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.

Gathering Understanding...I Think

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

Dinner time

I started reading this and wanted to get a reply out quick before having to cook dinner. The work you have done here, in my opinion aught to be moved over to the Liberty Day Challenge as a new comment. If I don't remember to do that by tomorrow, then please remind me.

Also: my brother sent me my first 100 dollars of equitable commerce as I promise to pay him 3 printed copies of the new book, and I have specific instructions concerning how to autograph his personal copy.

I needed that, it is a huge deal to me, and so now I will return to getting copies printed - and keep you posted.

Joe

That is wonderful news!

"Also: my brother sent me my first 100 dollars of equitable commerce as I promise to pay him 3 printed copies of the new book, and I have specific instructions concerning how to autograph his personal copy.

I needed that, it is a huge deal to me, and so now I will return to getting copies printed - and keep you posted."

Gives me a big smile

b:) e:) a:) r:)

...

Serious power-less-ness

"Jeff doesn't have any interest in using money to make money. He rather use his time to make money."

Your "actually" comment is very much appreciated for its inventive qualities that ring so true to me, but on the other hand the actual problem lies in miscommunication; unless I am wrong.

I have to run out and get the New York Steaks turned on the BBQ. I've become a shopper and probably not very good, but definitely less expensive that previous "shopping".

Joe

Oh OK

I couldn't wait to get back home from church to see what you had to say about my answer. I have to cook dinner now. I will think about it. But Joe, you must know, from the Christian perspective God owns everything. God the Father, Son & Holy Spirit made all that we are and all that we see. So in a Christian's political economy when the collective offering plate is passed. God is letting me keep 90% of what I have because it all belongs to Him and I am but giving Him back 10% as an acknowledgement of Thanks and Worship for all He has given me.

That is political economy for me. When someone asks me for something I am to give them more than they asked for. That is political economy. I am not giving what is mine. I am sharing what is God's and that which he has given me stewarship over. We are but stewards. The earth is the Lords and the fullness thereof. He has granted us stewardship.

Now, I have given you the answer from my understanding and if you would like to give me an answer from your understanding of voluntary socialism I have time. That is why I said perhaps I should read Andrews so that I will understand. But you can tell me. I will listen, and if I disagree or don't understand, I will tell you.

Right now the criminals think they own the air as in they think they are to profit off the air as in carbon tax.

Now, I have one of God's cows in the crockpot in the form of brisket and I need to go fix it :)

Psalm 50:10
For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills.

...

Again, appreciate the scripture = good stuff

But as to the subject:

"Right now the criminals think they own the air as in they think they are to profit off the air as in carbon tax."

If we focus attention on dinner, then dinner is not likely to be burnt to a crisp, and nourishment, which is power, fuels the human beings that can be fueled because that effort is focused to reach that goal, and the goal is reached, the food is not burnt and consumed in fire.

You can't give someone asking you for air if you breath it, since you are consuming it, not giving it.

If there is plenty of air, then who has to ask you for any air?

If you make air scarce for someone, that is called, in one tried and true method, strangulation.

If we call strangulation, as it is occurring, right there, and right there, and over there, calling those examples of strangulation, we call that, a name other than strangulation,then we can play with words, so much fun. I like fun.

How about socialism? A fine name. That guys is removing access to air so that is a case of socialism.

There is that guy over there asking for air. There is that person saying here you go, here is some air, and here is even more air, more than you asked for, and the person asking for air want's all the air, leaving none for anyone else, so that person does what, as that person grips the other person by the throat and closes off all access to the air, for that person, so, what are we going to call that act of closing off all access to the air that would otherwise flow into that person?

Socialism.

Ok that works for me to, so long as we are going to call that socialism, why don't we call the food in the oven a chair.

I can call the thing I drive to the store a duck too.

I need to get some more air, so I'm going to drive my duck out of China, since the socialism is so bad in China that it is becoming almost impossible to breath, but hey, the rumor is that China is being blessed with capitalism these days, so why not give them all they are asking for and more?

Joe

OK

so at lunch I ask Jeff, "Who owns the air." Jeff says, "God."

Then we spoke to the fact that countries claim air space. I asked him if any men own air. Before he could answer I said, I suppose if it is captured in a tank and someone wants to buy it, then someone could sell it.

I think air is free for the taking as long as no one is strangling anyone or waterboarding them. No one owns the air. I suppose someone who strangles or waterboards believe they own air as well as life. But if someone somehow takes all the air, then I guess they would own all the air. Just like if someone steals my money and it was never returned, then they would own it.

Is that the right answer?

I am sorry if I tried your patience. But I was giving an honest answer. It is the same answer Jeff gave me when I asked him. I do not suppose you thought it funny.

...

I was playing along in fact.

The step by step process I follow, over and over, and over, again, and again, testing my perceptions, is routine for me, but so is the resistance I receive each time I try to walk anyone through the steps, resistance is routine.

I'm so, so, so, past impatience.

I can play word games.

I thought it was funny, and I'm smiling now, driving my duck to the store to get a chair for dinner, or maybe I'll call it sanding.

Instead of dinner that event will now be called sanding.

So...I'll take my duck, drive to the store, get a chair to put in the oven, so that sanding is ready by the time everyone is hungry.

"Is that the right answer?"

The first step is to identify how one things works.

Air is one thing.

If the method by which human beings manage to obey Natural Law, or Common Law, or God's Law, or Moral Law, or Spiritual Law, or Chair Law, or Duck Law, or Sanding Law, or whatever words work to accurately convey the Laws that govern the things that have to be done in order for the standard of life to increase, and the cost of life to decrease, so as to ensure the continued existence of human life for more than a few more seconds, then...

OH...I just got the call so we are going to take the duck to the store, but maybe "Store" is not going to work either.

Joe

How does air work?

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

"The first step is to identify how one things works.

Air is one thing."

I am not smiling. I told you how I think air works and you think I am playing games. And now I feel bad because you say "I'm so, so, so, past impatience."

I cannot understand all of your words about China. I do not know why you are calling socialism strangulation. And I feel bad, but I was not trying to make you feel bad. You asked me what one man owns the air. The answer Jesus Christ is not a false answer or a word game. It is the truth, and you can strangle me till I have no air and I will not change my answer. I do not know of any man anywhere who owns all the air except for Jesus.

"The step by step process I follow, over and over, and oer, again, and again, testing my perceptions, is routine for me, but so is the resistance I receive each time I try to walk anyone through the steps, resistance is routine."

