15 votes

The Fundamental Differences Between Us

When people disagree, one thing I always try to do is figure out what is the fundamental disagreement. If you get to the very bottom of an argument you will normally find the main presupposition upon which you disagree. I find this exercise extremely helpful in that it makes me think about my own position and it also helps me intelligently debate against the contrary opinion.

Let me give you an example of how this works. Let's take the issue of gun control. On one side you have those who advocate for a European style gun control and on the other you have those who advocate for the status quo or even less regulation on firearms. Why this disagreement? On both sides are people who are rational, intelligent, who love their children and truly want what is best for this country (of course their are malicious trolls on both sides as well). This is where it is helpful to get to the bottom issue. Let me walk you through what I think the foundational issue is.

The gun control advocates (I am generalizing broadly) want guns out of the hands of ordinary citizens. They don't want them around except for military and police. When I listen to these people and hear their arguments I think they basically believe two things: First, that it is primarily the government's job to protect you. This means it is not your job, at least not first. There is an assumption by this group that the protection of life and property are primarily to be protected by someone else, i.e. the police. The second assumption they have is that the people in power can be trusted. In limiting who may have weapons there is an assumption on their part that the 'authorities' are trust-worthy and good. So, to sum up their foundational argument it goes like this: it's the government's job to protect you, and we can trust those in power.

Now, let's look at the gun advocate side. It's basically the opposite view. Why must a citizen be able to have a weapon (besides that it is an inherent right, ect.)? It is for two basic reasons: First, it is primarily the individual's responsibility to protect one's life and property. This implies that it is not the government's job, at least not primarily. If someone breaks into my house I will get my weapon and call the police, in that order. I want the police to come, but it is my responsibility, right, and duty to protect myself, family, and property first. The second reason is this; people are basically bad. There is a lot of garbage out there saying people are basically good deep down. But this simply is not true. We have great capacity to do good, this is true. However, we are deep down bad. We tend towards evil, not good. This is true of those in power as well. History teaches us that power corrupts. It teaches us that those in power will eventually abuse it and subjugate their people. While their are many people in power in the US who are good, responsible, and decent, they still have the tendency to do bad. I am not a fatalist, but the reality is; people are bad, and given the opportunity, they will do wrong. This premise urges me to arm myself, not as some crazy militant, but as one living in the reality of the world. So, to sum up the gun advocate/libertarian position; it is primarily your responsibility to protect your life and property, and people are basically bad.

Until we begin to engage on the foundational issues, we will never make progress in spreading liberty. We can debate facts, we can get emotional, but the most profitable thing we can do is get people to talk about the fundamental differences between us. What do you think?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Imperfect analogy

Entropy is not so much chaos as it is simplification or a return back to nothing, or a move from complex, such as organic life, to simple, such as a hydrogen atom.

As far as I know (qualifier).

Ectropy, on the other hand, is analogous to the concept of God, whereby there is a power at work in the move from simple to complex, such as a universe consisting of nothing, and then there is hydrogen, and then there is oxygen, then water, on and on.

The viewpoint of a scale where chaos is on one end and on the other end is order may be analogous to Thermodynamics, but I think your application does not fit well, when you fit it into human behavior.

Chaos and Order on a scale of human behavior doesn't actually fit, since humans are individuals, autonomous, and therefore chaos is the rule, not the exception.

If Order was the rule, not the exception, then we would all think the same things, at the same times, do the same things, at the same times, and in the same places.

Ants could be understood as beings that are being orderly, on that type of scale.

I think that a place and a time where human beings are being orderly and not chaotic is exemplified in Cambodia during Pol Pot's regime (financed by Wall Street Legal Criminals), whereby everyone was thinking about destroying everyone else with few exceptions, and the proof of that fact was recorded as The Killing Fields.

So the scale, if someone really wants to build one, where the most orderly example of human behavior is known and placed on the scale of being that most orderly example, and it is Pol Pot's Cambodia on that end of the scale, then what would be the example on the other end of the scale?

How about the time period between 1776 and 1788 in America?

Seriously consider the idea, please, before dismissing it.

If the idea is to build a scale of orderly on one end and chaos on the other end, involving human behavior, then it requires a laundry list of exactly what the actual people do that constitutes ORDER.

These people on this ORDERLY end of the scale are doing this at this time.

See?

These people on the opposite end of the scale, all these people over here, at this time, are all doing these things, and all these things constitute disorder or chaos.

I think that you will find that the number of things being done on that scale, on the ORDERLY side of things, end up being one thing: Destroy life (entropy).

I think that you will find that the number of things being done on the other end of that scale are infinite since life survives well past the life span of this little planet.

Joe

One ectropy outperforms many entropies

Entropy is the return towards the most base order, as you suggest.

Ectropy is the ordering (making more complex) of less organized entities.

The reason ectropy wins out so often is that its effect affects the future of many entities. Entropy only disorders one entity at a time.

Case example:
A bacterium experiences entropy and the result is that it dies.

Should that bacterium experience ectropy, it would create a new species via evolution and that upgrades the complexity of all future offspring.

It only takes one instance of ectropy to overcome a perpetual reduction in complexity by a system. Take for example where a metal lathe is degrading in performance. If it is determined that a shaft is wearing out, that could be left to kill the entire machine. If, instead, the lathe (plus some intelligent operator's actions) was used to turn a new shaft, all the entropy caused by the original part's wear is wiped out in a single act.

Just like the lathe, the entropy of civilization was dramatically set back by the acts of our Founding Fathers in creating this republic. I'd call that a perfect example of ectropy.

In my former statement, I was suggesting that in the system of people trying to outwit the system by creating more power or control for themselves, the advancement of new and better crimes is another example of ectropy while the overall societal result is a disordering, showing an increase in entropy.

Language pollution is the problem.

I looked up entropy, to try and understand where you were coming from...
I found it alright.
thermodynamic laws are not ambiguous. a 5 ton system simply cannot do the work of a 10 ton system. a torch that burns at 3000 degrees cannot heat an office building.
I am dismayed that your application of the word entropy is correct. and since it is correct it makes it all that much more difficult to explain what I am talking about....
I have long been aware that people confuse the meaning of the words efficiency and capacity.
the machines I work on and study, consume the lions share of what we humans use.
and now I find out that if I use a compressor to pump a gas into a cylinder... I am increasing it's order? because it is less chaotic?

you have helped me to understand why my posts on energy get few responses. we are in the middle of a huge power failure due to a storm where I live, I spent the day yesterday patching in a large generator to a frozen food warehouse who is a customer of mine. today was in the boiler room of a high rise old folks home getting the heat back on.
it both worries and fascinates me that people are willing to wait until I can get there to do the work.
in the past I would use the word entropy to explain to guys why something would do something 100 times out of 100 times.
many guys have used me to gain just enough knowledge to be dangerous. to my mind this is a shame. for I cannot claim credit for inventing any of the things I work on.
from you I have learned that I will need to quantify my meaning of the word entropy before I use it.
this will add another layer of difficulty for them to understand me.
but that is not my problem.
peace.

Me thinks

that part of what you are confronted with is the dual use of entropy in society. It seems enough techies know about entropy and use it on society that it has acquired a social equivalency.

In the thermo world, you are correct and it is a flow or change of state of energy from a higher form to a lower one. Briefly, nuclear, then electrical, then chemical, then kinetic, then potential, then thermal are the only 'well known' choices.

In this thermo world, adding energy from outside the closed system (that which is being measured) can indeed decrease entropy (i.e. raise the state of some of the energy from one state to a higher state).

In the social world, people say that systems degrade to chaos. Loosely translated, this means that things die. I think many include systems such as fads, political campaigns and even careers.

