18 votes

Court By-Passes Congress and Indicts Obama

This seems legit... looks like the Federal Courts have put together a huge list of concrete indictable offenses against Obama AND Bernanke... but it's still up to Congress to Impeach:

http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2013/01/federal-court-indi...




Comment viewing options

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

V E R Y Interesting Ideed!

This thread was also posted here: http://www.dailypaul.com/272596/lyndon-larouche-claims-feder... with multiple comments. I remember looking at it earlier this week because someone said they thought LaRouche was a Crypto-Commie and that stuck in my memory so I went and found the post.

Anyways, I guess he likes FDR because he wants to create his own works project of sorts: “ NAWAPA XXI, a 21st-century advancement of the continental water management project, the North American Water and Power Alliance. “

He wants to restore a public system of credit like Hamilton’s First National Bank:

“Additionally, nearly half of the NAWAPA XXI report is dedicated to a proposal to fund NAWAPA through the restoration of the historic U.S. system of public credit. This proposal begins by separating valid debts from gambling debts under a new Glass-Steagall act, and continues stepwise to the establishment of a National Bank and the funding of NAWAPA XXI. The national policy precedents are then illustrated in detail, discussing Alexander Hamilton's establishment of the first National Bank,”

The words “system of credit” make me think of something I read last week from McFadden regarding the Federal Reserve being an asset based currency http://www.apfn.net/Doc-100_bankruptcy28.htm :

“One-half million dollars was spent on the part of the propaganda
organized by these bankers for the purpose of misleading public opinion and
giving Congress the impression that there was an overwhelming popular demand
for it and the kind of currency that goes with it, namely, an asset currency
based on human debts and obligations.”
"The Fed Note is essentially unsound. It is the worst currency and the most
dangerous that this Country has ever known. When the proponents of the act
saw that the Democratic doctrine would not permit them to let the proposed
banks issue the new currency as bank notes, they should have stopped at
that. They should not have foisted that kind of currency, namely, an asset
currency, on the United States Government. They should not have made the
Government [liable on the private] debts of individuals and corporations,
and, least of all, on the private debts of foreigners. "As Kemerer says:
'The Fed Notes, therefore, in form, have some of the qualities of Government
paper money, but in substance, are almost a pure asset currency possessing a
Government guarantee against which contingency the Government has made no
provision whatever.'”

"The old struggle that was fought out here in Jackson's time must be fought
out all over again. The independent United States Treasury should be
reestablished and the Government should keep its own money under lock and
key in the building the people provided for that purpose.”
"Asset currency, the devise of the swindler, should be done away with. The
Fed should be abolished and the State boundaries should be respected. Bank
reserves should be kept within the boundaries of the States whose people own
them, and this reserve money of the people should be protected so that the
International Bankers and acceptance bankers and discount dealers cannot
draw it away from them.”
-------------------------------
I realize that is a lot of text, but it seems that McFadden was speaking of the problem with Asset Currency and LaRouche wants to go back to a Credit based currency and bear does not know the difference between them or really, what a good currency would be. Except that Joe says that the Good faith and credit of the American people is basis for a currency and that currency can be rocks…rocks of any size and shape. Currency can be pieces of paper traded based upon the time and hardness of labor. Currency can be anything as long as there is competition and I suppose we should add the word voluntary to it?.
------------------------
“Very few people know the VOLUNTARY or genuine versions of either capitalism or socialism, I'd say roughly 1% of the population understand the difference between voluntary capitalism/socialism and involuntary captitalism/socialism”

The only reason I was able to ask:
“False Capitalists" would those be involuntary capitalists?”

Is thanks to Josf’s beating a dead horse. Now I might be part of the 1%. But know, it took me a few minutes to review those words “False Capitalist” and come up with “involuntary.” And I still put it in the form of a question, because I was not sure I had the right conclusion. And then again, you used the word "understand," not just know, so maybe I am approaching the 1%.
-----------------------
“ 39:15
"It is necessary to shut down Bernanke."
WOW the false capitalists will be swarming like roaches on this one?
Time 40:15
"You also have to establish a credit system; we haven't seen one of those for a long time."
42:48 NAWAPA Project?”
---------------------
A bait and switch routine? LaRouche keeps talking coupe de ta…like Obama will have to incorporate one to stay in power. I almost wonder if LaRouche wants one of his own to get into power as a 2nd incarnate of FDR.

I remember you telling me about the man whose father’s cows were ordered shot by a government man during the depression. That reminds me of the Raw Milk Cheese business in Missouri put out of business by a government man. Confiscating power thru disposing of power…and LaRouche wants a National Work Project and a national credit based currency like that of Hamilton’s First Bank.

Joe, that is very interesting. Very interesting indeed. You read between the lines and pick up on financial information while everyone else is thinking about a court case to get Obama impeeched…

...

Using the power of understanding?

"I realize that is a lot of text, but it seems that McFadden was speaking of the problem with Asset Currency and LaRouche wants to go back to a Credit based currency and bear does not know the difference between them or really, what a good currency would be. Except that Joe says that the Good faith and credit of the American people is basis for a currency and that currency can be rocks…rocks of any size and shape. Currency can be pieces of paper traded based upon the time and hardness of labor. Currency can be anything as long as there is competition and I suppose we should add the word voluntary to it?."

Ok, so how does competition work?

A Democratic Federated Republic (example provided by The Articles of Confederation) allows Sovereign States to join, or secede, at will.

You want to stay in the Union, you pay your Union dues, in Gold and Silver, or Oil, or Electricity, or whatever is worked out through Equitable Commerce (deals/contracts/negotiations/discussion/offers/counter offers/etc.) as time goes by.

Each State is either/or better at managing local concerns, and each State wants to be in the Union because one State has only so much Defensive Power in case The British, or Chinese, or anyone with a large army of criminals on a rampage of Aggressive War for Profit is through the Gate and inside the country, raping, pillaging, etc.

Many State combine in case of invasion by a large army.

But each State is competing with each other State for volunteers to join the fun and profit of doing whatever one State does better than the other.

Making money?

Try one State run by a LaRouche type Sovereign Sate.

Being Liberated?

Try another State run by a Ron Paul type Sovereign State.

Torturing and murdering for fun and profit?

Tray another State run by Obama and Bernanke.

What is so hard to understand about voluntary competition as opposed to involuntary monopoly?

"And then again, you used the word "understand," not just know, so maybe I am approaching the 1%."

I am employing my bear spiritual education when I find use for the term understanding.

"Does not wisdom cry out, And understanding lift up her voice?"

"A bait and switch routine? LaRouche keeps talking coupe de ta…like Obama will have to incorporate one to stay in power. I almost wonder if LaRouche wants one of his own to get into power as a 2nd incarnate of FDR."

If the man put his money where his mouth was then he would see the wisdom of returning this Consolidated Nation State into a Democratic Federated Republic of as many Separate and SOVEREIGN States as those that desired to join and pay the Union dues.

If the man wants to command the cabal, then he wants to enforce the Monopoly here at home.

What a shame?

Can some of the victims know better: smell a rat and call one out, see what the rat has to say when light is shined on him?

Presumed to be innocent until proven guilty?

"LaRouche wants a National Work Project and a national credit based currency like that of Hamilton’s First Bank."

The wisdom there, in my opinion, is along the lines of stepping back to a time and a situation that is an improvement over today, and the idea is to do so gradually so as to minimize destruction.

I can see that as being wise, I can't see Hamilton's plans as being a goal.

"Joe, that is very interesting. Very interesting indeed. You read between the lines and pick up on financial information while everyone else is thinking about a court case to get Obama impeeched…"

Trial by Jury worked, so court cases can work, but not when the Legal Criminals are making the rules, and running the courts.

Joe

Reporting to LaRouche Site

I am not very smart about history and such. I just know a little.

I am back reading these words today that you wrote last week:
------------

“Ok, so how does competition work?

A Democratic Federated Republic (example provided by The Articles of Confederation) allows Sovereign States to join, or secede, at will.
You want to stay in the Union, you pay your Union dues, in Gold and Silver, or Oil, or Electricity, or whatever is worked out through Equitable Commerce (deals/contracts/negotiations/discussion/offers/counter offers/etc.) as time goes by.”
--------------------

And it brings me to a comment on the post I could help myself but starting today about the 14th amendment and Thou Shalt Not Question.

You probably already know this, but it was explained to me today that the 13, 14, & 15th amendments were forced upon the Southern States in order to rejoin the Union or else keep on fighting… http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2941429

So that force applied to the southern states in comparison to an optional paying of dues to be a part of the union is opposite of competition.

Now, you probably had that all under your belt already, but today I have achieved that knowledge.

I find your observation:

“Making money?
Try one State run by a LaRouche type Sovereign Sate.
Being Liberated?
Try another State run by a Ron Paul type Sovereign State.
Torturing and murdering for fun and profit?
Tray another State run by Obama and Bernanke.”

Except I am thinking, if you want to live in a Socialist state try one run by LaRouche
And if you want to make money, try a state run by Periot.

You ask: “What is so hard to understand about voluntary competition as opposed to involuntary monopoly?”

And I answer, describe to a blind person the color of blue. Perhaps voluntary competition is hard to understand because one has not been exposed to it. Or perhaps one has been exposed to it but does not recognize it. i.e. a child can see colors, unlike a blind person, but does not know that the colors have names, or perhaps that they are even colors. How can one understand something they do not recognize?
-------------------------
"LaRouche wants a National Work Project and a national credit based currency like that of Hamilton’s First Bank."
The wisdom there, in my opinion, is along the lines of stepping back to a time and a situation that is an improvement over today, and the idea is to do so gradually so as to minimize destruction.
I can see that as being wise, I can't see Hamilton's plans as being a goal.
--------------------------
Now see, I fail to see the path back as chess moves. I suppose though that that is what Ron Paul was doing by bringing the troops home to save money so as to continue the welfare program until folks could learn to be self sufficient while at the same time balancing the budget. I don’t know if I would like to see a work project like FDR’s though. Do you like that idea?.

Ron Paul spoke of his end goal: Keeping the profit of your labor. I do not know LaRouche’s end goals. I have not looked. Have you?

“Presumed to be innocent until proven guilty?”

I suppose a good look at his words might tell.

So you want to talk about:

“The LaRouche angle has to do with exploring further the concepts of capitalism (voluntary) and socialism (voluntary) as opposed to capitalism (false or involuntary) and socialism (false) wherein the proof can be measured as to which ways work better for making power abundant and which ways don't and LaRouche also touches upon the concept of moving from one planet to another (which requires a lot of power) just in case God isn't going to destroy everything on Earth and start over fresh any time soon.”

???

...

Edicts

"the 13, 14, & 15th amendments were forced upon the Southern States"

Here is a confusion of perceptions as to what I see and what my words inspire you to see. Note the meaning of the words you wrote above and now compare the meanings of the words you write here:

"And I answer, describe to a blind person the color of blue. Perhaps voluntary competition is hard to understand because one has not been exposed to it. Or perhaps one has been exposed to it but does not recognize it. i.e. a child can see colors, unlike a blind person, but does not know that the colors have names, or perhaps that they are even colors. How can one understand something they do not recognize?"