Are you following some type of process with me? If you are I do not know it. Am I showing resistance about air? As far as I can tell air is a God-given gift and we are dependent upon it. We are also dependent upon water and upon food. Breathing is an involuntary action. However, eating and drinking require effort. If I cannot do those things myself I will need help or I will die.

You did not like Griffin's words about right to control = ownership. Somehow that has something to do with who controls the air? If someone controls air in a tank they own it. But the problem was the word "right." Do I have a right to own the air in my lungs? Do I own the air in my lungs? I am controlling it? I am not controlling all the air. Only the air in my lungs. We all control air? We all own air? We all have the right to own air? No one owns air? What is air? If it doesn't contain oxygen, then I don't want to inhale it.

Are you asking me a trick question? Is there an answer to the question?

Is someone making air scarce? I do not understand. I am a grasshopper.

...

...

Starting over?

“Ownership means the right to control something.”

I got past my contention on "right", conceding ignorance on my part, since my knowledge of what God/Jesus gives or does not give to anyone or everyone is only superficial at best - in my case - therefore I can certainly call upon a higher authority than me (the ignorant one by accurate measure not just subjective opinion) on that subject.

So granting "rights" as meaning: God given rights, then the word "rights" fits into the sentence.

“Ownership means the right to control something.”

I picked a thing to be owned. I wanted to walk through every conceivable example of ownership of this one thing, to get an idea as to what ownership means, since control works for me, and ownership is as difficult for me to understand as rights.

So I give up on my quest to know better about rights, and I go ahead and submit to a higher authority on rights, but as to ownership I'm being relentless, at least more so than my completely caving in on rights.

If the thing I picked to demonstrate/accurately measure/inspect/judge/know/understand/relate/work/plan/conceive/etc. the concept of ownership/rights/control then pick one and we can work on what you pick and we don't work on the thing I pick.

“Ownership means the right to control something.”

Some - THING

I picked air (meaning oxygen certainly).

You pick some - Thing.

Please.

Oh, and I'm not buying the me being the teacher thing since I know what it is like not having a teacher like you, so student/teacher to me is the same thing as teacher/student.

Joe

Air is good

We have been talking about air today. Please don’t make me pick another THING because I don’t know what to pick. Air is kind of an odd thing because it is not generally owned as far as I can tell. However, if a plane registered to another country flies into the air space above the United States, then someone in our country might not appreciate it and may shoot them out of the sky or make them land. However, the air over the United States is not the same as the air space because the space does not change, while the air is in constant flow. So, Japan sent out some radio-active air. Did that country (as if a country can do something, but can you give me that space) have the right to pollute the air that would travel over multiple countries and into our country and perhaps make us sick? Did they control the air? Was the air above their country controlled? Can someone in that country, Japan, even capture all the air they polluted to try to control it and clean it. Can Japan even control the radiation? Did the radiation belong to them? Does it no longer belong to them once they lost control of it? Are the people living in that land who benefited from the nuclear power plant responsible? Did someone make a profit off of the nuclear power plant? Is that person/people responsible for the air? Does ownership which implies control also imply responsibility? What about the fact that an “Act of Nature” is what damaged the nuclear plant so, while they were being responsible, they lost control because of an earthquake and a wall of water. Do they still bear responsibility? An insurance policy might have an “act of nature” clause whereby the insurance is no longer any good leaving the owner with full responsibility for damage. The owner. Is that what we are talking about: Ownership?

"So I give up on my quest to know better about rights, and I go ahead and submit to a higher authority on rights, but as to ownership I'm being relentless, at least more so than my completely caving in on rights."

Josf, you don't have to cave in on things. It is OK to explore and change opinions or hold fast to the original. I don't mean to badger, I am only giving you things from my perspective. And you know I get sassy at times. I was afraid that I had lost my teacher.

If you want to pick another thing besides air I am good with that too. There are many things of all sorts. Living things, created things, man-made things. We can explore all the facets of a thing being owned. I am good with it. And as we turn the object new discoveries may appear! I will need help though.

...

Focus

To regain focus I have a routine step by step approach to thinking.

As soon as my perception is, at a given time, in a given place, confused, as it was when I read your long paragraph, I have that routine of stepping back, and then back, and then back, until there is a return to a perception that is no longer confused.

Have you ever been lost in the woods? I have, as a child, and it was an adventure. I was also once lost in a mine, and my light stopped working, another adventure. So I may be confused, or even frightened, but my brain, or my power of will, or whatever power that works, has worked to reason out the problem, and take actionable steps that solve the problem. I call it routine now.

In thinking, for example, I step back to at least one knowable fact. You have that ability, it isn't the same as mine. You can step back to scripture. I can step back to knowing, for a fact, that perception exists. If it is dark, I can hear. If it is confusing, I can see where things are not confusing. I can step back to merely perceiving, and then wait for something to make sense, to access creativity, or to meditate, or prey, or whatever word works to explain, from me, to you, a competitive routine, competitive in the sense that it is something done that is similar to your safe place.

Back to the lost in the woods analogy, I can tell you how that worked, as we were 3 in our group at the time, our ages were 6 years old, 7 years old, and 8 years old, if my memory serves me, and we were most certainly late for dinner. We were lost in the woods.

At some point in time it was fully realized by all three of us that we had wandered into unfamiliar territory and then the concept of leadership reared its ugly head. Whose fault was it? No, the 3 boys rivaled each other constantly, so the contest was to figure out the quickest way back to familiar territory. I don't remember who won, we agreed to climb a tree, and other experiments were tested, and eventually the adventure was over, returning to home and food, and a few harsh words from parents.

I miss my brothers company, which was almost constant in my youth, a competitive constant, and that is now replaced by imaginary competitors, my playing chess alone, and the occasional real competitor, teacher, student, discussion partner, including my wife, son, and daughter. You too - of course.

I go back to the known fact of perception, like climbing a tree and then, looking for the good of it, of that known fact, and not adding anything else to it. Off in the distance, I see something that looks like a familiar known fact, and then I go that way, and there it is, a known fact, a principle, and it never changes, it is always the same principle. I perceive. Every attempt to disprove it proves it instead.

Back to familiar territory, for me, I move one more step back onto the path back home and food. What is the next step?

Random?

Flip a coin?

I have no clue, never been here before, never LOST, and now I am LOST, and so I finally find a permanent home and food for thought, but I have nothing to think about, no where to go, nothing to do, so I call upon a random force to direct me on another path?