I was making the case that the new word offered to me above was defined by a definition that I frequently use but had no word for. That word was ectropy. The definition that I use and now will correlate to this word is that by injecting some intelligence into the system, a gain can be had where a loss should have occurred. This 'intelligence' could be a person making a decision to fix or invent something or it could even apply to the chance of evolution selecting and keeping a trait that betters the species henceforth.

The point I was making in my latest comment above was that entropy is a long, steady decline while ectropy was usually a quick jump up a step.

I actually don't use chaos that often to describe things like increasing heat and pressure in a cylinder from pumping a gas into it. The reason is that heat is simply vibration of the individual molecules and to me, more vibration would appear more chaotic, not less. I think the best term to use would be "total of all weighted energy", if that's any easier to understand. I also don't use the word entropy in discussions with non-technical people because it never ends in a complete understanding. :( I tend to use heat flow. People understand water flowing in a pump (whether driven or driving) so I transcribe it to heat flow. They even understand that there's a big chunk of heat stored in an unburnt fuel, nuclear reaction or a battery. It also makes it easy to explain my Stirling engine designs in both engine and heat pump modes.

Not sure if you're asking for a lay example definition of efficiency and capacity or not but I'll include for the other readers and for brevity's sake.

Efficiency is the non-unit based ratio (percentage) of useful energy out of a closed system to the input energy given to that system. It's always 1 or below.

Capacity is the total work a system is capable of performing without regard to how much is put in. This definition is in units per time. An alternate definition is the work-time product that a system can perform as a portion of the possible work-time product.

Efficacy is like efficiency but it allows environmental energy to be included in the system without attributing it as an input. This, as you well know, is most applicable to heat pumps and chilling systems and it is often over 1. It is usually labeled COP, or coefficient of performance.

hth, Todd

I will have to look into stirling engines.

I have never thought of heat energy as vibration. I have always thought of it as an increase in the size of the orbits. in the atoms of the substances involved. I am not sure where I got that from and will not defend it.
it would not surprise me one bit to find out that in fact we do not really know what it is.
currently I am surprised at how the media is falling all over itself to convince us that we have found the higgs-boson.
I do appreciate you clarifying ectropy.
I have another friend from the DP who has a working water torch. (browns gas or HHO) it has some very remarkable properties. I have since learned that plasma is now the 4th state of matter. it was when I looked up the definition of what this new state of matter is...then it hit me. an ordinary flame is a form of plasma.
electronic flame rectification circuits work on the principle that a flame is able to conduct DC current.
if the sun really is made of plasma, then plasma can create both gravity and magnetism.
good talking with you.
peace.

New Technologies making breakthroughs

Stirlings are an awesome technology that has stumped inventors for well over 200 years. People just couldn't seem to get one side hot enough with the other side cold enough to do usable work while keeping the two halves insulated from each other. I think you'll like seeing all the YouTube examples of the challenge. Being in the HVAC field, I would have thought you would have known about a machine which has the potential (unproven yet) to be the best heat pump if ran backwards.

HHO is also pretty fun to play with. It makes a very nice torch flame which opens up lots of opportunities. You just have to love something that powerful that has no toxic exhaust.

Plasma, now that's a truly intriguing substance. Nikola Tesla used to give demonstrations of holding a ball of plasma in his bare hands in from of an audience of electrical engineers. Still today, we can't figure out exactly how, but we've termed the phenomenon "ball lightning".

You might also enjoy the videos of 80-100K Joule railguns where the projectile is non-conducting and propelled by a conductive plasma sabot. That one almost seems to defy a few laws.

I looked at the stirling cycle.

everything expands when heated. but without a phase change there is not enough power to do what we need to do is my take on it....

I am befuddled as to why you might describe the flame of a water torch as "powerful" I did not see it that way at all. not even close. perhaps I am just paranoid. but you set off my creep detector with what you wrote.
you talked about 'opportunities" and then mentioned Tesla.
you also talked about the stirling cycle in the past tense....
to me, running the stirling cycle backwards and ectropy are like hoping water will start running uphill.

why would you think I might be interested in railguns?
you know what I do for a living. would you mind sharing with me yours?

Interesting stuff...

The universal gas law states that when heated, things will expand in proportion to their change in absolute temperature (K vs. F or C). In other words, doubling the temp will double the absolute pressure. Note in there that I didn't mention the starting pressure. If you start with 10 PSIA, you could double it to 20. If you start with 2,000, then doubling will get you to 4,000 PSIA. That's quite a bit of work available in any cylinder. As you increase that starting pressure, you're only increasing the density by the same ratio so your efficiency soars because heat transfer is proportional to density.

If you were to include a phase change, then you could certainly get a higher specific output but since there's no free lunch, you can't get your efficiency to keep up with it. In short, it becomes too hard to transfer the heat in one or both directions. With a steam turbine, you certainly get a high output but efficiency tops out at ~30%. A Stirling, running at similar temps could double that but you would need 1,000 of currently available ones to do make the same power. It's this low specific power output that has plagued Stirling designers to date. It's also one problem I have solved. (You did ask what I do for a living.) The past tense was regarding the struggle to increase specific power output, not the engine's use.

A quick note on steam turbines... People think they use the phase change to get their specific power up but there's no phase change happening in them unless they condense in the cycle. I'm not aware of any in existence that don't simply waste all that energy. Heat pumps and vapor compression chillers, otoh, do use phase changes.

"Powerful" may have been the wrong word for the HHO torch. I meant that it is a very hot torch and that it has water vapor as its only exhaust. Sure, this temp can be scaled up with volume to make it powerful (as in to heat large masses) but I was referring to the opportunities of using it in confined human environments like indoors. That alone makes things like furnaces or indoor Stirling heaters much cheaper. Wouldn't you agree? In the powerful category, I've seen it cut steel much easier than an acetylene torch, leaving a cleaner cut with less tempering nearby.

Sure, it's not as high efficacy as a standard heat pump in producing 'cool' temps but for really cold stuff, it sure is. (Keep in mind that efficacy includes external energy while efficiency does not.) If you search YouTube for "The Stirling Cycle part 1 (Stirling Cryogenics)" and watch both parts, you'll see one cooling the air so much that it liquefies nitrogen right out of the air. As with any example of 'ectropy', this is not a case of getting something for nothing, but adding something external to a system to raise the energy value of a closed system.

The rail-gun wasn't the relevant piece in that suggestion. I was giving the only example I had off the top of my head for using plasma as a replacement for a solid, electromagnetic, conductive material. I thought that was your interest regarding plasma, so I suggested it.

My day job is an automation engineer (current project is boilers and chillers) and I'm also co-founder of a renewable start-up that's still in development. In the past, I've been "the serviceman" (from your sig) for many industries and the designer for a few, so my focus is on eliminating the 'primary function' that you cite. ;)

Where is this Republic?

Do you mean The Articles of Confederation when you refer to a Republic?

Joe

Republicans

"The rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press, all your immunities and franchises, all pretensions to human rights and privileges, are rendered insecure, if not lost, by this change, so loudly talked of by some, and inconsiderately by others. Is this tame relinquishment of rights worthy of freemen? Is it worthy of that manly fortitude that ought to characterize republicans?"
- Patrick Henry
http://www.wfu.edu/~zulick/340/henry.html

Link provided gratis by Joe Kelley to bear during the year of 2012 whereby bear learned that there are issues of enslavement with what is called the Constitution of the United States

Why did my "free" public education not teach me of the freedoms expounded by Patrick Henry and those stolen by Alexander Hamilton?

Why did someone named Josf on the Daily Paul have to teach me such things...gratis?