By comparison from one moment, one place, one thought, one action, one event, one measure, with another moment, another place, another thought, another action, another event, or another bag of potato chips on the same shelf at Walmart priced half-off compared to the same bag of potato chips right next to it, on the same shelf.

Compare a place that accepts returns for any reason, no questions asked, immediately, to a place where you have to stand in line, spend hours, to be given the runaround, and find out that you have to lie, threaten, and be violent to get a counterfeit product returned.

So competition is natural, it is waking up one morning with a mom forcing you to go to school, and another day waking up with a mom letting you sleep and not forcing you off to school.

Blind kids are all natural except the seeing, unless there is some other unnatural condition of life not on the discussion table, or altering the condition of life of the child.

A child forced to near death working all the time without sufficient rest would find a day at school to be a vacation.

Competition is, or it is not competition.

Here:

"the 13, 14, & 15th amendments were forced upon the Southern States"

Which force is being accurately identified and if anyone in the south, any person, is not volunteering, then it isn't voluntary government, and then there is no competition in that case. In the case of many States, from the first day the Constitution was fraudulently enforced, worked toward secession. Many people on a list, comprising a State, worked toward secession as a means of opting out of what rapidly became a working despotism or Legal Crime Cabal.

The Whiskey Rebellion squashed so fatal a spirit as what, exactly?

So, no, decidedly no, demonstrably no, The People no longer had competition in the market of Constitutionally Limited Governments once The Criminals hiding behind their false Constitutionally Limited Government took over.

What were the Alien and Sedition Acts?

They were one too many edicts of crime made legal enforced by one too many successive dictators running the dictatorship according to at least two people: James Madison and Thomas Jefferson (Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were in response to The Alien and Sedition Acts), and that wasn't half the trouble, the second Dictator in Chief set about to punishing people who speak against the Dictatorship, only a minor problem, compared to the often resort to highway, and seaway, robbery known as TAXES.

The Southern population, not just the employees hired to run the State governments, were up in arms for a long time, working to end the enforced slavery of NON-competitive highway and seaway robbery then called (falsely) taxation. What was that Dirty Compromise?

A. The dictators take over, we walk, and we stop paying our Union dues.

B. The dictators take over, and they enslave everyone, kill all competition, and enforce debt payments without question, even questioning the law is against the law for the victims, the targets, the slaves to allow such questions into their brains, but of course, the same laws do not apply to the dictators - of course - a routine by now, by then, by now, some things never change?

They were changed in between 1776 and 1787, in fact, in demonstrable fact, and demonstrated clearly with Shays's Rebellion.

If you want to be a slave, tan yourself and go south, or indenture yourself and go north, or fight back in Massachusetts, and if you fail to retake control of government from the criminals, then go to Vermont.

Look at the map.

http://www.theomahaproject.org/module_display.php?mod_id=126...

Vermont would have had a strategically difficult time joining a Canadian Union or becoming an independent State without joining any Union of Sovereign States. It is a long State, it could be chewed up into pieces one small piece at a time, attacked from two sides all along the East and West, so the concept of not returning the runaway slaves (Daniel Shays among them) back to Massachusetts State was a significant precedent.

That was under The Articles of Confederation. Enie, menie, miny, moe, which is the better State where I should go?

What are Fugitive Slave Laws for, exactly?

Who needs Fugitive Slave Laws if you have the power to make everyone pay any debt including the debts that are run up in the process of making everyone pay any debt - without question?

What was The Constitution? That was the monopoly Tax power.

What was the Whiskey Rebellion? That was the first Federal Reserve enforcement act, by any other name, it is the destruction of monetary competition.

What were the Alien and Sedition Acts? That was the "without question" qualifier.

What were the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, or The Declaration of Independence, or The Bill of Rights, or the speeches made by Henry, Mason, and unlearned countless other Democratic Federated Republicans who were falsely called Anti-Federalists since the "Federalists" were the Neo-Cons and the Communists of the day, speaking one thing to gain power, doing the opposite once in power.

The Civil War, and what a name that is, was made to happen, it was designed to happen, it was a design feature of The Dirty Compromise.

Slaves made legal.

Any objections, slaves?

"Now see, I fail to see the path back as chess moves. I suppose though that that is what Ron Paul was doing by bringing the troops home to save money so as to continue the welfare program until folks could learn to be self sufficient while at the same time balancing the budget. I don’t know if I would like to see a work project like FDR’s though. Do you like that idea?."

Ron Paul set the bar really high, and it could be possible that someone else gains as much power (currency) as Ron Paul, but not likely, and his intentions, well spoken intentions, were chess moves, step by step, back to voluntary government - which is a Democratic Federated Republican form, so yes, I like the idea, and as Ron Paul said, these hard choices are going to be real, even if we don't want to make them before making them is even more costly.

We could all wake up at once and stop all the legal crime, and start back into that animated contest of freedom all at once, one fine morning, but if Ron Paul can't even get the step by grueling step method done, what is left for there to be in the cards?

A miracle?

A lot of teachers teaching and teachers learning and students learning and students teaching to move more rapidly toward that tipping point when the snow ball of liberty begins to hit critical mass?

Why not?

"I don’t know if I would like to see a work project like FDR’s though. Do you like that idea?."

No, that is not the Ron Paul method, as I understand the Ron Paul method to be such that any monkey business of that type would be limited to a State level planned economy and not something done at a genuine (not false) Federal level.

I think a State run with that the LaRouche type of Planned Economy (forced by making the subject pay an involuntary tax) could appear to be competitive at first, in one State, inside a Republic, but soon the hidden costs would become very apparent to anyone in a competitive State where people are freer to employ their own power to make more power instead of having their power stolen and then used to steal more with some of the power stolen to then be used to make more power according to a dictatorial power, even a so called benevolent dictator.

The dictators will lose in any straight up competition of government whereby the resort to lies, threats, and violence upon the innocent is checked by such a thing as Trial by Jury or Declaration of Independence stuff, Shays's Rebellion Stuff, and that precedent set in Athens Tennessee.

You there, you in government, yes you, you work for us people who actually produce things, any questions, ask away, but if you don't do the job your hired to do, no amount of questions will make me pay you another dime, so here are your waling papers, and here is your competitor, get out, and don't come back until you can compete in the free market of voluntary government.

Adios, and I hear that McDonald's is hiring.

"Ron Paul spoke of his end goal: Keeping the profit of your labor. I do not know LaRouche’s end goals. I have not looked. Have you?"

No, and I'm not that interested in looking, I am guessing that LaRouche is just another Might makes Right Dictator that sounds a whole lot like a benevolent dictator, but once in an office where competition is against the law, well, what is the routine?

Ron Paul may have shut it down, returned it back to a Republic, and so, it stands to reason, he was not picked as the next President by those who do the counting.

The spiritual angle works here too, I think, no one knows the schedule, so why wait, ever, for doing good things? What is needed is a clear path, no?

Doesn't that mean that we have to create one since the paths most of the people are on is a false one?

Joe

A Timely Discussion?

I want to understand this http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2943190 :

• Have you read the work of Bakunin?
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/mikhail_bakunin....
"Political Freedom without economic equality is a pretense, a fraud, a lie; and the workers want no lying."

I do not understand what the words “economic equality” mean. I am blind. I do not know what it looks like. Or if I do, I do not recognize it.

I want to know what those words mean because of this: http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2904931

Because that link above also talks about the Whiskey Rebellion having to do with a French style Jacobin Revolution and also mentions Bakunin-style Anarchy (not to do with Jacobinism).

You say this about the whiskey rebellion:

"The Whiskey Rebellion squashed so fatal a spirit as what, exactly?"

And you say you want to talk about Voluntary Socialism. I don’t know what it is. Socialism is not the study of society. I think Socialism is the collection of or from society. Even if a state determines to have a social government who says everyone in the state wants to be part of that experiment? Do they have to voluntarily vote with their feet in order and find a state in which they can voluntarily exist?

So, if I am misunderstanding I am ready to understand. Please do not say I am seeing red or falsely accusing. I am telling you where I am at today. What I have given you above is where I am at. I cannot help being there. It is what I think, it is what I say, and maybe I do not understand.

What does it take to have voluntary socialism?

It seems to me that if the definition of socialism is the study of society, then you can voluntarily study society to your heart's content without affecting anyone else...since you are just studying. So to me socialism must employ the use of the study to manipulate society into performing the end goal of the study.

Why does anything need studied? Why can’t people just be?

...

Continued from lunch break

Question:

"What does it take to have voluntary socialism?"

The following can be completely divorced from me as an individual, and the following can be a stand alone answer to the question asked, and it can be considered as a competitive answer on it's own, or in conjunction with the credit deserved by the author of the words, and it can be considered according to the context of the time it was written.

It was written as a contemporary to Bakunin. Both the author of the following and Bakunin attended the events known as The First International which was a conference for political and economic ideas, or plans, or powers, to meet, and then move onto other things after the meeting. The story goes that both Andrews and Bakunin were thrown out by someone, or some group, for some reason.

Why?

Here is the question again:

"What does it take to have voluntary socialism?"

Here is an answer:

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

"Again, Socialism assumes every shade and variety of opinion respecting the modes of realizing its own aspirations, and, indeed, upon every other point, except one, which, when investigated, will be found to be the paramount rights of the Individual over social institutions, and the consequent demand that all existing social institutions shall be so modified that the Individual shall be in no manner subjected to them."

Now things are different, a lot of water went under a lot of bridges, and a lot of water is polluted, poisonous to man, and a lot of bridges are bombed off their foundations since then, so, things have changed some, since then.

Words like Bad now mean Good.

Blue is now Red.

So the answer in Modern Times to the question is invalid?

"So to me socialism must employ the use of the study to manipulate society into performing the end goal of the study."

If World War III is currently accelerating into the worst hell on earth ever in human history, then it may be a good idea to find common ground among the people who are not as evil as those who profit from those wars, yes or no?

If yes, then it may be a good idea to listen to what roughly half of the worlds population has been led to believe, and in may just be possible to find something amid all the falsehood that does, in fact, remotely resemble the truth, or at least resembling something similar to those falsehood that we too have been led to believe.

I have been wrong too often, so letting that be, is unsettling to me.

Joe

A Level Playing Field

Joe, I started this before your return from lunch so you will have to bear with me as you put up your and say “wait a minute.” I am sure you will have steam coming out of your ears lol :)
“I hoped that you would see that, and you do see it, and your response is very welcome - necessary in my opinion (if the goal is Liberty).”