No, my next earned step, for years and years of earning, always the same step, as I step off of my foundation of "I perceive", there is a tried and true, competitive, highly competitive, never ever knocked off the spot of the best second step position, is the perception that life is good.

I don't need no coin. I don't need randomness to make the first step off my home base of "I perceive". I go right to "life is good" after "I perceive" without a second thought, but sometimes the second step is challenged, sometimes life is perceived as not being so good, so then I have to ask myself if there is anything to take the place of "life is good"? None, no competitor, so far, takes the place of "life is good", no matter how bad it currently looks bad, it can always look better in a few seconds - always so far.

You have scripture. When you share your scripture, to me, it sounds a whole lot like my routine of finding myself lost and then following a routine of no longer being lost, and being back on track.

I can go to more steps but the present concern is a flood of questions in one paragraph written in response to a method by which a sentence (offered by Griffin) is taken apart and understood. Your words wander off the discussion as I see it, or in other words, we have lost each other in the forest of words, and so I'm going to climb a tree and look for familiar ground and I see that sentence again:

“Ownership means the right to control something.”

The subject matter is Political Economy. The subject matter is a supposed Left versus a supposed Right in a battle to win the hearts and minds of the American people, or some other such wording that can fill paragraphs and law libraries until hell freezes over.

I go right to my Power Law as soon as the subject matter turns to Political Economy.

Air, or oxygen, is a POWER.

Take air away, no more POWER, every living thing requiring oxygen has none, and there is no more living for those formerly living things.

“Ownership means the right to control something.”

If God, or Jesus, or one person who happened to be watching for an asteroid, warns the human beings on earth of a pending event that takes half the oxygen away from the planet Earth, would that be an insolvable Political Economy problem IF God and Jesus give human beings the right to solve the problem?

Now, thinking with my brain, I demand principles, so I get back to that which works, principally, every time, in each case, without fail, so far.

The answer is maybe.

Power (oxygen) produced into oversupply (not in this case, oxygen is now taken away and oxygen is now scarce, not abundant) reduces the price of power (no, oxygen is now a very high price power because oxygen is now very scarce) while purchasing power increases (no, there is now not enough legal money on the planet to buy any more oxygen since the asteroid just took half of the supply on Earth) because power reduces the cost of production (no, now that half the supply of oxygen is gone, the human beings are having to spend a lot more cost breathing much harder to get enough oxygen to even think clearly, let alone make a cheeseburger).

So, you don't see, but I do. The capitalist dogma, the socialist dogma, and even Equitable Commerce (least dogmatic of the lot) is all DOGMA.

Air is a power. Who owns air?

Human beings.

Take it away, and what happens?

Before you get lost again, think about what was offered above, and then begin to apply the thinking to two more things, but I'm going to add a non-power thing, and then a power thing to the list, and I'll try to make sense of the reasoning for adding ONE NON POWER THING to the list.

1. Air
2. Chairs
3. Water

In context with this:

“Ownership means the right to control something.”

Subject matter: Political Economy (which PERCEPTION is most competitive?)

1. Socialism
2. Capitalism
3. Equitable Commerce
4. Power Equation (Joe's Law)

How does "Socialism" deal with air, chairs, and water?

How does "Capitalism" deal with air, chairs, and water?

How does "Equitable Commerce" deal with air, chairs, and water?

How does "Power" deal with air, chairs, and water?

Again: assuming that God/Jesus gives human beings (each is an individual example of the whole) the right to own THINGS.

“Ownership means the right to control something.”

Having gone through air, or oxygen, try the same experiment on chairs.

An asteroid nearly hits the Earth, it passes by so close, that it almost takes half the supply of oxygen from the Earth and almost injects half the supply of oxygen on earth out into space, leaving the human beings with the God/Jesus given right to solve that political economy problem, and then in another possible case of trouble, later on in human existence, half the chairs on the planet vanish suddenly by some mysterious force.

The Major News Networks refuse to even cover the story about all the missing chairs. Internet based news outlets like Prison Planet by Alex Jones is interviewing one of the government agencies responsible for inspecting chairs and there is an obvious cover up in progress. Alex Jones links the missing chairs to the CIA operating terrorists groups in the Middle East.

Work it out - please. I'll read whatever inventive things you can see, as you return to your safe place, and then as you diligently try to make sense of my convoluted perspective.

1. Air
2. Chairs
3. Water
4. Paper
5. Food
6. Salt and Pepper shakers
7. Land
8. Entertainment
9. Knowledge
10. Spirituality

We can use the same illustrations applied to each THING on the list to find, if possible, any Natural Governing Principle that can be applied to those THINGS in human life on Earth.

We can do so because I'm telling you that the sentence is flawed.

This sentence:

“Ownership means the right to control something.”

That sentence works fine, for many people, when dealing with chairs.

What about air?

See?

Joe

Are you asking me to discuss the right to control each of these

10 Things:

1. Air
2. Chairs
3. Water
4. Paper
5. Food
6. Salt and Pepper shakers
7. Land
8. Entertainment
9. Knowledge
10. Spirituality

???

I am asking so I am sure I understand the landmark(s) you see from the perch in the tree.

...

In context

“Ownership means the right to control something.”

If I am to know what Griffin means. If I am to know what you mean. If you are to know what I mean, there has to be 3 viewpoints where 1 viewpoint is known at any point in time and place.

I contend with the sentence in English. It won't covey accurate meaning, not without extensive work done to discuss the meaning of the words and that negotiated process of finding agreement could proceed along on a path that intends to reach that goal.

What is a reasonable step to take if someone were to take a step in the direction of understanding what is meant by that sentence?

I can't ask Griffin. You offered me the link to Griffin. I have not proceeded past that sentence offered by Griffin, due to what I see as a very false, divisive, and destructive, divide and conquer routine of parroting or employing lies as if lies were true.

So, yes, but not "right" so much as control. I can get past the "right" part and I can agree (the goal) to allow the concept of God (Jesus) giving, so generously, this right for this or that or anything. So right, in that context, is now a constant, unless you tell me otherwise.

I have the right.

You have the right.

No exceptions since we are all human beings, we all have the right, as far as that goes, since, unless told otherwise, BY GOD, we all have the same right.

Going past that, and then no longer needing to repeat that again, and again, leaves either/or or both ownership and control over air.

Air we covered some.