Perhaps there are fundamental differences and the question that needs to be asked is Cui Bono?

Joe, I hope you and yours had a good Christmas.

...

Yes a good Christmas

I hope yours was as well.

Joe

A Question for Josf

Yes it [Christmas] was nice. I didn't want to say this last night: We found out Jeff's mom has COPD...she can't walk without loosing her breath. She went to the doc yesterday.

I also could not say that I hoped you had a "merry" Christmas because of your mom, so I used the word "good."

OK, now my question posed for your answer:

Josf, Does power corrupt, and does absolute power corrupt completely?

I miss the discussion you offer.

It is rare, bear.

COPD is tough: not good news, but mom has a safe place?

I want to get to the question but I have an angle that your input in discussion helps greatly with these arguments over good and bad.

I think your help allows me to answer the question definitely from many angles but more importantly I think it is important to point out the very stark difference between those who argue over good and bad, because they find a need to do so, and those who actually find agreement on accurate measures of good and bad.

1.
The Power to disagree (make sure that we cannot ever agree) works for those who desire disagreement, argument, etc.
2.
The Power to agree (make sure that we can agree) works for those who desire agreement.

Now your question:

Does power corrupt, and does absolute power corrupt completely?

The question is not specific enough to lead to an accurate answer, so the question fails the test of enumerated accurate observations listed above.

Example:

Take out POWER and add a qualifier as such:

Does moral conscience (power) corrupt, and does absolute moral conscience (power) corrupt completely?

I think the obvious answer is no.

Take out POWER and add a qualifier as such:

Does criminal behavior corrupt, and does absolute criminal behavior corrupt completely?

If the idea is to never answer the question, then the question can be missing the needed qualifiers required to actually answer the question and then any individual having no answer can argue with any other individual who also has no answer - by design.

I'm not saying that any one (accurately identified individual) willfully designed a specific question so as to fail to get the accurate answer on purpose, but the facts are what they are, and then a simple question (seeking an accurate answer) can easily uncover motive when dealing with honest people.

Honest (moral conscience) POWER tends to be good (yes or no)?

Deceptive (criminal) POWER tends to be bad for the victims (criminals default to no)?

bear, did you ask the question the way you did so as to purposefully avoid getting an accurate answer?

Please consider asking a more specific question and we may both combine our power, for good, to find the accurate answer to our mutual agreement.

That brings me to the point at which much of our work, bear and I, has continually pointed to God's Law, or what I call Natural Law, such as an example known as The Golden Rule, which is not so much a commandment to be followed or else, not in my opinion, it is a method of operation, and it works as a litmus test for anyone wanting to know the difference between a friend who will help and a foe who will harm on purpose.

If a person says that good and bad cannot ever be universally understood, then they are trying to fit that shoe onto their victims, or they are merely parroting a lie, as if their own moral conscience is missing, or their own moral conscience is dead from lack of use.

The easy way to find out if someone knows right from wrong is to ask and then to find out if what the other person says: "this is right" if that works for the speaker as well as anyone else in that same way or not, and if that person says something along the lines of "do as I say, not as a do", or says things are wrong, and then goes ahead and does those things that are wrong, and then lies about having done wrong, and then blames the victim for being a victim, then obviously, and accurately measurably, that person does wrong, by their own confession of actions.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

If that isn't right, then someone, a reasonable person, could demonstrate the wrong of it.

Any takers?

The Sound of Silence again?

God power, something I know to be a fact, the power of creation, with our without the specific measure of it, other than the output of it, does not corrupt, so the answer to the question is again, in that way, no.

Does power corrupt, and does absolute power corrupt completely?

No.

God power creates, and absolute God power creates absolutely.

That is my opinion, but the evidence is everywhere, and where things are being destroyed, that may be a case of making room for even better creations. I don't know.

If it is NOT true, life is not good, power to create is not good, and I am wrong, then soon, or eventually (time being relative), there will be nothing anywhere, no life, no rocks, nothing, not even a universe, no light, nothing.

If there are more creations, even after human beings are no more, assuming that that is on the list of things to be done, with POWER, then my feeble opinion remains true as each new creation proves the fact and does so accurately. Perhaps the next creation can measure things even better than this human creation.

More good is better by definition, when life is the measure of good, it seems to me.

Play acting scene 1

Henry: Hi

Bill: How are you?

Henry: Fine

Bill: Good and bad can never be accurately measured.

Henry: If you say so, but it isn't that tough if there is a will to measure good engaged in the process.

Bill: You are stupid

Henry: I get that a lot.

Bill: Everyone is bad.

Henry: Didn't you just say that good and bad can never be accurately measured?

Bill: Well, I can do it, but only me, you are stupid.

Henry: Until I met someone who was willing to find out, I thought so too.

Thanks bear

Joe

King Power

As I do yours, but you know me, afraid I am a bother.

“COPD is tough: not good news, but mom has a safe place?”

Jeff’s mom is not a Believer, perhaps this will bring her to faith in the Lord. It seems she has had COPD for a couple of years, but family did not realize the significance…and I don’t think I even knew. It seems though that the disease is progressing. She is still a smoker. I read wiki. Stopping smoking is supposed to slow the progress of the disease, but I don’t know if at 81 she will choose that route. She said though, that her desire/ability to smoke has slowed, but the nicotine addiction is causing some issues. She got checked out on the motorized wheel chair at the local grocer today. Jeff’s sister sent a picture and she had a big smile and looked happy. Perhaps the steroids are helping.
______________________
bear: Does power corrupt, and does absolute power corrupt completely?
Josf: The question is not specific enough to lead to an accurate answer, so the question fails the test of enumerated accurate observations listed above.
______________________
I posed my question about absolute power to Jeff. He indicated that it depended who wielded that power. I suppose he was saying the same thing as you, that the question lacked a qualifier.

I spoke to him that certainly everyone wasn’t bad because I was able to safely sit in the car in the dark for 30 minutes in the Walmart parking lot without being accosted. Jeff indicated that there are certain parts of certain cities that I would not be able to do that. It made me think about the school rituals you spoke to me of from experience.

We also discussed the grandmother who makes pies, who is a good person vs. a criminal who murders. Certainly there are good people. But I think perhaps that what is not differentiated in this thread (though I have not read all the posts) is that even though there are particularly good people, those same people are judicially bad when compared to Holy God. No one can measure up to the standard of holy, not even good people. We have all sinned; we have all done wrong, even those who are “good” among us humans.

So certainly there are degrees of goodness. But thinking about something being 100% clean and pure compared with something being contaminated with dirt: even though that thing is 95% clean and pure and only 5% dirty, that thing is still dirty or contaminated. That contamination is what separates man from God. The Bible says our righteousnesses are as filthy rags. Our goodness is contaminated by our sin making us unclean. Thus the reason for saying that while we might be good in particular, our goodness is judicially lacking.

The words of Jesus:
• Mark 10:18 KJV
And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Even though we do good, we struggle with sin. Jesus said hatred was equal to murder. I personally have hated. That hatred comes from a murderous heart. How then can I be good if my heart is capable of evil? How then can I be good when I am not only capable of evil, but I actually perform evil?
--------------------
“Does moral conscience (power) corrupt, and does absolute moral conscience (power) corrupt completely?
“I think the obvious answer is no.”

I think you are right. However, that moral conscience power is not capable of keeping one from corruption. It is by our moral conscience that we know what is wrong. However, that moral conscience does not keep us from doing wrong. We have a choice to make and sometimes I make the wrong choice…on purpose because I want to do what I want to do instead of doing what I know to be right.

“Honest (moral conscience) POWER tends to be good (yes or no)?”