Yes, I suppose I am nosey, but I find your conversations interesting even if you are not talking to me. But I could not read all of that Near East Post, it was too long and I was too tired.
-----------------------------------------
“I am almost done with my 3rd reading of the Quotes book and during my reading I'm thinking Wow, there needs to be that unheard voice of the people who do not believe in God (so named).
Then, there is contact made with someone, and then contact made with Bakunin. Bakunin speaks from the voice of those who do not believe in God (so named).”

My honest opinion:
Psalm 14:1 “1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.”
In context: http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/psalms/14.html

Why would I want to listen to a fool?
-------------------------
How many millions have been murdered trying to achieve economic equality? Purge, Purge, Purge until all that is left are the very lowest and very powerless left so that they cannot rise against their oppressors? Purge, Purge, Purge all those who are deemed to have risen above equality? Economic Equality sounds like a pipe dream and one that has been used for extremely evil purposes. That is what I think.

On this link: http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2904931
at the top you will find the title followed by the words see in situ (like this):
Comment: Hey guys :D
(See in situ)

Click on the “in situ” and it will take you to the complete thread. I am sorry, I did not think about navigating for you. I had already told you a couple of times that Willl was talking to us, but we were in the middle of talking about Joshua I think, so you may have missed it.

I think in situ has something to do within surrounding or here I am looking it up to be sure:

In situ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_situ - Proxy - Highlight
In situ is a Latin phrase that translates literally to 'In position'.

No, I don’t want to be bossy about the word socialism. I just want to use the modern definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

“Socialism refers to an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.[1] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]”

The Study of Society is called Sociology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology

“Sociology is the scientific study of human society[1] and its origins, development, organizations, and institutions.[2] It is a social science which uses various methods of empirical investigation[3] and critical analysis[4] to develop a body of knowledge about human social activity. For many sociologists the goal is to conduct research which may be applied directly to social policy and welfare, while others focus primarily on refining the theoretical understanding of social processes. Subject matter ranges from the micro level of individual agency and interaction to the macro level of systems and the social structure.[5]”
--------------------------
I have already said before that I think, and I have a right to think my own thoughts as well, that socialism is a hot button word. If you want to talk about voluntary socialism you should use a different word, or include the word voluntary. Those are my thoughtful words. That does not mean you have to think them, but I don’t have to think what you think either.

I also think that since criminals like to use the power by voluntary socialists to achieve their criminal power and them oust them, that it would be a good idea not to use their terminology:

“I've read some of Bakunin's work and I know that Bakunin (like Andrews) was thrown out of the process by which The Communists came to power. So...what does this enemy of communism have to say?”

We discussed the study of society here in this post http://www.dailypaul.com/259985/liberty-day-challenge-july-4... (I imagine we discussed it a lot of other places too.) Can you do a word search in your post for Study of Society? It comes up 9 times for me. I have comments per page set to the max I believe.

Joe, I finally have the concept down that there are voluntary and involuntary forms. That has been a major improvement for me. But that is because you used the word false socialism and it made me think for myself. Hmmm what does he mean by false socialism. Oh, involuntary socialism. So now that is part of my understanding. But I still think what I think. People do not think of voluntary socialism as far as I know. They think of criminal socialism.

This is also what I think. I think if voluntary socialism gains enough power that it attracts criminals who usurp the power. And like it or not those criminals are able to control the masses just like they did in during the con con. There were people who knew better and spoke out. What good did it do? The criminals are expert at mass mind control. That is what causes “mob” rule. They are trying to do that will gun control right now. We are watching a crime in progress. Democracy is fine. Let us all vote. That is great. But the question is: Who is going to count the votes and for how long until the criminals who perpetrate crime because that is what they do begin their routine?

“How about the information that reports on the stark contrast between the volunteers in the all volunteer armies from each State during The Revolutionary War and the less than "voluntary" armies commanded by the new Dictator in Chief known as Georgie Boy Washington?
All volunteers, all military soldiers, all giving all for the benefit of all, giving up all they have, for everyone, and if they say I've had enough, then they stop paying, and they walk off, because they say so, one way or the other, voluntarily, and as happens, that systematic, non system, works best. “

How many deserters get shot for deserting? Isn’t that the standard treatment? So my premise is that yes an army can be a voluntary collection of power, but look at your quote above. It got usurped? All those people voluntarily collecting their power for the good of each other ended up with http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard171.html : Generalissimo Washington: How He Crushed the Spirit of Liberty. And yes, it is hard for me to let go of the Father of Our Country not being who I have been told he was my whole life. And I am not sure what I think because I am not studied in history so anything anyone tells me can be believed by me because I do not know any better.

I have to say, I had to chuckle reading your reply because it seems we go round and round about this. Please, I want to hear your ideas. Not argue over words. You must have ideas tht you are wanting to share and never are able to get to that point because I am too busy seeing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Red_flag_waving.svg and the list that follows beneath.

What is it that you want to talk about when you say involuntary socialism? Lets talk about this:
“1. Voluntary associations occurring in liberty.”

And I will try to remember that that is what we are talking about. Maybe we should start each comment with those words so my mind remembers what we are talking about instead of seeing red.

After lunch break:
"Again, Socialism assumes every shade and variety of opinion respecting the modes of realizing its own aspirations, and, indeed, upon every other point, except one, which, when investigated, will be found to be the paramount rights of the Individual over social institutions, and the consequent demand that all existing social institutions shall be so modified that the Individual shall be in no manner subjected to them."

I like those words.

I like these words:
“If World War III is currently accelerating into the worst hell on earth ever in human history, then it may be a good idea to find common ground among the people who are not as evil as those who profit from those wars, yes or no?
If yes, then it may be a good idea to listen to what roughly half of the worlds population has been led to believe, and in may just be possible to find something amid all the falsehood that does, in fact, remotely resemble the truth, or at least resembling something similar to those falsehood that we too have been led to believe.”

I like the words here too: http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2944793

I like words in the Bible the best. These in particular are some good ones spoken by Jesus:

John 13:35 KJV
By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

Perhaps love is the only way to achieve individual sovereignty?

If all economic equality means is no subsidies I am good with it. But is there a need to start with a level playing field? How is the playing field leveled while at the same time respecting individual sovereignty? I hear that is why the globalists are building up the 3rd world countries...to level the playing field for all.

...

No steam

"Why would I want to listen to a fool?"

To find a possible way to help a fool see the exactness of what makes him, or her, a fool.

To help.

"How many millions have been murdered trying to achieve economic equality?"

No, that is a lie, those people have no desire for anything but destruction. They claim to want this or that, but the proof of what they want is in what they get.

"“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

From someone in the East, it may be odd for them to see US doing all the wrong things that they did, when in fact, we are not following the same exact script.

What is the wrong of it?

What is the right of it?

Is there a way to find out?

"Why would I want to listen to a fool?"

Is that called separatism, prejudice, censorship, or is there a more accurate word for that process exemplified by that sentence? Economy?

Political economy?

If the person is told that God is behind all this torture and mass murder visited upon you, because you deserve it, and that particular person has done no one any harm, ever, as far as anyone has ever told them, as far as any evidence exists, then what is the logical conclusion based upon the available evidence as to what is, precisely, this God?

Torture and mass murder of the innocent?

I don't know, but I'm more than willing to listen, as much as I am willing to listen to anyone with a Bible knocking on my door - in fact. When I'm told that God is evicting the natives who have lived on a piece of Real Estate, and crushing them if they don't obey without question, then I'm going to question that God too.

Is that not healthy, to at least listen, and then decide, rather than prejudge based upon what may be another example of miscommunication?

You can proceed as you wish, of course, and that is fine with me, more power to you, but for me I desperately want to hear more from people in Russia, and China, or North Korea for that matter, one on one, so as to have the power in my hands, to ask vital questions, and to then find accurate answers even if the answer is silence.

"Purge, Purge, Purge until all that is left are the very lowest and very powerless left so that they cannot rise against their oppressors?"

That is the bait and switch routine.

Purge or pogrom is done, and it is called economic equality.

So what is it?

What is on the table?

Economic equality or a pile of tortured corpses?

If it is a pile of tortured corpses, then it is a pile of tortured corpses, and if the sign placed on the pile of tortured corpses is "Economic Equality", then someone is lying, and the liar knows it is a lie. What does that leave?

1. Liar (knows it is a lie)
2. Pile of tortured corpses
3. Fill in the blank

"Equality sounds like a pipe dream and one that has been used for extremely evil purposes. That is what I think."

Because you refuse to listen you may not see how someone in Russia has been told a whole different set of lies that include, hey, here you go, this is "Capitalism", coming to a theater near you, we give you Uncle Joe, to save you from the other guy with the mustache, just how good is our version of capitalism, hold on, wait for it, 20 million dead later, and that counts up only the ones ordered to be "equal", and then we get our capitalism?

Do you know what the so called "capitalists" did to Russia in the time period after the supposed "collapse" of the supposed "communism"?

The supposed "capitalists" took everything not nailed down, and then took the nails, and then took the things that were nailed down, and that is a familiar routine.

So, and I'm guessing, since I'm only hearing hearsay, that an average Joe working in Russia, nice guy, nice gal, honest, hard working, a net producer, has an two choices, and this may sound familiar, evil choice A, and evil choice B, for some odd reason.

Evil choice A is involuntary flavor A.

Evil choice B is involuntary flavor B.

And then, out of the blue, there may be one in a million Russians, like one in a million Americans, who say, wait a minute, why not try a voluntary flavor of some competitive nature,call it flavor of the month, or call it anything you want, just don't resort to more lies, I've had enough of it, and don't resort to more threats of violence, had enough of that too, and don't resort to more violence, same deal, I can't afford any more of it.

"In situ is a Latin phrase that translates literally to 'In position'."

Got it, and thanks for the help: sometimes I'm helpless.

"Socialism refers to an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy."

Someone unable to recognize how those words are false, and false on purpose is a danger to Liberty. Imagine picking 12 people for a Jury, done randomly, and having all 12 people thinking that THINGS can be held accountable for the actions of people.

I hope this guy is on a Jury if I ever need one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dhXPl...

"That does not mean you have to think them, but I don’t have to think what you think either."

In context the concept of actually listening to about half the population of the world, just in case they may have validity to exist, might be a step in the direction of preventing World War III. If they use the word socialism to mean Crime made Legal, then we can share that, since we use the word Capitalism to mean Crime made Legal too, depending upon who you ask, and then there is the possibility that some of those people in the East have the understanding that Socialism, as a tool, not a responsible THING, not a THING that can be held to account for things done by people, but the tool, has been used to find out that no THING can ever be the source of authority and therefore no individual person can ever be subjected to a THING, and therefore we are all equal in POWER according to any LAW. In other words: the power of authority is no more a THING commanded by you, as it is a THING commanded by the head Capitalist in America named Barack Obama, or Ben Bernanke, or whoever is actually pulling the strings on the POWER in America which is, as far as any person on the planet is concerned, a capitalist POWER.

But of course, the enemy is doubly enemy because of the labels and the misunderstandings, the lies, placed upon the enemy by who?