Chairs I covered some. Cover chairs some.

Then water.

Then paper.

Then Food.

Eventually we get to Land, which can become contentious among the humans, not at all contentious for God or Jesus, but humans have covered ownership or control of land, right or wrong?

Joe

Can you do me a favor...

...you said you didn't listen to Griffen past that sentence. Could you please listen to the clip. Maybe he explains himself. He does go into the fact that rich people do not own things, but control things..

I picked up the Amish at 7:15 this morning and am just now back home and am getting ready to leave again. Will you listen to the clip and then tell me if you want me to answer your plast comment. All you have to say is yes, please answer, or no, I got my answer. Or if I am misinterpreting that you did not listen to all of the clip (It was only 10 minutes or so if I remember) and I need to procede, then please tell me that. You do not have to write another explaination unless it is necessary for me to answer the questions correctly in case the context changes after you hear his words, assuming you haven't heard them.

I got invited in for Amish lunch and did not get to do anymore bookwork as I was given an Amish newspaper and I did not realize I was going to be there another 2 hours... :)

The newspaper was Amish and Menonite folk. They help each other financially etc from needs expressed thru that newspaper. Interesting.

...

I tried

I did not get past "privately owned" this time.

So this time I didn't even make it as far as last time.

Here is my problem.

He says words that accurately identify the need to define words.

Then he uses words as if the words he uses are accurate words and they are not, so I call foul again, only this time I didn't even get to the other offense since I found an earlier offense.

What is private?

What is public?

We (meaning you) refuse to work on this, and I can't do the work for you. The work may not be work that you want to or even can do, so I'm patient, but I'm on hold until you feel like telling me what is "private" and what is "public" and you can even use information you think is valid from any source including Griffin.

Joe

This is what I think about Public and Private

http://www.dailypaul.com/259985/liberty-day-challenge-july-4...

I am not not trying to answer the question. I gave you Griffin because I thought he was correct. Can you please not turn him off until the clip has finished...even if you do not agree? Please? I will talk about chairs:

Chairs. Who owns chairs?

If I purchase a chair then, I own the chair. If I give the chair to you, then you own the chair. If you throw the chair in the dump, then the dump owns the chair and perhaps the earth will reclaim it. If the earth reclaims the chair, then the chair becomes earth.

Before/After

Before watching the whole Griffin link I'm going to spell out my current thoughts.

Public and Private is bogus, it is the result of criminals taking over, and a lie is produced, and the lie goes like this:

All mankind is evil, except me. Note: (See Machiavelli and The Prince)

Me, the liar, gives him, or her, self, I give myself the license to commit crimes, such as lies, such as threats, and such as violence (many variations of each on a scale of severity measured as injury to the targeted innocent victims), and anyone else daring to do so, if I say so, is wrong, while I'm right, and you had better not even question my POWER.

Once that is done, that self promoting goodness (lie) then there are two sets of people not one.

Once there was one set of people.

Now there are two sets of people.

Public and Private.

Those are my thoughts, and now I'll go ahead and listen through the whole presentation by Griffin.

AFTER

Do as I say not as I do (but compared to most I've read or heard Griffin is almost spot on).

I say "watch out for words, make sure words are defined", I do not " define socialism as two categories" I define capitalism as two categories.

Watch out for the bad form of capitalism.

What about the good form of socialism?

No such thing exists?

What were we speaking about?

Seeing RED

Like a Bull at the Bull fight?

Joe

Thank you

for watching the whole thing. I rewatched it tool. I feel better now because at least I can know you heard what I heard, however, we both hear things differently, and I am not saying the way I hear them is right.

I think we are supposed to be talking about the good form of socialism which is based upon voluntarism. Is it also based upon individualism? As in responsibility must be individual? So that moves us to the discussion of ownership? Which lead me to give the link of Griffin as he was speaking on topic, but he lumps all isms into collectivism vs individualism. And says the only individual system is free-enterprise capitalism.

So is the exercise in discussing ownership of the list of those 10 things going to help explain the good form of socialism? I am past seeing red.

On Water: People fight over it and made treaties:

Genesis 21:22 And it came to pass at that time, that Abimelech and Phichol the chief captain of his host spake unto Abraham, saying , God is with thee in all that thou doest : 23 Now therefore swear unto me here by God that thou wilt not deal falsely with me, nor with my son, nor with my son's son: but according to the kindness that I have done unto thee, thou shalt do unto me, and to the land wherein thou hast sojourned . 24 And Abraham said , I will swear . 25 And Abraham reproved Abimelech because of a well of water, which Abimelech's servants had violently taken away . 26 And Abimelech said , I wot not who hath done this thing: neither didst thou tell me, neither yet heard I of it, but to day.27 And Abraham took sheep and oxen, and gave them unto Abimelech; and both of them made a covenant.28 And Abraham set seven ewe lambs of the flock by themselves. 29 And Abimelech said unto Abraham, What mean these seven ewe lambs which thou hast set by themselves? 30 And he said , For these seven ewe lambs shalt thou take of my hand, that they may be a witness unto me, that I have digged this well.31 Wherefore he called that place Beersheba; because there they sware both of them.32 Thus they made a covenant at Beersheba: then Abimelech rose up , and Phichol the chief captain of his host, and they returned into the land of the Philistines.33 And Abraham planted a grove in Beersheba, and called there on the name of the LORD, the everlasting God.34 And Abraham sojourned in the Philistines' land many days.
-----------------------------------
People stole wells and so wells continued to be dug until they were allowed to have it:

11 And Abimelech charged all his people, saying , He that toucheth this man or his wife shall surely be put to death . 12 Then Isaac sowed in that land, and received in the same year an hundredfold * : and the LORD blessed him. 13 And the man waxed great , and went forward , and grew until he became very great : 14 For he had possession of flocks, and possession of herds, and great store of servants: and the Philistines envied him. 15 For all the wells which his father's servants had digged in the days of Abraham his father, the Philistines had stopped them, and filled them with earth.16 And Abimelech said unto Isaac, Go from us; for thou art much mightier than we. 17 And Isaac departed thence, and pitched his tent in the valley of Gerar, and dwelt there. 18 And Isaac digged again the wells of water, which they had digged in the days of Abraham his father; for the Philistines had stopped them after the death of Abraham: and he called their names after the names by which his father had called them. 19 And Isaac's servants digged in the valley, and found there a well of springing water.20 And the herdmen of Gerar did strive with Isaac's herdmen , saying , The water is ours: and he called the name of the well Esek; because they strove with him. 21 And they digged another well, and strove for that also: and he called the name of it Sitnah. 22 And he removed from thence, and digged another well; and for that they strove not: and he called the name of it Rehoboth; and he said , For now the LORD hath made room for us, and we shall be fruitful in the land.
-------------------------------------
Jesus drank water from wells dug by Abrahams Grandson:

6 Now Jacob's well was there. Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, satthus on the well: and it was about the sixth hour.7 There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink .8 (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy meat.) 9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. 10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink ; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.11 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water? 12 Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle? 13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: 14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. 15 The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw .
----------------------------
It appears to me that at one time people dug wells and that gave them the right to the water and that water was shared with the community. Today, United Nations Agenda 21 has water rules because that group is trying to control water. There are some places where people cannot trap rain water. I hear water rights have been bought up around the world as well as here in the US. Water represents control is suppose, so he who controls water controls the people. I suppose the controller is the self-made owner for do good or for evil.

...

Funny you should ask?

"I think we are supposed to be talking about the good form of socialism which is based upon voluntarism. Is it also based upon individualism?"

Here is the good socialism straight from the horses mouth:

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

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

Cutting out what may sound too wordy into something that goes right to the root of the question asked:

Question asked:

"I think we are supposed to be talking about the good form of socialism which is based upon voluntarism. Is it also based upon individualism?" bear

"Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism are identical in the assertion of the Supremacy of the Individual,--" Andrews

Stephen Pearl Andrews is not just some guy picked out of a hat, so as with Griffin, or even Ron Paul, there are ways to credit a person if the words are not good enough on their own.

The words are good enough on their own, no need to even consider who said the words, in my opinion, but failing my opinion to mean much, and having focus directed at the person delivering the message instead, Andrews shines like few others.

Andrews was against Slavery to the tune of much personal hazard.

Andrews has written the only book I ever heard about on The History of Socialism, a book I can't yet find, for reasons that include a lack of effort to find it, but also a lack of a supply.

Awhile ago I tried finding copies of The Science of Society, quoted above, and at that time there was similarly no ready supply. Now, in part because I contributed in the effort, The Science of Society is more abundantly available. The first copy of The Science of Society I found was a copy eluded to on a web page and the actual copy was in a Library in Australia. I paid to get the librarians to hand photo and copy each page from the book and send those paper copies to me, from Australia.

Since then I uploaded those pictures on the internet, and helped hand type some pages on another web page someone else produced, and since then I found my own hard copy, and now The Science of Society is available as a .pdf file, and printed on several web pages.

Bad socialists hate good socialism more than they hate capitalism, if you think about it, the same is true about the bad capitalists, since the bad capitalists hate good capitalism more than they hate socialism, and why?

Because good socialism and good capitalism say the same things, like this:

"all governmental powers reside in, are only delegated by, and can be, at any moment, resumed by the people,--that is, by the individuals, who are first Individuals, and who then, by virtue only of the act of delegating such powers, become a people,--that is, a combined mass of Individuals." Andrews.

When neither the Good or Bad Capitalists have no clue as to the existence of a good version of socialism, why is that any different than neither Good or Bad Socialists having any clue as to the existence of a good version of capitalism?

"As in responsibility must be individual? So that moves us to the discussion of ownership? Which lead me to give the link of Griffin as he was speaking on topic, but he lumps all isms into collectivism vs individualism. And says the only individual system is free-enterprise capitalism."

So...what is the definition of "collectivism" now that we know the good guys, who are individuals?

If the definition of "collectivism" is the same definition as the definition of a criminal who makes their crimes legal, then why not call them criminals? Why add to the false definitions of words?

Why add to the false definition of words when you are saying that adding to the false definition of words is a problem?

"So is the exercise in discussing ownership of the list of those 10 things going to help explain the good form of socialism? I am past seeing red."

And all that credit for that hard work goes to the individual - YOU.

"People stole wells and so wells continued to be dug until they were allowed to have it:"

Here is where my discovery of the power principle adds to the work of Warren (Andrews was more of a cheerleader for Warren, the work was Warrens) and my work uncovers the false capitalism factor of enforced scarcity. Here is why I want you to work on the differences between political economy concerning POWER (water, food, land, oxygen) and non-POWER products/things/consumables, and we don't even need to (not yet need to) add the POWER of knowledge/falsehood into the mix.

What is the difference between Chair Political Economy and Water Political Economy?

No need to steal all the chairs, and make all the chairs scarce, so as to then make those who need chairs beg for more chairs, when all you have to do is sit on the ground, or make/shift chairs out of boxes, or tree stumps, or sticks clued together, or take turns sitting on each others back, or sit back to back.

How much POWER is their in monopolizing POWER?

None if the monopoly POWER uses the POWER to make POWER abundant, because at that point everyone has more POWER than they can use, including the POWER to defend Liberty with the press of one button on a hand held defensive weapon.

"and digged another well"

Power Independence = every individual has a ready supply of clean water.

Does that sound like a God given right or does that sound like something I need to buy with my labor as I toil all day and hand over all my earnings so that some other guy can use an eyedropper to give me my share of water?

If someone invents a way to make water scarce, and they employ it, is that a crime that can be measured precisely according to the many people who are then paying that monopolist the price demanded by that monopolist without question for a share of the monopolists water?

"It appears to me that at one time people dug wells and that gave them the right to the water and that water was shared with the community."

Where is the working definition of a collectivist? Where is it?

Please, if there is a working definition of a collectivist, then I want to see it.

If the working definition of a collectivist is exactly the same thing as a working definition of a criminal, then why cover up the crime with a different word?

"I hear water rights have been bought up around the world as well as here in the US."

You use the word "rights".

Do you mean God given rights or do you mean something else?

If you do not mean God given rights, and you mean "rights" that are exactly the same thing as a crime, then why call it "rights"?

"I hear water rights have been bought up around the world as well as here in the US. Water represents control is suppose, so he who controls water controls the people."

Water is a power, not like chairs.

How about chair rights?

Money is a power; who owns the right to print money?

Anyone, including a bunch of people called WallMart, their money is called coupons.

Who has the exclusive right to print legal money?

What is the difference between public and private?

"I suppose the controller is the self-made owner for do good or for evil."

You cannot control that which is not within your power to control.

How much power is contained in the lie that things can be held accountable for the actions of people?