Yes, but it does not mean that we will do good. However it is good.

“Deceptive (criminal) POWER tends to be bad for the victims (criminals default to no)?”

Yes, It is bad for both the criminals and the victims because even the criminals are victims of themselves.
-----------------
“bear, did you ask the question the way you did so as to purposefully avoid getting an accurate answer?”

No, Joe, I did not consider that the question needed a qualifier. I did not think that the question could not be answered. I figured that the intent of whoever coined that question was that the answer is yes and only yes.

I did an ixquick search and found this:
“"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."
—Lord Acton”

Which makes me ask: Do bad men become great, or do good men who are great become bad? It makes me think of the dirty system of politics and how some people advocate abstaining from politics because the system is bad. Is the system bad because the system generates power? Why has the power in centralized government been used for evil? Why is the power that could be used for so much good used instead for so much evil? Is it because people have become corrupted by power or is it because the drive for power is dominant in corrupt people?

“That brings me to the point at which much of our work, bear and I, has continually pointed to God's Law, or what I call Natural Law, such as an example known as The Golden Rule, which is not so much a commandment to be followed or else, not in my opinion, it is a method of operation, and it works as a litmus test for anyone wanting to know the difference between a friend who will help and a foe who will harm on purpose.”

But Joe, I cannot perfectly achieve the golden rule. I have a temper. I have shortage of patience. I can be crabby. I can hurt feelings and do so while I know I am doing it. Though for the most part, I do try to live by the Golden Rule, I am not made of gold so what comes from me is not always golden. Anytime I fail to follow the golden rule, what does that make me? A rule breaker? Yes, I cannot follow the rule even when I want, for the most part, to follow the rule. I, even I with the Holy Spirit of God residing within my body cannot keep the golden rule. It is impossible for me to always love in every single circumstance.

Here is a verse about that:

Galatians 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
---------------------------
“If a person says that good and bad cannot ever be universally understood, then they are trying to fit that shoe onto their victims, or they are merely parroting a lie, as if their own moral conscience is missing, or their own moral conscience is dead from lack of use.”

I don’t know what it means that good and bad cannot be universally understood. What does that mean? Does it mean that people cannot agree on what is good or what is bad?

“God power, something I know to be a fact, the power of creation, with our without the specific measure of it, other than the output of it, does not corrupt, so the answer to the question is again, in that way, no.
Does power corrupt, and does absolute power corrupt completely?
No.
God power creates, and absolute God power creates absolutely.”

Ah, but that leads back to the attributes of God. If God were not holy, then absolute power could be used in a corrupt manner. But because God is holy, then absolute power is used only for righteous purposes.

So, when I asked the original question:

“Does power corrupt, and does absolute power corrupt completely?”

I was thinking of the kind of power that a king would have. What would the qualifier of that kind of power be? Does that kind of power cause corruption?

...

Trust

Your spiritual viewpoint, expressed in so many symbols in English, arranged well enough, helped in my case with my mother dying. Jeff has a lot of help, and this will not be easy, so he will be in good hands - so to speak. I can offer this much - at least.

School Rituals

After reading though your King Power response, then not answering last night, I woke up with replies in English being written as the ideas communicated were being arranged in my sleep - along with some troubling dreams that are now evaporating.

The Power we human being speak about, know, understand, and even counterfeit, this God Power, King Power, Creator Power, when seen as a singular thing, by me, I do so with specific willful intent, to see God as a single thing.

My power to see that only goes so far, and then I realize some things about your words, as you repeat the words that you believe, and things make good sense to me.

We are like dirt compared to a clean being.

I take no offense in such concepts. That is what I am saying, or trying to say, that I do believe that this is true and measurably true in so many ways. We sin. We are prone to error. We are imperfect. How do we know that we are imperfect?

We were created with a capacity to know better.

I can go on an on with how this worked out in my thinking recently, speaking about how a single entity, a Power to create, in an infinite sense, having absolute POWER, makes one creation the first time in all eternity and what does God do first?

Create an exact copy?

Now there are two of the same things - exactly? Creations such as oxygen, rocks, balls of energy we call starts, or The Sun, come from God A, or God B?

Why stop at 2?

If it works as expected, as designed, then the Creator Power makes an infinite number of Creator Powers, all exactly alike, all doing exactly the same thing, exactly the same time, and exactly the same places, each as good as the first one, without error, without exception.

So much for my mortal brain.

I really like your way of seeing things, more so than any other inquisitive mind, because you are so torn up about needing to do the right thing, and at the same time knowing how impossible it is to do so, if that makes any sense, and it might just be me projecting my own thoughts onto you.

I can say that if you are moving down this path as I think you are moving down this path of knowing better in political economy, and if you are doing so in a similar way as you have moved (are moving) down the spiritual path, then there will be bumps in the road, and again your safe place is an advantage that I did not have, and I may still not really have it as well as you.

God may have never made a mistake, but he made me, and sure as hell make a lot of mistakes.

So who can I trust?

Thanks for the updates in bear land, and I can offer only so much in return. That brings me to a wandering point that I started on just before typing.

Equitable exchange, it seems to me, is as close to hell on earth as we ought to go, since charitable thoughts and actions, or love, at a minimum, is equity. So why dip down lower than equity? What is the point?

If a person understands spiritual wisdom there are many paths taken and many are falling short of an ideal. How do we know?

If you don't know: ask.

Is that not the Golden Rule?

Person A:
I'm not sure if this is the right thing to do, can you help me?

Person B:
I'm not sure either.

Person A:
What is best for you?

Person B:
This, but what is best for you?

Person A:
This, but for now what is best for me is obviously not best for you.

Person B:
Right, but eventually, on this path, the shoe will be on the other foot, so I can pay this cost now, for you, if you accept, and later, as you can see, the benefits you realize will benefit many others, along the way, including me eventually, so it looks like the right thing to do, but we can ask someone else too. What do you think?

Person A:
How does it look from a spiritual viewpoint.

Person B:
I can check my sources: good idea.

We can place such Golden Rules along side the ONE Man Made Rule, to see which works better for who, when, where, and why, in any case where one imperfect human being resorts to deceit, threats of violence, or violence upon the innocent to MAKE things right for the victims, for the victim's own good - supposedly.

I don't think that there is a contest worthy of judgment, since any innocent child knows better, where one way, being charitable, ends up making everyone better, and the other way, the school bullies, including many teachers, including many parents, make their targests worse in each case.

So...do unto others before they have a chance to do unto you (Man Made Law) or is there another path less destructive by any imperfect measure by any living being, on any planet, in any universe, where life is created by some power of some kind?

See...I've been doing my homework, the Man-Made "choice" ends life, it is unsustainable, even in simple forms of life, like a Cancer that destroys itself, cancer cancer, it has no place in creation, it, in a word is: destruction.

Do unto others means, explicitly, that one imperfect human being destroys a little bit or a lot of another human being, and all the excuses are merely cover stories, that Method of Operation is exactly what it is, in a word: Evil.

Why do it? Look for the cause, and if the cause is external, then stop obeying that external ORDER to behave in that way.

If the POWER to willfully decide to take a destructive path, and lie about it, cover up the willful actions with cover stories, as the individual invents those violent actions, and those lies, then how is such a person any different than a Mad Dog, or Cancer, or a Natural Disaster?

If the POWER is internal, a self contained entity of destruction, for fun and profit, a Man Made Law Maker Incarnate, then it is unreasonable to expect such a Perfect Storm to be reasonable, to stop destroying so much, so soon - pretty please - since it isn't nice.

Laws among people built with the capacity to seek reason, are not Man Made Laws, they are reasoned laws, negotiated laws, equitable laws, generous laws, trusting laws, along the lines of voluntary associations.