Not only does this enemy claim to be responsible and accountable for all the wrongs done by every criminal calling themselves socialists, in your mind, I'm guessing again, but not only that, this person is an agent of the devil because God is unknown to this person in any way shape or form whatsoever: completely helpless on top of being absolutely dangerous?

Just how perfect can deception get, if you were seeking the goal of pushing half the population of the world into violent conflict with the other half?

"I also think that since criminals like to use the power by voluntary socialists to achieve their criminal power and them oust them, that it would be a good idea not to use their terminology:"

Of course, and the same is true for someone looking from the East to the West, as those voluntary capitalists (federalists) have their power stolen by False Federalists (Nationalists) to get elected and then voluntary government is ousted and replaced with Crime made Legal.

I see it.

"So now that is part of my understanding. But I still think what I think. People do not think of voluntary socialism as far as I know. They think of criminal socialism."

The point I hope to transfer to you intact is the point at which you imagine someone almost exactly like you living in Russia, or China, and the only difference is the labels used, and that person is as reluctant to listen to anything you have to say, as you are reluctant to hear what they have to say, because of the deception employed by those who profit by deception which is the cover for violence, which is, in one word: evil.

"What good did it do?"

Here is my point exactly. What good did it do?

Here again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dhXPl...

The Bill of Rights

No resistance, no Bill of Rights.

We can't know what would have happened without a Bill of Rights.

We can guess.

The point is that a person in the East could be working toward an East version of a Bill of Rights, some resistance to the moves toward abject belief in falsehood without question, and that person may be pointing to this conversation right here, and what is the fruit of that labor?

No, stupid, see how they are in the West, their viewpoint is the only one according to them, they do not listen, ever, all they do is command obedience, and that is false, we are all free individuals when none of those dictators are allowed to exist, so we need to dress up our children, or get on our own uniforms, and we need to listen to our own leaders, and we need to fight the good fight against those bad guys.

Does that sound at all familiar?

"The criminals are expert at mass mind control. That is what causes “mob” rule."

You can call it "mob" rule, and thanks for using quotes, but I prefer to call it blind obedience to falsehood without question. I think too few words do not convey accurate meaning as too many words can also accomplish the same goal, if it is the goal, to deceive.

"They are trying to do that will gun control right now. We are watching a crime in progress. Democracy is fine. Let us all vote. That is great. But the question is: Who is going to count the votes and for how long until the criminals who perpetrate crime because that is what they do begin their routine?"

If there is a Bakunin type "individualist" (one word does not convey accurate meaning) listening, from the East, then it is possible, in my imagination, for that person to read that quote above, and in those words a bridge can be built, a shaky one, but none-the-less a common ground of some kind: understood.

"And yes, it is hard for me to let go of the Father of Our Country not being who I have been told he was my whole life. And I am not sure what I think because I am not studied in history so anything anyone tells me can be believed by me because I do not know any better."

Again the point exactly. Someone in the East may know more about America's dirty laundry than you do, and the opposite might be true, whereupon someone in the East has Stalin (hard to believe) placed upon a pedestal.

Why is it hard to believe?

Why is what hard to believe?

George Washington told a lie?

Who said such a thing, that person needs to be sent to prison?

What were The Alien and Sedition Acts?

Are those same Acts returning to a theater near you?

Do you think, maybe, someone in Russia may have a heads up, a few words of advice, as to where Americans are being herded because Americans refuse to listen to anything other than abject belief in falsehood without question?

Maybe, just maybe, someone in Russia might listen, and might think twice about belief in falsehood without question if offered a competitive viewpoint, such as Trial by Jury based upon sortition, or a Democratic Federated Republic based upon a strict voluntary policy of only paying for only what is requested and no more - ever?

"And I will try to remember that that is what we are talking about. Maybe we should start each comment with those words so my mind remembers what we are talking about instead of seeing red."

That is where I had hopped to get some real help from a Bakunin type representative of collectivist anarchism. I do not reason out that path, since I am in the "West" (so called) and I see things more along the lines of capitalism, or economic investment, you know power used to make more power, as a competitive process compared to power being used to steal power. That is a capitalist based viewpoint. I don't get the collectivist viewpoint. It is rumor to me.

Even the family does not make much sense to me. How can I profit from the family? I have to think it out, it does not come naturally. I'm all about me, and all about what I can do to benefit me, that type of upbringing.

So collectivism is foreign. I have not read much of Bakunin. I've read Mises, Rothbard, Spooner, Carl Hess, Warren, and Andrews is about as close as I've gotten to socialism.

But seriously, thing about it, again, a collection plate in church, that is collectivism. An insurance policy is collectivism. A bank is collectivism. A corporation funded by stock shares is collectivism. Individuals, in each case, transfer power to one fund, one collection. So if everyone is doing it, then why does everyone hate it so much?

Someone may be able to fit a few pieces into places where all there is are questions.

"Perhaps love is the only way to achieve individual sovereignty?"

It makes sense to me. What is left when resort to lies, threats, and violence upon the innocent are no longer tolerated or employed for any false reason?

Joe

Collectivism/Individualism/Voluntary/Involuntary/Private/Public

Speaking of disjointed. I am afraid my reply leaves much to be desired. I am not sure that it is well thought out or concise. I am just speaking on the fly.

"Why would I want to listen to a fool?"
To find a possible way to help a fool see the exactness of what makes him, or her, a fool.

I said that in reference to your words about listening to Bakunin’s words because he does not believe in God to get another perspective:

“Bakunin speaks from the voice of those who do not believe in God (so named).”

Bakunin is dead, so why would he need any help?

But now that I have gone back to get that quote I see this:

“Is that voice shared by anyone? Is that voice worthy of spending the costs required to listen to that voice?”

So really you are talking about helping people who are alive?

See, I just think I understand your words…looks like I still need to read 3 times! I am sorry. Yes, I can see a reason to talk to people who say there is no God to help them. However, Josf, I probably would not have talked with you this long but you believe there is a God, even if you called that God, Truth. You believed God to be Creator of Life. Romans says that we know there is God by creation. But if there is a person who refuses to speak of God, then I cannot really have much of a conversation with them, unless they are willing to entertain the thought of God, because the perspective they have is godless and foolish. There are self-proclaimed atheists here at the DP who seem to be more that disbelievers in God, but rather God haters, or haters of the concept of there being God. Fine, I know my boundaries and I will not speak that which they do not wish to hear, so there is not much to share in discussion. However, I still care about those people and am willing at any time to speak to them.
--------------------
"How many millions have been murdered trying to achieve economic equality?"
No, that is a lie, those people have no desire for anything but destruction. They claim to want this or that, but the proof of what they want is in what they get.
----------------------
I will assume here you are speaking of the murderers getting what they want, not those being murdered who thought they were getting economic equality. From what I understand of things is that economic equality is promised and murder is given to get there. And then if you are not murdered, you get to that promised land of economic equality, but really it is economic slavery while those who made the promise rise above the slaves.
----------------------
“From someone in the East, it may be odd for them to see US doing all the wrong things that they did, when in fact, we are not following the same exact script.”

Can you explain those words to me more?
--------------------
“If the person is told that God is behind all this torture and mass murder visited upon you, because you deserve it, and that particular person has done no one any harm, ever, as far as anyone has ever told them, as far as any evidence exists, then what is the logical conclusion based upon the available evidence as to what is, precisely, this God?”

I don’t understand those words either. What person is told that God is behind all the torture and mass murder visited upon them?
---------------------
When you say these words:
“When I'm told that God is evicting the natives who have lived on a piece of Real Estate, and crushing them if they don't obey without question, then I'm going to question that God too.”

Are you talking about now, in the Middle East?
____________________
“Is that not healthy, to at least listen, and then decide, rather than prejudge based upon what may be another example of miscommunication?”

Yes, I will listen, but I will compare what I hear with Scripture and Scripture will be the truth by which I measure words: Your words, my words, Jeff’s words, and preacher’s words, anyone’s words.

“You can proceed as you wish, of course, and that is fine with me, more power to you, but for me I desperately want to hear more from people in Russia, and China, or North Korea for that matter, one on one, so as to have the power in my hands, to ask vital questions, and to then find accurate answers even if the answer is silence.”

There are Christians in China and in Russia. Believers…Believers that have to worship and meet in secret. How do you know when you think you are hearing an average Russian or Chinese citizen’s voice that you are not hearing that of a covert operation to subvert the United States to be more communist than we are?
---------------------------
"Purge, Purge, Purge until all that is left are the very lowest and very powerless left so that they cannot rise against their oppressors?"
That is the bait and switch routine.
Purge or pogrom is done, and it is called economic equality.
So what is it?
------------------------------
What I was trying to say is that purging is done in the name of economic equality as in anything that does not fall in to the group of equality is purged in order to get to a group that is economically equal. What I was trying to say is that purging is done in the name of economic equality as in anything that does not fall in to the group of equality is purged in order to get to a group that is economically equal. I am saying that Criminals use that method to give the people a hope of getting them out of the economic misery only to heighten the misery and suffering. I am saying that when I watched the Spain clip back from WWII, social programs were put into place, those programs could not be paid for, the people rose up, and the communists purged after they took away the proletarian’s arms. Only the workers could be armed. What are the criminals doing now? They are taking a bankrupt country and breaking over the back of social programs and it is not going to work and people are going to get upset about it. I think that is why Ron Paul’s message of Liberty and Responsibility is needed. To give another hope other than one in a government with empty promises.
-------------------------
“Because you refuse to listen you may not see how someone in Russia has been told a whole different set of lies that include, hey, here you go, this is "Capitalism", coming to a theater near you, we give you Uncle Joe, to save you from the other guy with the mustache, just how good is our version of capitalism, hold on, wait for it, 20 million dead later, and that counts up only the ones ordered to be "equal", and then we get our capitalism?”

I do not understand what you mean by someone in Russia being told this is Capitalism and 20 million dead later they get capitalism and that uncle joe is saving them from uncle sam. But now I am thinking of the involuntary word…so are you saying involuntary capitalism? i.e., fascism? That is what happened in Spain. The Fascists saved Spain from the Communists…at least that is what I got out of the Griffin Spain clip.
---------------------------
"Socialism refers to an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy."
Someone unable to recognize how those words are false, and false on purpose is a danger to Liberty.
---------------------
Then, I am a danger to Liberty, because I do not understand why those words are false. What is false about those words?
----------------------------
“In context the concept of actually listening to about half the population of the world, just in case they may have validity to exist, might be a step in the direction of preventing World War III.”

Why do you say validity to exist. Doesn’t everyone have validity to exist?
------------------------------------
“In other words: the power of authority is no more a THING commanded by you, as it is a THING commanded by the head Capitalist in America named Barack Obama, or Ben Bernanke, or whoever is actually pulling the strings on the POWER in America which is, as far as any person on the planet is concerned, a capitalist POWER.”