Joe

Finished

Hmmm simulated conversation and I cannot wait till the end to send you this:

Inregards to Andrews:
"Supremacy of the Individual,--a dogma essentially contumacious, revolutionary, and antagonistic to the basic principles of all the older institutions of society, which make the Individual subordinate and subject to the Church, to the State, and to Society respectively. Not only is this supremacy or SOVEREIGNTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL, a common element of all three of these great modern movements, but I will make the still more sweeping assertion that it is substantially the whole of those movements."

I think of this:
Mark 2:23 And it came to pass, that he [Jesus] went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. 24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?...27 And he [Jesus] said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: 28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

You see, the Pharisees did not want people doing anything on the sabbath. Jesus got in trouble for healing people on the sabbath and here his disciples are being questioned by the relibious police for plucking corn and eating it on the sabbath as they travelled and were hungry. So, I see in Andrews words: people were not made for the church, state or society, but the church, state and society were made for the people just like Jesus said the people were not made for the sabbath, but the sabbath was made for people.

OK, I'll finish reading now. My hand didn't go up, but my mouth opened snd I interrupted you :)
-------------------
Value of chairs is relative…

I had the occasion to read an Amish newspaper last week and was taken out of my myopic world for a short time. In that newspaper were some recently translated from German WWII letters from a non-Amish German person to an Amish person here in the US. The letter indicated that the WWII German person had not been able to purchase coal for 3 years and that there was no coal and no wood available. The people were cold and starving. So, I suppose that a chair could be used for fuel if it were made of the right material. This information seems quite insignificant now, but when I read it was a new look into the value in owning a wooden chair. I imagine that you already knew the information. I had previously only thought of chairs as things to sit on.

I need to go back and read your reply above and finish.

Finish:
I realize that this is off the topic of good socialism, but it is on the topic of using words:

“…why not call them criminals? Why add to the false definitions of words?
Why add to the false definition of words when you are saying that adding to the false definition of words is a problem?

I think I can understand now why you insist on using the word criminal when that is the word due. This story is not the story of a Preacher. It is a story of a murderer: http://www.dailypaul.com/274801/saudi-preacher-gets-off-ligh...

This is the story of a preacher:

• Romans 10:15 KJV
And how shall they preach, except they be sent ? as it is written , How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

I can see now how using good words as a title for those who do evil is counterfeit speech. It is a dragon that must be slayed. Words mean things. Thank you Josf. I will probably still err, but I think I understand better now putting two and two together in a more personal way
------------------------------
“What is the difference between Chair Political Economy and Water Political Economy?”

It depends on whether the chair is wooden and whether the people have fuel. I did not remember this part of your comment when I wrote what I wrote earlier about chairs and WWII. When fuel is scarce…so are wooden chairs? That WWII letter said that they spent the time in the kitchen to stay warm. I suppose they were able to have enough fuel for the cook stove or whatever they used back in those times. The Amish cook on wood fueled iron stoves in 2013 here in Missouri. The bread and cookies are delicious!
--------------------------------
“How much POWER is their in monopolizing POWER?”

In the case of WWII Power was monopolized by consuming it on war and people died from war. Both from the direct effects of war and the indirect effects of consuming power on war…i.e. starvation and freezing. It is amazing what a trip with the Amish can teach lol :) I know, these are things you already know and they are real to you. I suppose they are things I might know, but they are more real to me now.
------------------------------
"and digged another well"

Power Independence = every individual has a ready supply of clean water.
Does that sound like a God given right or does that sound like something I need to buy with my labor as I toil all day and hand over all my earnings so that some other guy can use an eyedropper to give me my share of water?
---------------------------------
But someone has to dig the well if there is not surface water available. And in the case of Isaac, the rival herdsman kept stealing the wells. Isaac did not fight over them, he just went and dug another well until finally he was allowed to have a well to water his livestock. So, Isaac dug 3 wells, was prohibited from 2 of them and was allowed to use 1 of them.

I the case of today. Our water comes from a well. The water from that well fills the city water tower and we pay for the water. I do not know how much profit is made from the water by the city or how much tax we pay. But someone has to pay for at least the expense of the water. I don’t know how water towers work but somehow the water has to be pumped from the well to the top of the tower. That is not free. There are people in the Walmart town up the road that drill wells for free in 3rd world countries as a mission. They went to Haiti after the earthquake and did well work for the people there. People here paid to send the people there.

I think that it is equitable that water be provided at cost. Cost may include maintenance. I do not think that it is equitable that water be made scarce to drive the cost up or to hold the “privilege” of life from others. Withholding water is like withholding air. However, there may be a cost associated with water while there is no cost associated with air…unless air is made scarce, or the criminals figure out how to charge for the privilege of breathing.

“Please, if there is a working definition of a collectivist, then I want to see it.”

I suppose a water tower is a working definition of a collective? A water well is the same thing? Some people in rural areas have their own wells. However, they need electricity to pump the water. Some of the Amish dig their own wells…by hand. Then they might use a motor to get the water up, or bring it up by hand. But that water comes from a water table. I suppose when people buy land they are also buying water rights. Oops there is that word “right.”

The right to use the water under or on the land. When we had a home in Texas we did not have mineral rights…they belonged to Exxon. We bought the land, they had the right to what was below the land. But now I am venturing into the topic of land so I better not go there just yet.
--------------------------------
“You cannot control that which is not within your power to control.”

Are you saying that people should not have the power to control water because water is a God-given or natural right.

Do you draw the same parallel with printing money?

“Who has the exclusive right to print legal money?”

My answer is I suppose whoever makes the rules decides that. So the question is who has the right to make the rules? http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transc...

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,”

“What is the difference between public and private?”

I think public is something that all people are invited to access. Private is something that does not include access to all people. I think that is simple. So are you asking me if water is public or private? I suppose it depends upon where you are. Water in the water fountain at Walmart has public access. Water in my house is paid for by me and it is not open to public access. However, bodies of water in Idaho and Wisconsin (from personal experience) must have public access. I do not know if all states have public water access rules.
----------------------------
"I suppose the controller is the self-made owner for do good or for evil."
You cannot control that which is not within your power to control.
How much power is contained in the lie that things can be held accountable for the actions of people?
_____________________
I do not understand where I am holding things accountable for the actions of people. Or are you asking me a power question?
--------------------
I'm sorry it took me so long to reply, but I knew I would not finish bookwork if I thought and wrote about this at the same time.
...