Person A:
You must work harder and pay more for less, do so now, and do not question this involuntary association.

Person B:
But...

Person C:
He said butt...

Person A:
Shoot that messenger, or better yet, hang that one up on a cross, and make sure everyone knows what happens when Man Made Law is questioned.

So, that reminds me, I also woke with another angle on the God and Son message you offered, one that I have been wrestling with, as the concept of having someone else being held accountable for my sins does not seem reasonable to me. I still reject that notion.

But...

If God (The Creator Power) needs to send a message to the creations how does that happen in real time - human time?

If the message is: Every injury one creation does to another creation is felt by me a million times worse than any of my creations can ever imagine, including the very serious injury of having your own children slaughtered in front of you, so be warned about this practice of injuring each other, in this way.

Or...

I did not create perfect beings. I created human beings who can be very bad, look what you human beings do to my own son. Don't do that, it hurts, so don't do that, you will regret it, be warned.

Now I have to re-read your words and pick out specific words to help me return to something I can't quite remember as far as the concept of forgiveness: another concept.

"Even though we do good, we struggle with sin. Jesus said hatred was equal to murder. I personally have hated. That hatred comes from a murderous heart. How then can I be good if my heart is capable of evil? How then can I be good when I am not only capable of evil, but I actually perform evil?"

I may have lost the thinking on forgiveness. I had a way to look at it, and offer this way of looking to you, and I may remember it yet, but that quote above returns me right away to Proverbs 8 and this:

"The fear of the Lord is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate."

If there will be hate (equal to murder) then hate evil, murder it, inside, not outside, pride is evil (English words) the point I get is to use the power inside to stop being evil inside.

What happens?

Then there is the part about "The fear of the Lord...": which isn't then, in those words (Proverbs 8) to do nothing out of fear, not to cower, not to shrink, not to succumb, not to be punished, not to be subjected by external powers, but again, it seems to me, so wise, to use that fear to stop internal evil.

I thought it to be good to get that out, and I know this is going to be a long response, and your time is limited. I don't want to drag anyone into our conversations either, but my labor days are over, this is my battle ground these days. I don't know what is the right thing to do these days, so I ask, and sometimes someone answers.

If the answer does not look right to me, I can then negotiate, compete, seek to improve, increase the quality, accuracy, and benefit of viewpoint, and lower the cost - if possible.

"I think you are right. However, that moral conscience power is not capable of keeping one from corruption. It is by our moral conscience that we know what is wrong. However, that moral conscience does not keep us from doing wrong. We have a choice to make and sometimes I make the wrong choice…on purpose because I want to do what I want to do instead of doing what I know to be right."

Here is where the forgiveness viewpoint is returning into view. I think we went over this before, from my angle of view, as it makes sense to me that a person can be so crippled with self-doubt, lacking forgiveness, that no actions can be taken, and then external forces force action, instead of internal will power taking over, and internal will power proceeding from a standpoint of confidence in choosing less than perfect, but certainly not evil. I don't know if that can make sense to you, but I have this training in mind, and I can enumerate my thinking with another laundry list:

1. Many, and much too many, choices, and they all seem bad.
2. Narrowed down to 4 choices, and time is running out.
3. Worst, not as bad, better, best
4. Is best really best, or is it really worst, I don't know, I'm so imperfect, please forgive me if I'm wrong.
6. I choose worst, and make up some lie to massage my ego, to let me get away with murder, in my own feeble mind.
7. Time ran out, I actually do better, on that scale, and now there are already many, and much too many, choices, and they all seem bad.

I was once very ready to be upset by people who claim to know me better than I know me, as if I have not been my own worst enemy, my own overcritical critic, and so I need, desperately, their help to point out how stupid I am, or how wrong I am, or whatever, but now, after so many years, it is too worn out of a routine to be anything but tiring.

Then you arrived on the scene, someone similarly disabled, and someone who writes, someone able to communicate well with English symbols.

Forgiveness internally may be lacking, and therefore forgiveness externally may be necessary, without which, what happens?

I don't know.

"No, Joe, I did not consider that the question needed a qualifier. I did not think that the question could not be answered. I figured that the intent of whoever coined that question was that the answer is yes and only yes."

That to me is another one of those Dragons being murdered, and that is along the lines of hating evil, hating pride, to read counterfeit wisdom, such as that quote where Power Corrupts Absolutely (which is demonstrably false) and then having a misdirected confidence, or belief, in such Man-Made Laws. I had read that Power Corrupts Absolute saying awhile ago, decades ago, and I went with it, thinking it to be true, even repeating it, until a time at which I challenged it, saw better, and now, as your words appear to communicate, you too are slaying that dragon.

I think that a lie pervades many thoughts and actions that follow this thought, in our time, and the lie is one that cripples, destroys, injures the innocent, as a POWER, a sum total of people thinking this lie, and acting up it, like a cancer, an infection, an external thing invading and occupying too many minds, and the lie says that we are all bad: so go ahead and be bad, it is JUST the way it is, so give it no second thought, just join in, and it can be fun too.

"Which makes me ask: Do bad men become great, or do good men who are great become bad?"

To me this question aims back at the genetic structure of living organisms whereby the simplest forms must do the same thing as the complex forms of life, which is to seek better from worse, which can be called the path of least resistance, or it can be called justice, or sound judgement, but at the base of it is the need for power, as failing to find the necessary power is certain death. Power must be realized. How much power?

If there is not enough power the life form, each individual life form from the simplest to the most complex, from the herd, to the civilization, from the single cell, to the thinking, self aware, being, then the life form survives.

So...it may be a good idea to gain a watt more power than the power that is required for this second, this minute, this moment in time and place.

Bad things can happen, then there isn't enough power, and life dies.

How is that method of operation created in life forms?

Gain more power.

Path A does not gain more power.

Path B gains more power.

Path A is certain death.

Path B is another second of life, then another minute.

If the life form is really good at it, created to be very good at gaining more power, such as a life form that cooperates one individual with another individual, there can be enough power gained easily and reaching a point of surplus.

It is the same method of operation at work that drives a person to rest, to consume the surplus, to then be seeking even better ways, easier ways, more fun ways, to live, to gain the power required.

Have I lost the answer? I don't think so, but my ability to communicate a competitive answer may be lacking. How about the question again and then a more detailed, specific, real time answer?

"Which makes me ask: Do bad men become great, or do good men who are great become bad?"

More than one person starts off in the morning, as fresh as can be, each in their own shoes, imperfect as each are, and there is an amount of power at the start of the day, and each are looking for ways to increase the power supply during the day, so that they can rest easier, knowing that they have cooperated and have made use of the limited power they had at the start of the day, to end up with more power, in the bank, at the end of the day, and their sleep will be well earned, restful, and less stressful, since the next day will start out with more power in the bank, and survival is accurately measurable as being more certain, having that bank of surplus power to rely upon, even if bad things occur when we wake up tomorrow.

Tomorrow arrives, the crew wakes up, each in their own imperfect shoes, and one of us decides to consume all the surplus wealth, and one of us decides to double the work load of every other one of us, and that one, that evil one, uses the power stolen to steal more from everyone else, but there is a problem, since that one is only one, so that one figures out a way to convince a few others to join in on this new mode of operation.

Can I answer in a way that makes better sense?

Power did not corrupt. Proverbs 8 may not have been the word of God, but it makes sense to me. The Word of GOD is what it is, does what it does, not my words, I start out in the day with only so much power, in my imperfect shoes, and my ability to make tons of rock and sand, per minute, is gone, taken from me, in ways I can describe in great detail, and I can fix things, and I can do so many things, productive things, but everything I do is tainted with those Federal Reserve Notes, here is this Corporation.