I think we are a capitalist/socialist/communist/fascist society. Look here:

http://www.dailypaul.com/273339/number-11-on-the-free-classi...

Obama has weather underground connections. We have been Sovietized. And we do not even know it. Obama is not the head capitalist. I see him as a socialist.

“I'm guessing again, but not only that, this person is an agent of the devil because God is unknown to this person in any way shape or form whatsoever: completely helpless on top of being absolutely dangerous?”

When someone denies God they are in darkness. Jesus said these words:
Matthew 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

“The point I hope to transfer to you intact is the point at which you imagine someone almost exactly like you living in Russia, or China, and the only difference is the labels used, and that person is as reluctant to listen to anything you have to say, as you are reluctant to hear what they have to say, because of the deception employed by those who profit by deception which is the cover for violence, which is, in one word: evil.”

Then why do people fee to the united states when their countries are overrun by criminals? Why do people want to come here for freedom? Why do people want to come here when their lives are threatened by their own governments? How do you know that people in the east view us as bad because we have a capitalist form of society? Why did the East Germans want to escape to West Germany? Is your understanding of capitalism is different from my understanding. This is what I think it is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism “Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of capital goods and the means of production, with the creation of goods and services for profit.[1][2] Elements central to capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, and a price system.[3]”

What is wrong with that?
--------------
“Here is my point exactly. What good did it do?
Here again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dhXPl...
The Bill of Rights
No resistance, no Bill of Rights. “
--------------------------
I disagree somewhat, our form of government respected the bill of rights. Other countries have bill of rights but their governments did not respect the rule of law but are rather a law unto themselves…which our government is quickly becoming..

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_China_have_a_bill_of_rights

Right now I am pretty tired and I feel like I am talking in circles and not making sense. If I understand what you are saying is that you want to talk to people from the East to see if there are some who also recommend a voluntary style of socialism. I find that an interesting proposition. However what is the preoccupation with socialism?

Australia is a socialist country from what I understand. Is their style voluntary?
--------------------
“But seriously, thing about it, again, a collection plate in church, that is collectivism. An insurance policy is collectivism. A bank is collectivism. A corporation funded by stock shares is collectivism. Individuals, in each case, transfer power to one fund, one collection. So if everyone is doing it, then why does everyone hate it so much?”

Yes and as long as those things are voluntary there is no problem. However, insurance is no longer voluntary. I have to buy auto insurance, I have to have medical insurance…Some churches demand that membership include contributing. I happen to have Lockheed Martin stock because I was a Lockheed employee…I saw what they were doing this week. The government gave them a contract to make planes and those planes are being given to Egypt. That stock is in a 401K plan. Look what is going on with my company sponsored “retirement.” And I hear I can’t even get my money anymore unless I show some kind of hardship. So I would say involuntary collectivism is a problem. And somehow things that start as voluntary seem to turn involuntary…by design? Because Criminals bait and switch? I think so maybe.

What do you think of this: G. Edward Griffin: Individualism & Capitalism vs. Collectivism & Monopolies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVdI4Kx8TdY ?

G Edward Griffin has a video that you and I watched last year about collectivism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dON5D6Wkprw

Can collectivism be voluntary? Can voluntarism exist without individualism?

I probably need to read science of society. I’m not sure that I finished it.

...

Jumping back in

I looked at the link by Griffin (I have a copy of his Jackal Island book and it is worth reading) on the definition of words.

I have a bone to pick.

His definition of capitalism is the definition that is voluntary.

But his definition of socialism is the definition of the lie, not socialism.

Why?

Case in point.

I stopped the video on these words:

Ownership means the right to control something.

I put may hand up, I'm calling foul, or at least misunderstanding, and a failure on the part of anyone to actually listen to a voluntary socialists like, say, Stephen Pearl Andrews.

Take that sentence apart:

Ownership means the right to control something.

No, foul, that is false. The introduction of the term "right" is superfluous, so why add that word.

Either a person controls something or not, and that can be actually measured in fact.

A voluntary socialists might ask, as a challenge to that sentence, that claim, the following question.

Who owns the air we breath?

That is where I a going to stop this offering back to you, so as to keep things shorter, if not sweeter.

Joe

Dominion

“A voluntary socialists might ask, as a challenge to that sentence, that claim, the following question.
Who owns the air we breath?”

Psalm 24:1 The earth is the LORD'S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Everything including the air belongs to God, He made it. He has given man dominion over His creation.

Dominion: http://www.1828-dictionary.com/d/search/word,dominion

"2. Power to direct, control, use and dispose of at pleasure; right of possession and use without being accountable; as the private dominion of individuals."

“Ownership means the right to control something.”

God has given me the right to control the air I breathe. When I inhale, it belongs to me. My body uses it and exhales what I cannot use. God has given my exhale to the plants and trees. God has given the plants and trees “exhale” to me.

It all belongs to God, but he has given us the right to use and control. If you experience rapture of the deep…you may find no air for you to control. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nitrogen%20narcosis

“A stuporous condition variously characterized by disorientation, euphoria, and loss of judgment and skill, attributed to nitrogen entering the blood during breathing of normal air at increased pressure, as occurs with deep-sea divers. Also called rapture of the deep .”
----------------
“I'm not even Christian, so named, as far as I know, and as far as my history goes I am Catholic. I am an individual. I tried being someone else, and it didn't work.”

I have been something I am not, and God has provided so that I can be what I am.

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

I have been a new creature since age 7. Any other shoes do not fit well. The cry of my heart at age 7: Jesus I know you died for me. I am a sinner, please forgive me of all my sins and come into my heart and live in me. I give my life to you. I want you to be my Lord.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwjTT2bqKk0

Colossians 1:9 For this cause we [I] also, since the day we [I] heard it, do not cease to pray for you [Joe], and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; 10 That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God; 11 Strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness; 12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: 13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: 14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Psalm 24:1 The earth is the LORD'S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.

How are we to use the dominion God has given us?

Luke 10:27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

....

I appreciate scripture

But my focus was more on political economy.

So the use of the word "right" was clarified, and I can certainly accept that viewpoint - no problem. I don't see it, but if it is your viewpoint, and Griffins viewpoint, then I can see that it belongs in your viewpoint.

Back on the subject:

My question:

"Who owns the air we breath?"

God owns it.

OK, got that, and that is fine with me.

Then:

“Ownership means the right to control something.”

OK, so "right" is in the context of "God given rights" and not in the context of one Man giving the "right" by edict, or written order, or constitution, or law power, or lie, or threat, or violence, this "right" to control something specific.

Air

The context again:

_____________________________________
I put may hand up, I'm calling foul, or at least misunderstanding, and a failure on the part of anyone to actually listen to a voluntary socialists like, say, Stephen Pearl Andrews.

Take that sentence apart:

Ownership means the right to control something.

No, foul, that is false. The introduction of the term "right" is superfluous, so why add that word.

Either a person controls something or not, and that can be actually measured in fact.

A voluntary socialists might ask, as a challenge to that sentence, that claim, the following question.
_________________________________________________

Revision (getting rid of the question on "right")

I put may hand up, I'm calling foul, or at least misunderstanding, and a failure on the part of anyone to actually listen to a voluntary socialists like, say, Stephen Pearl Andrews.

Take that sentence apart:

Ownership means the right to control something.

No, foul, that is false. Either a person controls something or not, and that can be actually measured in fact.

A voluntary socialists might ask, as a challenge to that sentence, that claim, the following question.

Who, specifically, owns the air we breath: give me a name.

The idea of asking the question is specific, not random.

I want a name of a person who owns the air we breath.

I want to get a solid handle on this ownership stuff, so as to apply those principles to human life on earth, and I think it is important to know why there are exceptions made by those who make exceptions.

In context, again, the Griffin person defines Legal Crime as criminals making crime legal, a given, an obvious, and accurately measurable fact, and then Griffin labels those criminals Socialists or Collectivists, and doing so can, or cannot, demonize voluntary socialists, and voluntary collectivists, all under the same criminal umbrella of prejudice, collectivism, as all those people are collected into one homogenous group, punished collectively, because the NAME is the same name.

Who, specifically, owns the air we breath, give me a name, please?

Joe

Jesus Christ

is the name of the man who owns the air. He created it.

The point

Getting past the transfer of control from God to Jesus to someone else, please, how about a name of someone owning the air?

As in:

“Ownership means the right to control something.”

Rephrasing the question:

Who specifically has the right to control the air, as God gave Jesus ownership of the air, and then Jesus gave someone, with a name, a human being with a name, the ownership rights, patent pending or whatever, to control the air.

Who, name one person, owns (as in: who has the God/Jesus given right to control) the air?

Please.

If the idea is to actually listen to someone pointing out how voluntary socialism works, rather than collectively punishing everyone who has anything to do with actions that can be called, in English, socialism (Collective punishment?), then listening, and finding agreement, and negotiation, and discussion, may be required.

I am working to point out how people think and how people act in ways that have historically been called socialism in a genuine and not counterfeit form. If you don't want to participate, then we can save a lot of time and effort by simply saying no thanks, I have better things to do, and I can wholeheartedly agree that there are many better things to do, while half the world (socialists) are working to destroy the other half.

Joe

Collective Punishment

"If the idea is to actually listen to someone pointing out how voluntary socialism works, rather than collectively punishing everyone who has anything to do with actions that can be called, in English, socialism (Collective punishment?), then listening, and finding agreement, and negotiation, and discussion, may be required."

I did a quick search on Collective Punishment under your comments because I remembered us discussing this concept. I don't know why, but I feel the need to report in my understanding.

I am watching http://johnpilger.com/videos/palestine-is-still-the-issue

and a Palestinian Dr. is speaking to Pilger and she said the Israeli's confiscated her land and home...a place where her family had lived the last 900 or so years...and leveled it.

So in my mind I am understanding what it means to be persecuted just because of one's race. Collective Punishment. There was a bus of Israli children blown up and that changed the way Israelis started doing things. Lots of check points. Roads guarded with wire. Roads only to be used by Israelis and on and on.

The point being, if one is Palestinian, then they are treated differently because of race and they put up with huge disadvantages waiting at checkpoints overnight when the roads close, or loosing babies because pregnant women cannot get thru to the hospital, etc. Because of race. I know that I should already understand that, but it did not settle in until watching the documentary.

It causes me to wonder, why can they just live in peace together? No need to reply, just reporting in on my progress, unless you have something you want to add.

...

Cartoons

"So in my mind I am understanding what it means to be persecuted just because of one's race."

To me that is all part of the cartoon. The origin of the order to destroy has nothing to do with race and it has everything to do with POWER, in my opinion, the False Fronts are legion, of many forms, while the one inspiration remains to be ONE.

Destroy

The subjects who are infected with abject belief in falsehood without question do their jobs based upon the lies told to them.

Hey you, over there, torture them, and have fun with them while you do so if you want, because they are...fill in the blank.

Yes sir!

"There was a bus of Israli children blown up and that changed the way Israelis started doing things."