Narrowing down

"When fuel is scarce…so are wooden chairs?"

That is a powerful observation.

Note: Coal in Germany during World War II was used to make Synthetic Motor Fuel or Gasoline.

References:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Crime-Punishment-I-G-Farben/dp/002...

http://www.amazon.com/The-Formula-Steve-Shagan/dp/0553138014

I found other references having to do with tests done on the synthetic aviation fuel used by the Luftwaffe.

So coal was as scare as gasoline by that measure, and gasoline was very scarce in Germany after 1943, certainly by 1944, so scarce that the pilots could not afford to fly the many spare planes, for training, not because there were few planes, but there were few liters of fuel.

As the current Legal Criminals buy World War III, they will make things even more scarce here in America, as things move according to their plans, we may find just how powerful wooden chairs are too.

"But someone has to pay for at least the expense of the water. I don’t know how water towers work but somehow the water has to be pumped from the well to the top of the tower."

Reference:

http://freedom-school.com/private-property-rights.html

That is my current study. I have an Equitable Commerce and a Power Perspective, and even now I'm gaining a Spiritual viewpoint (thanks) that helps me in figuring out the truth from the fiction in so called "Rights" for so called "Property".

Someone has to pay the cost of moving power from sources of power to the point of consumption. Why does the person paying those costs lack the power to consume the power purchased by those costs?

In other words: If I dig the well then why can't I at least consume as much water as I earned by my expense of digging the well?

If I am paid back, for all my digging, why does someone else owe me anything for future use of that supply of water?

Who owns water?

It can be said that I own the well, because I dug a hole in the ground, but if that is the only source of water for 1,000 people who would die of thirst without a well, then why should I stand for someone else having to dig a well next to mine, when all they have to do is pay me back for my digging, and then they can have all the water they deserve after I earn back my costs?

Stubbornness?

No, you can't drink any of my water, you have to dig your own well, to bad for you?

That is not how it works, and you know it. The one well digger invents a "law" that says no one else is allowed to dig another well unless a "license" is issued to a fellow "Union" Well Digger.

In that way the water consumers have to pay "what the market will bear" and you know this bear.

It is euphemistically called Monopoly.

I call it Legal Crime.

It is the opposite of Power produced into oversupply reducing the cost of Power while purchasing Power increased, because Power reduces the cost of production.

That is political economy (genuine) in one sentence.

The opposite of that is counterfeit political economy or Legal Crime.

Power stolen to consolidate power increases the price of power paid by the victims to the criminals, while purchasing power for the criminals increases as their power becomes abundant, while purchasing power decreases for the victims whose power is made scarce on purpose, because power stolen by criminals reduces the cost of stealing power, and power stolen from the victims increases the costs of surviving, and survival becomes miserable as power diminishes.

Knowledge and understanding is a power supply, what is the current measure of that supply to anyone in particular?

"That is not free."

No, we can hand each other knowledge and understanding at the rate of millions of gallons per minute, but consuming it is another matter entirely.

"There are people in the Walmart town up the road that drill wells for free in 3rd world countries as a mission. They went to Haiti after the earthquake and did well work for the people there. People here paid to send the people there."

While that is going on, "taxes" (extortion fees), flow to the "National government" (Legal Crime Central), to train people at a very high cost, to torture and murder, at places like "The School of the Americas" (Legal Crime Torture and Murder School), to then send those people, fully equipped (including tons of dollar bills if needed), to those "starving" areas, and they do what they are trained to do, which includes the routine of destroying all forms of power, including the power of water from a wells.

Dig a well, then fill it back in.

Does that sound like this:

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer." TP 1776

"However, there may be a cost associated with water while there is no cost associated with air…unless air is made scarce, or the criminals figure out how to charge for the privilege of breathing."

China is being boomed, that place is now being visited by Legal Crime Central people, have you seen what is being done to the air?

What was done to the air in the resent events now known as Fukushima?

Weapons of Mass destruction are not magic words, the lies have real physical consequences to life on earth. It is not accidental, it is willful, it is criminal, and it is all nice an legal. It is past time to blow the whistle.

"I suppose a water tower is a working definition of a collective?"

How about working definition of a water tower? Collective, the word, describes a process, not a thing.

Is the process understandable for what the process intends to accomplish?

Who is reaching for which goal when that individual employs any process to be understood by anyone?

If I dig a well, because I need water, then I get water. If I collect that water in a tank, then I can spend a day filling the tank, and then I have a weeks WORTH of water for use until such time as I have to pump water back into the tank, and I can produce water PRESSURE, which is POWER as I employ gravity and the mass of that tank of water focused into a small diameter pipe at the bottom of the tank.

If someone else needs water, and I need what someone else has done, then equitable commerce can occur, which is a process, or inequitable commerce can occur, which reaches for a different goal compared, competitively, with equitable commerce.

Why mince words?

Is that a process that can be called a "collective"?

You, you, and you, pay me as much as I demand, or you don't live, or I'll break your legs, or I'll take your children, teach them to torture and mass murder, and then pay them with the money I steal from you, to torture and murder you, or your neighbor.

Why call that anything other than crime?

No, Joe, I feel the sudden need to go and punch a hole in a card during the Election Psycho.

OK, that was then, what about now?

I don't know, but I am learning more about Land Rights, and the book may actually take off, and that Russian guy is discussing these things with me via e-mail, and he already gave me permission to publish our discussion as another book.

We can do what is in our power to do, equitably, and that is our self-imposed limit, according to God, and anyone else caring enough to listen to the truth?

_______________________________________
I suppose when people buy land they are also buying water rights. Oops there is that word “right.”
_______________________________________

As far as I can tell, at this point, the Legal Criminals tend to abide by their own set of rules, when challenged in court, and their own set or rules stipulate that your "rights" can be traced back to the original title of Land, and the laws that were in force at that time. There is significance in that knowledge, if it is knowledge, and it appears to be knowledge that is recorded in Supreme Court Cases. Land taxes, for example, and zoning laws, for another example, are "color of law" usurpation, and of no legal standing, in many cases.

Interesting?

"Are you saying that people should not have the power to control water because water is a God-given or natural right."

No, to be more specific, what I am saying is that water is for all human beings, and no one has the right (it is wrong) to use water to enslave human beings who have none. If I control access to water, by stopping someone from getting it, then that is measurable as a crime, so why not call it a crime, why call it "water rights"?

