you can offer it up to the group as being something worth doing, and in my opinion the benefits will be worth the cost.

__________________________________________
I will say though when I bought a box of stuff for $10 and sold 1 item for $100 I felt like I was making "a killing."
__________________________________________

If you used that POWER to expand the business, and in so doing you help so many more people find the things they want, without having to pay the "market price", then do you think the person that paid 100 dollars would encourage you to do so, no different than someone asking you to accept charity?

"Of course perhaps not by the time taxes and time and fees and the cost of living were subtracted and certainly there is some type of fee for my shopping experience to be able to offer that one item uncovered from the box."

And if you went out of business, it stands to reason, that you were too charitable, not covering all your costs, or you were merely not fit for that job, and so why waste another minute in the wrong job?

Everyone may have a best job, one where their special talents suit them best, where they are as best as they can be, in that particular competitive endeavor.

How can that be found?

I think the answer is basic, as each person has to assume their own costs, failure to do so will be in that exact measure, failure to know better. If it cost you too much to be selling things on E-Bay, then no amount of charity could keep you there, no amount of subsidy, no amount of any power at all, if the costs you alone create are too high for you.

You move on, and you find where the costs you alone create are affordable to you.

"The evil is almost unbearable."

Costs are being passed on to the innocent. It is a concern. I hope that you can be the best person to fill your shoes, as always, or at least until God is done with you in living form.

Joe