I think it is past time for us to discover the worst among us, the Top 10, process them with the same process due everyone, at least account for their evil deeds, and then stop paying them so well.

"Which makes me ask: Do bad men become great, or do good men who are great become bad?"

When power flows from those who create it to those who steal it and then use that stolen power to steal more, what does that do to the essential need to produce life sustaining power?

It turns that up-side-down.

Good becomes bad.

I don't have all the answers, but the answers I do have are competitive. I don't have The Word of God, but with your help I can see the wisdom in Proverbs 8, and in Romans 13.

"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God"

I am not fooled by the counterfeiters. True authority is wise. True authority hates evil, for fear of what happens if that is not done.

What can be more evil than abject belief in falsehood without question?

Which is more evil?
1.
The inventors of the lie that know better.
2.
The victims of the lie who believe it without question.

How many victims are there where the lies are uncovered, the liars are uncovered, and the "true believers" are uncovered, and these numbers of victims are now looking for effective, timely, remedy?

Each child under the age of 1?

2?

Where are the parents?

When will counterfeit parents be against the law?

Which law?

I don't know. I am imperfect. But each time we discuss things I keep going back to 3 things that make the most sense to me:

1.
End the FED
2.
End the IRS
3.
Bring the Troops Home
4.
Do so by July 4th, 2013

Ron Paul was asked a few questions recently in a "NEWS" (brainwashing session) program on television. He said something along the lines of being past the point of no return. I listened, and I think I understand, and his message to anyone who will listen, it seems to me, is that there is all the hope in the world, and don't listen to all the doom and gloom, but if you are going to buy into all the doom and gloom, then "it is past the point of no return" on that path.

Get off that path.

How?

How can people be stupider?

Let's find out?

Hire better liars and give them everything without question?

Why do you affect me in this way, to release my...

What is the word? Righteousness?

Desperation?

I don't know if I am any help to you, but I sure know that you are a help to me.

"Which makes me ask: Do bad men become great, or do good men who are great become bad?"

Stop paying the worst among us every ounce of power we make and see what happen?

"It makes me think of the dirty system of politics and how some people advocate abstaining from politics because the system is bad. Is the system bad because the system generates power?"

The THING in operation at the "Federal" level is pure evil, there is no good in it, it was designed for evil people, even The Bill of Rights is a false front, a cover, a diversion, a shunt, for if it were not one then who, with what badge, could infringe upon my POWER to defend myself, or to speak, or to finance a State power that is more powerful than that so called "Federal" power?

Stop paying moral support to that THING, which is a lie, and the liars collecting those votes of confidence will have a harder time collecting the physical forms of power - how about that?

"Is the system bad because the system generates power?"

Which system? Where people volunteer to use the power they have to create more power out of less power, without resort to deceit upon innocent victims to steal their power, and without resort to threats of violence upon innocent people to steal their power, and without resort to violence upon innocent people to steal their power, or in a term The Free Market (not the counterfeit free market that is free for criminals to do whatever they want whenever they want), that system, if it is that system, then the object is, in fact, to gain power, not consume it.

More power at the end of the day compared to the power at the start of the day is the path of least resistance, or the path to higher and higher and higher standards of living and the path to lower and lower and lower costs of living.

"Is the system bad because the system generates power?"

Why confuse one system (Liberty) with another system (Legal Crime) as if the two opposites are the same thing?

Who benefits?

"Why has the power in centralized government been used for evil?"

What is "centralized government" exactly?

If laws made by men (and women) are of any value, ever, which ones are of limited value compared to God's Law, or such things as The Golden Rule (attributable to God)?

In other words: If there are very evil people, so evil that these people are even worse than rabid dogs running amok in a Sunday School classroom, then what can moral people do so as to avoid abandoning the victims of the rabid dogs, and at the same time avoid becoming rabid dogs ourselves, where we can potentially convict and punish innocent people who are not guilty of slaughtering the children at the school?

Trial by Jury worked, was not perfect, but it worked to reduce crime down to a minimum, and the most common punishment was a fine, as if to say, hey, good people are ready to hold you to account, and crime does not pay here, here is your bill for that crime, pay up, or we will henceforth consider you as being even more dangerous than a rabid dog.

So that did work that way, that form of Man's Law, imperfect as it was, and that is a far cry away from paying everything to the worst examples of human garbage that ever existed.

Seriously start considering things, words, like the word "elite" being used to label these worst examples of human garbage that now run amok in our world, where every watt of power they can steal is being stolen and being used to steal more power.

How is it that anyone invents that word to use as a label for those things, those abominations, those "people" who are far from the normal concept of human being? They are "elite"?

Who says so?

If there were a Trial by Jury, play along please, and a Ben Bernanke, or a Treasury Secretary fresh from Goldman Sachs, or an Obama, or Bush, or Cheney, or Clinton (male or female) were on the stand.

12 people picked randomly.

The accused is presumed to be innocent, but the charges include massive torture and massive serial killing. The trial is serious business.

Do not abandon the victims.

Do not become that which we supposedly abhor, meaning do not convict an innocent person.

The Jurors picked randomly are now empowered with as much power as any president, and senator, and congressmen, but not as much power as a corporation, but enough power to judge the case, judge the law, and decide upon a punishment within the limits of the constitutions agreed upon by those assembled. Limits such as yes or no capital punishment. Limits such as yes or no torturing the convicted criminal.

There are 12 randomly picked individuals, people, and they represent the whole body of people, and they are a statistical (random) sampling of the whole, a valid, scientific, representation of the whole.

They must all agree on guilt and punishment.

Any one of the 12 can set the presumed to be innocent accused free.

No dictator in their right mind would agree to such a power handed to every person in that jurisdiction, for there would be no power to punish anyone, legally, unless each person on each jury agrees.

During the trial, play along, what do you think you would demand as a juror, as you worked to reach your goal of not abandoning the victims, and not convicting an innocent person?

Gone is the power held by the lawyers, because they work for you, because you are the Juror.

Gone is the power of the Judges, because they work for you, because you are the juror.

You demand to know what the victims have to say, without coaching, because if you see coaching, you will question that coaching that you see, you will demand questions from the coaches, and if they refuse to answer, that is an answer to you.

Gone are all the lies currently infecting the so called "justice" system.

You convict or you acquit based upon the information you demand because the trial is very serous, because there are very many victims, very many tortured bodies, very many dead bodies, you can even demand to have those bodies measured precisely: forensically.

Like this:

http://www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/map/...

Suppose we play along and have Billy Boy Clinton (elite my ass) on the stand. We discover Janet Reno's part in it. Who abandons those victims? Who settles for "good enough for government work" in holding the guilty people to account? Which dictator in their right mind would ever allow Trial by Jury to be in force at the same time that they make torture of babies legal, and mass murder of babies legal?

Who would pay those torturing mass murderers another penny, let alone everything we have and more?

Yes, God's Law is in another universe compared to man made law, but what about those abandoned victims and what about those rabid dog human running amok in counterfeit government?

"Why is the power that could be used for so much good used instead for so much evil?"

Which power?

You can't be speaking about the "Federal" government, it is not "Federal": it is counterfeit, so why confuse the counterfeit version, which is fraud, extortion, torture, and mass murder (aggressive wars for profit) made legal?

Are you confusing a voluntary government design, modeled after the Swiss model, but made better, or modeled after the Holland model, but made better, including Trial by Jury, are you confusing that with the Obamination that exists now?

How do we get from here to better?

1.
End the FED
2.
End the IRS
3.
Bring the Troops Home

Do so by July 4th 2013.