Who was hired, and by who, to blow up the bus?

Follow the purchase orders to the original inventor of the order and don't settle for a middle man, go to the root of it, and what is found at the end of that trail when you follow the money?

I've told you about the American Fronteir during the founding of a Republic under The Articles of Confederation and during that time when the Federalist Criminals took over with The Constitution. During that time there was a State called Franklin, and in a book about that State was a sentence or two confessing the practice of white people dressing up as "Indians" (people or targets) and then slaughtering the targets.

If the idea is to slaughter "Palestinians" (people or targets) then hire someone to dress up as a "Palestinian" and blow up a bus full of...fill in the blank.

If the blank is filled in with nuns, babies, pregnant mothers, and cherished loved ones, school kids, whatever, then there are bonuses, medals, and vacation homes in Rio for the mercenaries, for having done such a good job?

At least a pat on the back?

No need to remind me of no need to reply, unless you feel the need, I don't need any reminders on that note.

Joe

Like layers of an onion

"To me that is all part of the cartoon. The origin of the order to destroy has nothing to do with race and it has everything to do with POWER, in my opinion, the False Fronts are legion, of many forms, while the one inspiration remains to be ONE."

I think you have explained that before, but it didn't sink in. I suppose now that I understand with your words that race is just an excuse for collective punishment and the truth of the matter is that collective punishment is the lie enforced to deplete victims of power regardless what race they happen to be.

I must be the cartoon figure with a light bulb going off over my head only to find out that my understanding is still buried in falsehood.
--------------------
"Follow the purchase orders to the original inventor of the order and don't settle for a middle man, go to the root of it, and what is found at the end of that trail when you follow the money?"

I have thought about that. How do you know which are the dress-ups? How do you know if it is not Palestinians dressing up as Israelis and committing crimes against their own? I even read somewhere that the victims shown as Palestinians were really Israelis. So I am left with the question. How can one ever follow the purchase orders to really understand the truth of a matter?
---------------------
“No need to remind me of no need to reply, unless you feel the need, I don't need any reminders on that note.”

OK. I suppose I was feeling a bit like a bother bear.. I wander if Gatto is satisfied with arguing with himself with no need to report discovery? And if I hadn't reported my discovery would it have stayed as it was limited to collective punishment without the concept of destroying power under whatever reason serves best.

...

Outer layers

"How do you know which are the dress-ups? "

The whole concept can be seen as an onion or as a pyramid or as a wolf in sheep's clothing wearing an obviously fake wolf costume.

Peel off the fake wolf costume and there is lurking in the semi-darkness a mild mannered sheep.

Deception has a purpose.

Have you ever played rock paper scissors? I was once very good at it, before all my concussions, way back in my youth, I could bluff my way toward winning - more often than not.

My dad often repeated "what is he going to do next?" when speaking about me, and I don't remember why. My dad also repeated "we are going to miss you around here" but I remember why he repeated that a lot, because I often replied to his too often repeated jokes with "you said that already", so my memory was once competitive.

"How can one ever follow the purchase orders to really understand the truth of a matter?"

My son is now at court, having been picked as an alternate juror in a case that he will not discuss. He is caught up in the process as I once was, and he does not appreciate my input on such questions as pertain to "The Bar" that separates the Common Law people and those who have assumed POWER. It is his life, not my life relived - naturally - I think I understand.

So, how does one, or 12 people, figure out who did wrong to who, when, where, and why?

Good question.

Where is my endless supply of money so I can buy an endless supply of drones, Aircraft Carriers, mercenaries, and really good liars?

Are the subjects resorting to feeding themselves, really, do they dare?

How about an endless supply of jets that create an aluminum overcast?

Teach them a lesson or two about political economy.

Joe

I didn't send this along yesterday

http://www.dailypaul.com/276374/this-absolute-must-be-watche...

because the news was not good, and how can I know if it is true, so didn't add it to the bad news pile. But since you bring up the subject:

"How about an endless supply of jets that create an aluminum overcast?"

Oh another one: http://www.dailypaul.com/276308/photos-of-haarp-generated-pl...

Lab rats

Why do you think they bombed the hospitals, waster supplies, bridges, roads, communication centers, in Iraq during the "sanctions"?

Why was fluoride put in the water by law?

What is GMO?

Who is Monsanto?

One of my own brothers, a pilot, informs me that those persistent vapor trails are normal.

Another one of my own brothers is waking up, and he just informed me, a few days ago, that HAARP is not normal; in so many words, and he has access to some of the people who built it.

Joe

News to me

"Why do you think they bombed the hospitals, waster supplies, bridges, roads, communication centers, in Iraq during the "sanctions"? "

I did not know they did that during "sanctions." I thought that would be done during "aggressive" war rather than "passive" sanctions trying to "avoid" war.

After I had already linked that Chemtrail link above I realized you had already cross referenced it under Liberty Day Challenge. Imagine that.

There is a link there http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2979321 that I will probably to check out to see what "good" news may be waiting in the wings.

Speaking of good news, I am getting a little overwhelmed again. I watched some out of print Russion movie of people being executed. I think my mood is too dark. That was all it was about about an hours worth of executions and loading naked dead bodies and the ways some people tried to fight back to no avail. I think you told me one time something about getting enough bad news.

I almost wonder if I am getting off balance.

...

Odd dream

I had an odd dream last night, this night it is still night, and in this dream I was a solider facing enemy while soldiers on my side were torturing an enemy, and somehow the soldiers on my side started to threaten me with torture. It was vivid at the time of the dream, and I remember thinking, OK, well, does it matter if pain arrives by you guys or the other guys.

I don't know where that came from, a movie from awhile ago, many movies perhaps. I have not been in any organized military.

It was a very dark dream, and upon waking I thought about how my wife and daughter go through depressions where they suffer very unwelcome and very dark thoughts, and then they get over it, so I can sympathize.

I am able, so far, to distance myself from the dark thoughts, in some way, to maintain balance by going neutral, if that makes any sense; as if to refuse to own any of these thoughts.

It can be a safe place in that sense, and not automatic, not a given, but something learned over time, to actively construct a way to deal with unwelcome things. Not giving in, but more like getting out of the way.

I have another angle on this concerning a very bad feeling I get when biting forks or metal things. It was once very disturbing for me to bite on metal utensils, so I made it a point to work at "getting used to it", as if saying OK, yea, so what, if I were someone else I'd love it, so bring it on.

Who am I to claim ownership of these things, my time here is short, almost nothing?

You know these things are warnings, you can't say that you have not been warned, and I'm not singling you out, I'm just exemplifying how I reason, deal, or balance these warnings, these unwelcome things.

Someone I know is asking for prayers as his adult daughter is getting checked out for cancer - for some reason. I did not respond, I know the guy, he is tougher than nails. Certainly my prayers, whatever that means, are asking for better, not worse, and had I responded, I thought about it, I would have responded with hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

We, these human beings, do not do ourselves any favors by hiding from bad things completely, and we, as individuals, do not do ourselves any favors by destroying ourselves by constant exposure to the worst things.

Power struggles are lost by the weak, so don't volunteer to be weak?

You may need a break from me too, I have that broken record going on all the time, seriously, do not keep providing the means by which you suffer. It makes no sense.

My cousin Mike is engaging me in discussion again, and there are so many things I can read, don't, please, feel obligated to play chess with me for any other reason than a welcome change from boredom, as far as I am concerned, there is no need to suffer on my account.

I think you know better.

I can check those links out on Persistent Vapor Trails (one of my brothers got bent out of shape, understandably, by the one very dark, pessimistic, viewpoint) and I don't just swallow this stuff whole, but then again I can see things being much worse than anyone is reporting, as well as things possibly being much better than anyone is reporting.

Each second goes by, then each minute, then each hour, consistently, so far, beyond that I have to do a lot of digging, and a lot of guessing.

Joe

I listened to that link of good news

the people sounded hokey :)

"You may need a break from me too, I have that broken record going on all the time, seriously, do not keep providing the means by which you suffer. It makes no sense.

My cousin Mike is engaging me in discussion again, and there are so many things I can read, don't, please, feel obligated to play chess with me for any other reason than a welcome change from boredom, as far as I am concerned, there is no need to suffer on my account. "

Is Mike talking to you about Public and Private land?

For some reason I feel out of words and I feel tired and I feel like my head has not been in my life and I feel like a failure.

You didn't hand me the dark Russian movie. No one handed it to me. I stumbled upon it and took it upon myself to watch it. I think I'd rather be hit by a drone than kept in a cell with a bunch of people waiting for my name and crime to go thru a mock trial just to then be stripped, lined up and shot, and hoisted like a side of beef onto a trailer with a bunch of other bourgeoisie and political dissidents.

...

Lies

"Is Mike talking to you about Public and Private land?"

Mike moved our discussion to my forum. Mike went straight to the definition of lies, offered his version, I amended it, he ended up agreeing to the amendment. We have a lot of ground to cover including Public and Private.

On this forum I was directed to a source of information that helps me greatly in conveying the perspective I try to convey, not exactly so, but more so than I could have expected. We can move that way if you wish, here is a link and a quote:

http://praxeology.net/BT-SSA.htm

"First in the importance of its evil influence they considered the money monopoly, which consists of the privilege given by the government to certain individuals, or to individuals holding certain kinds of property, of issuing the circulating medium, a privilege which is now enforced in this country by a national tax of ten per cent., upon all other persons who attempt to furnish a circulating medium, and by State laws making it a criminal offense to issue notes as currency. It is claimed that the holders of this privilege control the rate of interest, the rate of rent of houses and buildings, and the prices of goods, – the first directly, and the second and third indirectly. For, say Proudhon and Warren, if the business of banking were made free to all, more and more persons would enter into it until the competition should become sharp enough to reduce the price of lending money to the labor cost, which statistics show to be less than three-fourths of once per cent. In that case the thousands of people who are now deterred from going into business by the ruinously high rates which they must pay for capital with which to start and carry on business will find their difficulties removed. If they have property which they do not desire to convert into money by sale, a bank will take it as collateral for a loan of a certain proportion of its market value at less than one per cent. discount. If they have no property, but are industrious, honest, and capable, they will generally be able to get their individual notes endorsed by a sufficient number of known and solvent parties; and on such business paper they will be able to get a loan at a bank on similarly favorable terms. Thus interest will fall at a blow. The banks will really not be lending capital at all, but will be doing business on the capital of their customers, the business consisting in an exchange of the known and widely available credits of the banks for the unknown and unavailable, but equality good, credits of the customers and a charge therefor of less than one per cent., not as interest for the use of capital, but as pay for the labor of running the banks. This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently create an unprecedented demand for labor, – a demand which will always be in excess of the supply, directly to the contrary of the present condition of the labor market. Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after one employer, wages fall, but when two employers are after one laborer, wages rise. Labor will then be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product. Thus the same blow that strikes interest down will send wages up. But this is not all. Down will go profits also. For merchants, instead of buying at high prices on credit, will borrow money of the banks at less than one per cent., buy at low prices for cash, and correspondingly reduce the prices of their goods to their customers. And with the rest will go house-rent. For no one who can borrow capital at one per cent. with which to build a house of his own will consent to pay rent to a landlord at a higher rate than that. Such is the vast claim made by Proudhon and Warren as to the results of the simple abolition of the money monopoly."