Do so peacefully, competitively, reasonably, equitably, charitably, nicely, politely, and on time, or set a more reasonable date, and do things step by step.

Why not?

"Is it because people have become corrupted by power or is it because the drive for power is dominant in corrupt people?"

Pay criminals well and what do you think will happen?

Accurately identify the criminals among us, stop paying them so well, and what do you think will happen?

"Anytime I fail to follow the golden rule, what does that make me?"

A point at which the better path is more obvious?

Galatians 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

To me, with the scales I build, there is a night and day difference between turning the other cheek on a fellow human being, someone reasonable, imperfect, but worth the time and effort to help, even if they are crabby, etc., or even if they slap me, so what, I have two cheeks, but rabid dogs in human form, that is another subject.

"I don’t know what it means that good and bad cannot be universally understood. What does that mean? Does it mean that people cannot agree on what is good or what is bad?"

That was a reference to other people's words communicated on this Topic in this Forum. You may have skipped past those words.

Look up nihilism - I can get a link:

"Moral nihilists assert that morality does not inherently exist, and that any established moral values are abstractly contrived."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

I think that it can be easily proven that morality is just a way in which life forms are constructed (by the power that creates life forms) so as to perpetuate life, and that is morality, as morality is the internal power that drives a life form to exist and to reproduce.

What is an good example (not perfect) of morality if not a parent, and a mother in particular?

The labels in English, an arrangement of symbols, is not a parent, a parent things and acts according to some driving power internally - what is that power?

Not the counterfeit version of parent, the actual parent that actually reproduces and ensures perpetual life, as well as that specific parent can do, imperfect as that specific parent may be, morality, or whatever word used, fails to be what does exist in time and place whereby life does, in fact, go on.

What is it, what is at work, when a parent wants "better" for their children, and then things are done to arrive at that goal?

I did not need to have my parents set the example, show me, teach me, since the facts became obvious, are still obvious, where I want, I need, to have my children exist, and exist better than my existence.

What is that power?

I don't have a fetish for words, so call it Fried Chicken Power, for all I care.

Tell me that there is no good or bad, and I'll question your authority.

Tell me that human beings are essentially bad, and I'll question your authority.

I may be wrong, sure, but I think the available evidence proves that there is good, and there is bad, and that human beings are basically good - potentially very bad.

What happens of the worst make the money?

Crime pays well, so join in?

"I was thinking of the kind of power that a king would have. What would the qualifier of that kind of power be? Does that kind of power cause corruption?"

The least evil arrangement I've seen, so far, is the competitive State governments, each limited by competitive constitutions, and each admitting to individual power, "each king in each castle" power, by way of Trial by Jury, and a Confederated Defensive Power at the bottom of the heap.

I see that as the pyramid being right side up.

The majority of people, the commoners, the common law people, have the most power, as they are freely doing whatever they can do to start out with scarce power in the morning, and then have more power at the end of the day, and each one does not resort to crime, so as to take power from someone else.

So those elite people on the top, that majority of good people, then hire a few local people to help in the specialized task of defending against criminals, by arranging or setting up Jury Trials as needed.

That is it.

If there are City charters, corporations, etc., then everyone of those are voluntary arrangements among those "collectivists" as they see fit, and anyone of those members of those clubs are as subject to due process as any other King in their own Castles.

Next down the list is a State Government Power. This is a necessary defensive power only in cases where very large criminal armies are running amok on our Planet and those very large criminals powers are threatening to perpetrate crimes among the number of free people living in their castles at home. Those criminals are as subject to Trial by Jury, or due process, that is due everyone here at home, but they don't listen to moral law, they are criminals, and they do very bad things.

The State government is a few hired employees who are hired to abide by the limits of the constitution, with such a thing as a Bill of Rights, any wording in English that works to limit the duties of the employees hired to run the State, and the purpose of the State is to have ready an effective deterrence, a POWERFUL deterrence, powerful enough to deter any aggressive army for profit from ever attacking anyone in this State, and to have any person anywhere on the planet, ever, attack any citizen in this State, think twice about it, for we duly process each criminal who is presumed to be innocent, but if found guilty by a Jury, then those Jurors may fine you big time.

So don't do it.

Crime does not pay.

And if you are going to attach this State, watch out, because we hire the best people who specialize at defending all these people against criminals who band together large armies that lie, torture, murder, and such, so watch out, don't tread on us, or else.

That is the job of The State.

One State may be much better at defending Liberty than another, so what does the more powerful State do if the less powerful State is being attacked?

Confederate.

Even if a less powerful State is being attacked by a more Powerful Aggressive Army for Profit, it is in the best interest of the more Powerful Defensive State to aid the less powerful State in a Confederation, especially if the attacked State is next door, and then what do you have to do when the enemy takes over the bordering State? Build a wall?

Walls are expensive.

One criminal is too many, measured by each victim. Each victim is one too many, don't abandon anyone. Don't become a criminal yourself, don't convict an innocent person.

The British invaded America.

That was demonstrably criminal.

The States formed a Confederation.

The smaller States were not abandoned.

The British were eventually told to leave.

The criminals returned, but they returned in stealth mode, in the form of Alexander Hamilton and the counterfeit Federalists.

Long story.

"I was thinking of the kind of power that a king would have. What would the qualifier of that kind of power be? Does that kind of power cause corruption?"

How about this:

1.
Don't abandon the victims, you are next.
2.
Don't use your power in the commission of crime, such as punishing the innocent.

Be greedy about it, sure, greedy right down to the level of equity - if necessary.

That is 3 hours worth and I have not yet edited. I do so appreciate the opportunity to reply to a fellow friend in liberty.

Joe

Happy New Year Josf

“So, that reminds me, I also woke with another angle on the God and Son message you offered, one that I have been wrestling with, as the concept of having someone else being held accountable for my sins does not seem reasonable to me. I still reject that notion.”

On this New Years Eve, your words inspire me to send this message and angle.

Your words: “....the concept of having someone else being held accountable for my sins does not seem reasonable to me. I still reject that notion.”

Someone else is not accountable for your sins. You are accountable for your sins.

Josf, almost any mother animal will fight to her death to protect her young. A soldier will fall upon a grenade to protect his team. A parent will accept death to deliver a single child. People risk their lives for complete strangers who are in trouble.

Josf,
1) The wages of sin are death. Romans 6

2) The soul that sinneth shall die. Ezekiel 18.

3) Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. Hebrews 9

Jesus simply fell on the grenade for all those who will accept the fact. He fought to the death to deliver those trapped by the evil one.

• Romans 5:6 KJV
For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

Look what he said to Jerusalem:

• Matthew 23:37 KJV
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

Look what he said while he was on the cross:

• Luke 23:34 KJV
Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

John 10: 14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. 15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And other sheep I have , which are not of this fold: them also I must bring , and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. 17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down , and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

It was done because God is Jesus and follows the Golden Rule. Much like your play with persons A and B:

“Person A:
I'm not sure if this is the right thing to do, can you help me?
Person B:
I'm not sure either.
Person A:
What is best for you?
Person B:
This, but what is best for you?
Person A:
This, but for now what is best for me is obviously not best for you.
Person B:
Right, but eventually, on this path, the shoe will be on the other foot, so I can pay this cost now, for you, if you accept, and later, as you can see, the benefits you realize will benefit many others, along the way, including me eventually, so it looks like the right thing to do, but we can ask someone else too. What do you think?
Person A:
How does it look from a spiritual viewpoint.
Person B:
I can check my sources: good idea.”

Satan stole God’s creation and God paid the cost to get it back. The choice is yours. You can fall on another grenade if you want to, but the grenade has already been defused. Jesus conquered death when he rose from the grave.