That is Joe's Law.

"For some reason I feel out of words and I feel tired and I feel like my head has not been in my life and I feel like a failure."

I have to get some cooking done, so this is a quick reply then a break. When feeling bad it may help to recharge batteries, somehow, I don't know how, I find ways, you can too, eventually things feel better.

Joe

Joe's Law here too?

http://www.dailypaul.com/276796/15-year-old-invents-early-de... at 7:18 minutes

I'll look at the Benjamin Tucker link

Economies of scale?

The use of power to make power abundant can accelerate due to economies of scale.

Economies of scale depend upon connectivity.

If it took one thousand years for the idea of the wheel to connect from the original inventor, or inventors, to nearly universal use, or fire, or mathematics, or language, or pointed sticks, then how much more power can be used to make more power if everyone can know how to make power into more power overnight?

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

Joe

This bothers me:

SSA.8 "From Smith’s principle that labor is the true measure of price – or, as Warren phrased it, that cost is the proper limit of price – these three men made the following deductions: that the natural wage of labor is its product; that this wage, or product, is the only just source of income (leaving out, of course, gift, inheritance, etc.); that all who derive income from any other source abstract it directly or indirectly from the natural and just wage of labor; that this abstracting process generally takes one of three forms, – interest, rent, and profit; that these three constitute the trinity of usury, and are simply different methods of levying tribute for the use of capital; that, capital being simply stored-up labor which has already received its pay in full, its use ought to be gratuitous, on the principle that labor is the only basis of price; that the lender of capital is entitled to its return intact, and nothing more; that the only reason why the banker, the stockholder, the landlord, the manufacturer, and the merchant are able to exact usury from labor lies in the fact that they are backed by legal privilege, or monopoly; and that the only way to secure labor the enjoyment of its entire product, or natural wage, is to strike down monopoly. "
-------------
What bothers me is why should anyone say what anyone else can do with their stored up labor in the form of capital? If they want to spend it, fine; if they want to invest it, fine; if they want to buy something that will make them more money, fine. Why should anyone say what anyone else should do with the product of their own labor? Maybe I want to spend my labor on a real nice house, or maybe I rather spend the money on eating out and living in a small house. If I invest my money in a house instead of eating my money, then I may have something more in the long run.

I am asking, not seeing red. I am trying to understand. This is my sincere and honest question.

I'm still reading, but I want to ask this while it is fresh in my mind. Thanks!

...

Antagonistic competition

"What bothers me is why should anyone say what anyone else can do with their stored up labor in the form of capital?"

I think that you are not tuned in, because you have not been tuned in, and therefore your thinking is out of harmony, so you don't put together the dots as the dots are arranged right there in front of you.

The answer to your question is explained in the quotes you quote.

Here:

"the only reason why the banker, the stockholder, the landlord, the manufacturer, and the merchant are able to exact usury from labor lies in the fact that they are backed by legal privilege, or monopoly; and that the only way to secure labor the enjoyment of its entire product, or natural wage, is to strike down monopoly."

Gerald Celente helps with his colorful terminology and I can help with my accurate terminology, and now Tucker helps with his terminology that is specific to his time period between 1854-1939.

Gerald Celente calls Legal Criminals by names such as The Syndicate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9X9b05_4bo

That is the Right (voluntary) side.

There is a Left (voluntary) side too, reporters reporting.

Who listens? Who listened to Patrick Henry and George Mason?

I am.

"I am asking, not seeing red. I am trying to understand. This is my sincere and honest question."

When monopoly (The Syndicate/Fascism/Communism/Corpratism/The Dollar Hegemony/Wall Street/Despotism/legal Crime) exists it is because competition (genuine cooperative competition, not counterfeit antagonistic competition) does not exist, so the result of MONEY competition will be money flowing to people (or invented by people) who then start their own businesses, who are people who are then not looking for "a job" but are instead looking for a person to hire (creating "a job") which causes an increase is the demand for "a job" and at the same time there is a reduction in the people looking for "a job" and that is a measurable reduction in the supply of people looking for "a job" and then the shoe is on the other foot.

There is, when money is competitive, not monopoly, a voluntary force replacing an involuntary force, and the voluntary force forces the quality up and the cost down, instead of the involuntary force forcing the quality down and the cost up, and the voluntary, cooperative, competitive, force creates more, and the involuntary, antagonistic, monopoly, force destroys more, and when the voluntary force of money forces money quality up and money cost down, there are many more independent, self sustaining, productive people, using the power they have to make more power, no longer looking for "a job", but having more work than they can handle, looking for someone looking for "a job", and more people looking for someone looking for "a job" and fewer people looking for "a job" is in Scarcioeconomic Terms, or in Capitalistic Terms, "That which the market will bear" a labor force that can force a higher price for labor.

That won't do if you are a monopolist. If you are not a monologist, then what is your beef, other than parroting lies?

If you have the least bit of a sense of seeing red, and I'm not saying you are, then what you are seeing is Legal Crime. I don't want it either.

I don't want the counterfeit stuff at all.

__________________________________________
“There are two Socialisms.
One is communistic, the other solidaritarian.
One is dictatorial, the other libertarian.
One is metaphysical, the other positive.
One is dogmatic, the other scientific.
One is emotional, the other reflective.
One is destructive, the other constructive.
Both are in pursuit of the greatest possible welfare for all.
One aims to establish happiness for all, the other to enable each to be happy in his own way.
The first regards the State as a society sui generis, of an especial essence, the product of a sort of divine right outside of and above all society, with special rights and able to exact special obediences; the second considers the State as an association like any other, generally managed worse than others.
The first proclaims the sovereignty of the State, the second recognizes no sort of sovereign.
One wishes all monopolies to be held by the State; the other wishes the abolition of all monopolies.
One wishes the governed class to become the governing class; the other wishes the disappearance of classes.
Both declare that the existing state of things cannot last.
The first considers revolutions as the indispensable agent of evolutions; the second teaches that repression alone turns evolutions into revolution.
The first has faith in a cataclysm.
The second knows that social progress will result from the free play of individual efforts.
Both understand that we are entering upon a new historic phase.
One wishes that there should be none but proletaires.
The other wishes that there should be no more proletaires.
The first wishes to take everything away from everybody.
The second wishes to leave each in possession of its own.
The one wishes to expropriate everybody.
The other wishes everybody to be a proprietor.
The first says: ‘Do as the government wishes.’
The second says: ‘Do as you wish yourself.’
The former threatens with despotism.
The latter promises liberty.
The former makes the citizen the subject of the State.
The latter makes the State the employee of the citizen.
One proclaims that labor pains will be necessary to the birth of a new world.
The other declares that real progress will not cause suffering to any one.
The first has confidence in social war.
The other believes only in the works of peace.
One aspires to command, to regulate, to legislate.
The other wishes to attain the minimum of command, of regulation, of legislation.
One would be followed by the most atrocious of reactions.
The other opens unlimited horizons to progress.
The first will fail; the other will succeed.
Both desire equality.
One by lowering heads that are too high.
The other by raising heads that are too low.
One sees equality under a common yoke.
The other will secure equality in complete liberty.
One is intolerant, the other tolerant.
One frightens, the other reassures.
The first wishes to instruct everybody.
The second wishes to enable everybody to instruct himself.
The first wishes to support everybody.
The second wishes to enable everybody to support himself.
One says:
The land to the State.
The mine to the State.
The tool to the State.
The product to the State.
The other says:
The land to the cultivator.
The mine to the miner.
The tool to the laborer.
The product to the producer.
There are only these two Socialisms.
One is the infancy of Socialism; the other is its manhood.
One is already the past; the other is the future.
One will give place to the other.
________________________________________________________

I can add:

One abolishes the family, the other is exemplified by the family.

One is an aggressive military, the other a defensive one.

One claims that the word is the thing and the authorities can change the word in secret, the other claims that the deeds of people define people and words of people are often deceptive.

Joe

Actually

I did read that and from personal experience I don't see it this way:

"The answer to your question is explained in the quotes you quote.

Here:

"the only reason why the banker, the stockholder, the landlord, the manufacturer, and the merchant are able to exact usury from labor lies in the fact that they are backed by legal privilege, or monopoly; and that the only way to secure labor the enjoyment of its entire product, or natural wage, is to strike down monopoly"."

We have friends in Houston Texas. When they moved, instead of selling their house they rented it. He has done well for his family by buying and renting homes. He re-invests his labor dollars. I don't see how that is a monopoly. We could have done that we we moved, but Jeff doesn't have any interest in using money to make money. He rather use his time to make money.

Anyways, it is not easy for our friend. People skip rent and things break. It is not a free ride. So when I read the quote you requoted me after I read it on the original site, I say, not everyone who is a landlord is a monopoly. Some just re-invest their money.

What if I decide to live in a cheap house and eat beans and rice so I can buy a rental property. How is that monopoly? That is personal choice. What happens when my cheap house is paid for and I decide to rent it and buy another cheap house to live in. That means i have 2 cheap houses to rent while I live in 1 cheap house, which I will pay for faster than the first cheap house because I now have 2 houses to rent. And on and on.

I read the end of the Tucker link first. I thought the contrast and comparison was interesting. Was also wanting to ask you, would you say that "State Socialism" is synonymous for Communism since Marx is used as an example for State Socialism.

I am half way thru reading the link. I hope to finish tonight.

Also wondering, yesterday you said you have plenty of reading to do and also are talking with your cousin. Would you like me to give you a break from bear discussion?

...

No bother from bear

If a person pays a tax to a FUND that is then used to train people to torture and mass murder (The School of the Americas) and then out of that FUND the innocent bodies pile up enforcing payments to the FUND, then Warren, Andrews, Tucker, Spooner, even Proudhon, and me, even me, say that is bad, and some of us call that FUND a Monopoly for good reason.

If, on the other hand, that FUND also pays the costs of evicting people who stop paying you rent, then there is in that way a sharing of the investment costs required to keep the Monopoly going.

"We have friends in Houston Texas. When they moved, instead of selling their house they rented it. He has done well for his family by buying and renting homes. He re-invests his labor dollars. I don't see how that is a monopoly."

What is the going rent?

My wife rents and her charge is typically below "that which the market will bear", and she is barely making ends meet (prices at cost).

In a Monopoly of Land, or a Monopoly of Money, or a Monopoly of Land and Money combined, the supply of Money and Land is made scarce on purpose by those who run the Monopoly on Land and Money.

What happens when millions of people can't afford to get any money, and millions of people can't afford to get any land?