• Romans 6:9 KJV
Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.

Josf, you have told me what you would have done if your loved one had wanted to be out of a hospital. What do you think God would do for you to set you free? He loves you more than you can ever humanly love. In your human love you would risk your life and I dare say give your life. In God’s holy love He knowingly gave His human life.

What if someone went in with guns a blazing to set someone free and took a bullet in the chest and that someone would not take the escape route provided, but wanted to extricate themself all by themself? The notion of that is ridiculous whether it was a loved one or a stranger risking life and limb, I would accept the rescue.

I have spent some time today thinking about Patty Hurst. I don’t know all the ins and outs of that situation. But take a situation like that as an example. Suppose my son had been kidnapped and was made to do bad things and had no say in it at all and I had the opportunity to trade my life for his. What do you think I would do?

Romans 5:7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet per adventure for a good man some would even dare to die. 8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Jesus is a hero.

...

Thank you Josf

for your reply...3 hours...I understand.

I have read quickly. I am mulling it over. I will re read. But first... I must clean this house before 6 little boys have a sleep over and stir up more dust. I have 4 hours to get it done. I must apply myself :) Of course it snowed last night and it is still snowing...I wonder if the boys will even be able to get here. Here in our area of MO we get snow, but we don't live with it so it kind of closes things down. The only thing I have seen on the highway out my front window are a couple of semis. The boys will be disappointed if their friends can't come. We will clean and see what comes of the day.

Thank you again. I look forward to replying. Thank you for your generousity on my behalf.

...

Nature

John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and the other philosophic minds behind the Enlightenment believed human nature was inherently good and they crafted an individual based social philosophy. Thomas Hobbes, on the other hand, believed human nature was innately sinful and thus constructed a powerful central state 'Leviathan' model. Historically speaking, those who believe human nature is evil tend towards authoritarian thinking whereas those who believe human nature is good tend towards libertarian thinking.

I think the majority of humans are neither good nor evil, but are social creatures motivated by their perceptions of their world. Some few individuals are capable of 'seeing' with judgement and reason and not falling for false perceptions so easily.

The state is a giant fiction and is wholly based on perception. Those who sees with the eyes of judgment see the emperor has no clothes. The majority who fall for the 'shadows on the cave wall' are not properly informed as to the true nature of things and make errors of decision and then action based on false perception. Without eyes to see what is really there, how can you not fall into that ditch ahead?

Maybe not

"Historically speaking, those who believe human nature is evil tend towards authoritarian thinking whereas those who believe human nature is good tend towards libertarian thinking."

I disagree with this. Hobbs basically says that the primary reason for the state was to keep peace in order to keep its citizens from harm as without a state a war of all against all would break out, thus endangering lives and property. Yes, he goes further to say that what is needed is the existence of a powerful state, known as the Leviathan as only this can properly constrain man’s violent nature.

Remember Hobbs was a Calvinist. Calvinism holds strongly to the notion that humanity is totally depraved and can expect no salvation by its own. Hobbes, although he rejected some of the more theological aspects of his upbringing, at least according to some scholars still held strongly to this view. In Hobbes’s view, because man is totally corrupted, peace is unlikely, thus a powerful state is needed in order to keep the order.

I by no means want to defend Hobbs as some perfect Libertarian, but we can't just generalize him. If you believe that human nature is corrupt and we are inherently bad, you want to set up a system that protects people from other people, and that also protects you from a government. I see no need for a government at all if people are basically good.

I suppose this really gets down to; what is the purpose of a government? Is one needed, and if so, for what? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. I of course, have some as well!

"Be a listener only, keep within yourself, and endeavor to establish with yourself the habit of silence, especially on politics." -Thomas Jefferson

people can be remotely controlled through religion,

and money.
this has been known since Egyptian times from what I have read.
it could be said that both religion and money are pure concepts created by the human mind.
people argue about both endlessly. but neither one has any.....
measurable substance. but if this is true that they have both been manipulated, controlled and created out of thin air....
it becomes very difficult to say if people are bad or the system is rigged.

Right

Religion and Money can be corrupted and used to control people. But, they are not what is inherently bad, we are (in my opinion).

As you say, "it becomes very difficult to say if people are bad or the system is rigged."

Who would rig the system? How would it get that way? Nothing happens out of thin air, everything has a cause. My point is that cause is humans. And the fact that religion and money are used to control others serves to support my premise.

"Be a listener only, keep within yourself, and endeavor to establish with yourself the habit of silence, especially on politics." -Thomas Jefferson

Agree, but for termonology

Your right, it is very complex, and actually, assuming people are bad in the way you do simplifies the equation during decision making (should I get a gun or not?). ;)

But, I suspect that it’s not evil humans tend toward, but ease.

We will often take the easy path, despite the shades of evil that may be on it, and justify it as a survival tactic.

A human at ease is rarely a threat.

Just open the box and see

Bingo

Combine ease with fear of dropping lower on the social ladder and you've got it in a nutshell. If people can see how we're currently equating wealth to social status, then most bad can be explained. If people can break that correlation then wealth becomes academic once again and social status can return to being a measure of how good people are.

Interesting Perspective

Thanks for the comment. Very true point. We are lazy creatures and work towards doing the least amount possible. This is true. We see this in linguistics as well.

"Be a listener only, keep within yourself, and endeavor to establish with yourself the habit of silence, especially on politics." -Thomas Jefferson

Ease isn't Easy

Actually, I didn’t mean to imply laziness. The path people travel in life is easy or hard. I think people tend toward the easier path, in their own quest for comfort. Or, at least, the path that seems easier at the time. Sometimes, a path that seems evil from outside can be justified as survival from inside.

If a person is given real choices, being good really is the easier path, IMO.

Just open the box and see

We are deep.

We tend to "self preservation" like all life forms. This is only perceived as "evil" when competition for resources is the only "market force" in play. We are taught how to compete and how to cooperate, but never taught how to be symbiotic.
We tend to try to survive, and we have been given faulty training in survival skills. That does not make us evil, it makes us misguided. When you meet a person who has truly taken the time to learn who they are "deep down" they are some of the most beautiful, grace-full people on the planet. We have a capacity and an inclination toward good, just being given bad instructions on how to "survive" by people who crave power.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Good on you, Fishy

Someone finally gets it. It's all about environment and up-bringing.

I just don't get this concept that people are basically bad. If two people meet out in an isolated field with no other influence and motivations, they will almost always be cordial, friendly and 'good' towards each other. Enter a motivation and it's easy to predict which one will do what.

So we are blank slates?

You think we're just a product of our environment? I completely agree that our environment and up-bringing matter, but I don't think that are all that matters. My brother and I grew up in the same house, same schools, same food, ect. But we are night and day different. We make and have made vastly different decisions in life that have altered our courses from each other. How does that happen if we born blank slates?

"Be a listener only, keep within yourself, and endeavor to establish with yourself the habit of silence, especially on politics." -Thomas Jefferson

I think peoples' classifications of good and bad

are the result of 'the interactions' of their personality and their training.

For example, two kids may get the same punishment for doing something but if one is more introverted and self denigrating, then that one will perceive the punishment as worse than a lighthearted, flighty one. The butterfly effect springs to mind.

Deeper connections to the truth?

If people where so bad then the first 2 would have long ago slit the others throat.

So how is this "bad" measured?

Net productivity over time?

If the end of the human experiment is miserable hell on earth, man-made, like rats killing each other off due to a shrinking supply of life sustaining resources, those who claim that men are bad can then prove their point, consuming the last of the supplies of goodies in their necessary work required to end our species sooner.

Joe