What happens if those same millions of people migrate to a place in the Mojave Desert, the size of Rhode Island, where no one has ever gone yet, and they print their own money, because they start producing something very valuable to millions of people, and their money is merely tickets to claim one of those things that those immigrants produce, and what if that new society of competitive money makers then constitute a very powerful free State the size of Rhode Island stuck somewhere in The Mojave Desert?

A.
There is a money monopoly so that would be crushed before it became too powerful, and by that power it was then threatening the Monopoly.

B.
There is a land monopoly so that would be crushed before it because too powerful, and by that power it was then a threatening the Monopoly.

"We have friends in Houston Texas. When they moved, instead of selling their house they rented it. He has done well for his family by buying and renting homes. He re-invests his labor dollars. I don't see how that is a monopoly."

They are not the problem, they would no sooner resort to deceit, threats of violence, or violence, to keep their renters paying rent as would you, or my wife, or I, or any other God fearing (in the sense that to HATE EVIL is to fear God) person on this planet.

So where is it that you think Benjamin Tucker is speaking about your friends in Houston Texas as being Monopolists?

Is that why they are tricked into volunteer to pay taxes? Are your friends in Texas fed a line of crap so deep that the politicians eyes are brown, whereby the politicians POWER is so necessary that failure to collect taxes means total CHAOS where the renters are finding ways to live free instead of dying slaves?

No, that isn't the story line, the story line is that failure to pay those taxes results in those renters turning into squatters, living for free in the house you worked for to gain control of, with your time, your energy, your power, to make better out of worse.

We, in our lives, don't need police to police our lives, unless YOU, and everyone else are convinced that "we" need those police, not your neighbor, not me, not your friends in Liberty, but hired mercenaries, hired to collect taxes, are in such great demand, that we can't ever do without them? Protect and serve WHO?

Is that the fear, stop paying taxes and the squatters take over? Is that what bothers you? Is it a matter of confusion? Is it a matter of deception? Have the well paid liars managed to lie so well that they not only convince themselves that their lies are true, not only that, but they have also convinced their victims that "we" all have a vested interest in abject belief in falsehood without question?

"the only reason why the banker, the stockholder, the landlord, the manufacturer, and the merchant are able to exact usury from labor lies in the fact that they are backed by legal privilege, or monopoly; and that the only way to secure labor the enjoyment of its entire product, or natural wage, is to strike down monopoly"."

When, or if, you realize the facts here, you can realize that someone pouring their hard earned earnings into a house on a piece of land can do other people a huge favor by allowing other people to dwell in the dwelling so long as all their destruction of that dwelling is reimbursed to bring in back up to the condition it was in when they went into it, all costs, in other words, borne by the "lender" (the person lending the house) are paid back in full to the "lender" (the person lending the house) and all those costs are paid by the "borrower" (the person borrowing the house) because that is Equitable Commerce.

Why would the borrower be inspired to pay more than cost? Why would the lender gain the power to extract an inequitable "rent" or "interest" or "usury" or "unearned income", from the subject of that monopoly power?

What happens when there are 100 people who have houses to "rent" and there are only two people seeking a house to "rent"?

Auction? Don't do me any favors?

Is that not a case of common sense that fails to be common these days for some inexplicable reason when you look in the mirror?

I look in the mirror and see a fool, a fool for having been fooled for much too long, on this, and on anything that has so far escaped my God given POWER of accurate perception.

Once you "get it", presuming that you can, presuming that you do, you can't see from where you came, and it is maddening to me, in a nice way, because you are so generous, you are so honest, you are so persistent, diligent, kind, and stubborn, because you are all those things, it is a good kind of madness for me to be in this situation, looking at something as plain as day, as we both circle it, and as you can't see it. Once you see it, you can't go back, and this is like me trying to explain to my kids that they can't know what it is like being a parent, not until they are one, and then they will have the same trouble explaining that to their kids.

I'm not saying that you are like a child, so don't get that idea - please. What I say is specific, or illustrative, and not subject to misinterpretation unless YOU do the misinterpreting.

Or, I'm wrong,and if I am wrong then you can, please, demonstrate where I am wrong.

"Anyways, it is not easy for our friend. People skip rent and things break. It is not a free ride. So when I read the quote you requoted me after I read it on the original site, I say, not everyone who is a landlord is a monopoly. Some just re-invest their money."

Again, the problem is Legal Crime, and the consequences of "providing the means by which we suffer" for over 200 years in America, as those provisions, those earnings, have been used to empower Monopoly on Land, Money, etc., and all of those facts, following all of those receipts down to each penny earned flowing to each expense, to me, will be on the account at the end, so I prefer to know my part in it.

Case in point: Person A has 20 people starving and homeless fighting over each other to "rent" the only place for "rent" in the neighborhood/city/county/state/country/planet, whatever, and at that point Person A has the POWER to set the price.

Person A conducts interviews of the potential "renters".

How many "renters" have just cashed their government checks?

Ben Bernanke just cashed his welfare check, he is in line, and he wants to rent your house too. Ben rents it from you, then Ben rents it to other welfare babies at a higher price, so Person A thinks about that scenario after person A was tricked into renting to Ben Bernanke the biggest of the Welfare babies. Think about it, for a while, pretend to be Person A.

Person A says, wait a minute, if I rent to Ben Bernanke, hold on here, I'm paying Ben Bernanke all this money from my earnings, I'm paying taxes for bogus bonus payments to Ben's buddies, and I'm paying "inflation", so Ben Bernanke is actually spending my money he stole from me through inflation, so that then Ben Bernanke can pay me with the money he stole from me, Ben pays me to rent my home from me with the money Ben stole from me?

On top of that Ben Bernanke is going to turn around and rent my home (sub-rent?) to another welfare baby(PG and E?) at a higher price and Ben Bernanke is going to keep the profits while I have to maintain the house?

Not only that but Ben Bernanke is going to steal even more of my income through QE 1,000,000,0000 or whichever number QE they are working on now, so that he can pay the other welfare baby that he sub-rents the house I'm renting to Ben Bernanke? Now one Welfare baby is paying the other and they are paying me rent out of the money Ben stole from me? That is OK with Person A?

No, Joe, that is too much like reality to be true?

"What if I decide to live in a cheap house and eat beans and rice so I can buy a rental property. How is that monopoly?"

OK, so you have managed, again, to dismiss the Elephant in the room, somehow, you have on your special glasses that make the Elephant disappear before YOUR eyes, and you want me to put on those glasses too, so now we both can talk about life without the Elephant in the room?

What don't you get about not being able to go back into childhood?

I can't do stupid anymore, which is a poor attempt at humor, because I can do stupid, but I can't unlearn something, not without brain damage, and I know brain damage, so I know, personal experience, how that works. You use what you have, and you can't get somewhere without YOU being there everywhere you go, run as far as you can, and YOU are still there.

YOU, I mean, is in the mirror. Hey YOU.

What?

You look familiar, I've seen you before, haven't I?

Nope.

"What happens when my cheap house is paid for and I decide to rent it and buy another cheap house to live in. That means i have 2 cheap houses to rent while I live in 1 cheap house, which I will pay for faster than the first cheap house because I now have 2 houses to rent. And on and on."

Millions of people are now refugees. Millions of people are now refugees.

Millions of people are now refugees.

Millions of people are now refugees.

OK, where are my violet colored classes?

I misplaced them, can I borrow yours?

I'll play along, as if those millions of people who are now refugees were not made into refugees so as to keep the Monopoly going at my expense, and the expense of the millions of people who are now refugees.

Turn that off, and now lets get down to brass (cooper) tax:

"What happens when my cheap house is paid for and I decide to rent it and buy another cheap house to live in. That means i have 2 cheap houses to rent while I live in 1 cheap house, which I will pay for faster than the first cheap house because I now have 2 houses to rent. And on and on."

One sentence at a time? Step by step?

"What happens when my cheap house is paid for and I decide to rent it and buy another cheap house to live in."

I'll be the little boy again, in the classroom waiving my hand so the teacher can ignore me, not pick me, or let me speak, and then ignore what I say - again - if I am picked and allowed to speak.

"What happens when my cheap house is paid for and I decide to rent it and buy another cheap house to live in."

I know, I know, been there, done that, the Tax Man sends warnings of impending doom for failure to pay them their piece of the action, so my wife pays dutifully, and that money flows then to be handed to Ben Bernanke who then pays many people to be dependent upon Ben Bernanke and then there are many people with a lot of "money" that can then raise the price of renting beyond the price of construction or resale, and at the same time Ben Bernanke can lower the interest rates while increasing the requirements to prove you don't need money, so the whole charade creates antagonism between everyone, as everyone now thinks the housing market is up-side-down instead of right-side-up, when in fact right-side-up is just the Boom Cycle instead of the Bust Cycle, so it all makes perfect sense if seen from the COMMON SENSE light of what happens when we earners who start out in the morning with less and end up at the end of the day with more, and we send all we can so as to "provide the means by which we suffer" then we are going to suffer, because the POWER flows to those who are really good at making their targets suffer.

OK, so, I went on another rant, since the violent colored glasses don't work on me, and therefore my guess is that you need someone that shares your ability to not see the Elephant in the room, and you and whoever that is can discuss how nice it is, or can be, without that Elephant in the room.

I'm not giving up. I'll try again.

"What happens when my cheap house is paid for and I decide to rent it and buy another cheap house to live in."

OK, violent colored glasses on, and with much effort:

You rent the cheap house and you live in the cheap house.

"That is personal choice."

Yes, that is a personal choice.

"What happens when my cheap house is paid for and I decide to rent it and buy another cheap house to live in. That means i have 2 cheap houses to rent while I live in 1 cheap house, which I will pay for faster than the first cheap house because I now have 2 houses to rent. And on and on."

I am happy about it too, now that I can't see the Elephant in the room, good for you.

"I read the end of the Tucker link first. I thought the contrast and comparison was interesting. Was also wanting to ask you, would you say that "State Socialism" is synonymous for Communism since Marx is used as an example for State Socialism."

That is what Tucker published, in so many words, unless he could chime in and correct me. What I say is that the one path goes to Liberty and voluntary associations, competition, equitable commerce, and the other way is crime. Tucker says as much, in other words.

Crime is crime, why call it communism? If the people calling themselves communists are perpetrating crimes, I think it may help to call them criminals who call themselves communists, so as to distinguish them from the criminals who call themselves capitalists.

If a communist is on trial, or a communist is to be avoided, then it doesn't make sense to call them capitalists, but it is perfectly accurate to call them criminals if that is what they do: perpetrate crime.

If a capitalist is on trial, or a capitalist is to be avoided, then it doesn't make sense to call them a communists, but it is perfectly accurate to call them criminals if that is what they do: perpetrate crime.

"Also wondering, yesterday you said you have plenty of reading to do and also are talking with your cousin. Would you like me to give you a break from bear discussion?"

I can stand the heat, I welcome it, how else can I know better?

Joe