"Do you draw the same parallel with printing money?"

Certainly.

Access to Legal Money is "given" to one person (legal entity) and the "punishment" for "counterfeiting" (which is what they do) is severe in any case where competition exists.

How is that any different than the City where I live as (criminals) "give" one license to supply water to all the people in this City?

It is the same routine, different specifics of strategies, but it is the same routine: Monopoly.

Competition would force quality up and cost down.

"My answer is I suppose whoever makes the rules decides that. So the question is who has the right to make the rules?"

I use the word POWER. Who has the POWER to make other people think and act according to any set of thoughts and actions?

"I think public is something that all people are invited to access. Private is something that does not include access to all people. I think that is simple."

That is nonsense.

"Water in the water fountain at Walmart has public access."

No, that is false, by your own nonsense. Walmart is a Private Corporation of Limited Liability, and any person in POWER at that location can eject any person not welcome at that location according to whoever gains access to the POWER to do so, and make it stick.

If the "police" are called, for example, which police are called? Walmart security? The Sheriff? The "City" Police? The United Nations?
"Federal" troops?

There is what is real, and then there is what we are led to believe is real, one is real, the other is counterfeit.

"Water in my house is paid for by me and it is not open to public access."

Those at Waco may have thought the same thing.

"I do not know if all states have public water access rules."

Federal office holders, Legal Criminals if English means anything, claim absolute "right" over specific areas on this planet, but the good news is that some of those Legal Criminals stick to their own rules.

Burning down building with innocent people in them, are not rules of engagement, in writing, per se, but they are what they are in fact.

"I do not understand where I am holding things accountable for the actions of people. Or are you asking me a power question?"

I often repeat myself out of habit, and it may not be relevant to the specific subject matter, so please understand my tendency to get off track at times. I too have somewhat of a one dimensional attention span.

"I'm sorry it took me so long to reply, but I knew I would not finish bookwork if I thought and wrote about this at the same time."

Thanks, and tomorrow I plan on fitting in some print shopping into the schedule (which is not much of a schedule).

No editing at this time.

Joe

Adding to a narrow reply

I read your reply today and am not yet ready to leave a full reply. I have a children's Bible Club tonight and then my oldest is having is 11th Birthday with Friends over for the night and a day out tomorrow. I am hoping to get some time later tonight to write my thougths, but I do not know if I will. Time will tell. So you have started another book!!! :)

I am going to give you a Christian perspective on "things" and "necessities:" http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/matthew/6-audio.html especially note the latter part of the audio or text: http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/matthew/6.html

Are you familiar with this: http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/psalms/23.html ?

Josf, if the PTB want WWIII we may not be able to do anything about it. If they make all power scarce, then what? The Lord is my shepherd and he will lead me by still waters and prepare a table before me in the presense of my enemies. Those waters and that table are Christ. A peace that passes understanding. If I have no chair for a fire, I will rest in Him.

In a spiritual perspective, we work hard for what we need, and we trust God with the results, even when Criminals abound, it all still belongs to God. He will have the last word. Have you ever heard of Corrie ten Boom? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hiding_Place_(biography)

I will return to original topic when I return. These are words that I do not have to think about. They are a way of life.

ADDITION:

”I found other references having to do with tests done on the synthetic aviation fuel used by the Luftwaffe.”

Speaking of aviation fuel…I’ve been listening to Antony Sutton this week http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYnjwhWVfOQ where he speaks of US supplied tetra ethyl which was needed to supply the octane value of aviation fuel and without that additive, Germany would not have been able to supply fuel to their aircraft. Also talks about the coal and oil fuel.

I have been listening to Antony Sutton: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vftNpSXUOU8 Within the first 5 minutes Sutton discredits socialism. I also found the comments under the video given by LibertyTruthJustice regarding socialism interesting. Sutton discusses “corporate socialism.” “And also states that a socialist planned society cannot advance technologically by itself.” At 25.48
-------------------------------------
“If I am paid back, for all my digging, why does someone else owe me anything for future use of that supply of water?”

What if there is a cost to maintain the well? And in modern times, what about the electricity it takes to pump water from the well to the well tower? What if there are on-going costs besides just digging the well?
------------------------------------
“That is not how it works, and you know it. The one well digger invents a "law" that says no one else is allowed to dig another well unless a "license" is issued to a fellow "Union" Well Digger.”

You are too generous, because I do not know that. But I do know that the Amish hand dig wells here without union diggers. But, I do not know the rules about well digging in Missouri, so maybe the person has to be union, I don’t know. I suppose if I were to build a house in the country where rural water is not available I would soon find out!

“In that way the water consumers have to pay "what the market will bear" and you know this bear.”

And after I drill my well, I will have to pay for electricity to pump the water up from the ground into the house. Of course, the Amish…they put a tank up high and let gravity run the water into the house and they use a fossil fuel motor to pump the water from the ground. In a very dry summer their hand dug wells go dry. Then they seek spring water from a neighbor. I have a friend, non Amish, she is in her 60’s now…when she and her husband first married, they delivered water to places that did not have running water. She did not grow up with running water or electricity. Joe, did you have running water and electricity? Jeff’s dad was working on Apollo when the people here in Missouri didn’t even have running water and electricity in their homes.
-------------------------------
“While that is going on, "taxes" (extortion fees), flow to the "National government" (Legal Crime Central), to train people at a very high cost, to torture and murder, at places like "The School of the Americas" (Legal Crime Torture and Murder School), to then send those people, fully equipped (including tons of dollar bills if needed), to those "starving" areas, and they do what they are trained to do, which includes the routine of destroying all forms of power, including the power of water from a wells.”

Is that part of the economic hit man stuff? It is so hard for me to fathom that people want to go and ruin people’s wells. I cannot even think that way. Oh wait, one time I was jealous of my sister and I watched as the tissue paper from a gift bag she was giving my other sister blow away with the wind. I didn’t try to catch the paper…I was kind of satisfied. Granted, I didn’t pull the paper out and toss it into the wind to ruin her gift bag, but I didn’t try to rescue it either. So, I guess before I get all high and mighty on my self-righteousness, I confess an ugly think that I allowed to happen and took satisfaction in because…I was jealous. I suppose filling in people’s wells comes from that same evil, ill, regard towards a person or a group of people. Jacob’s wells were filled in:

Genesis 26:15 For all the wells which his father's servants had digged in the days of Abraham his father, the Philistines had stopped them, and filled them with earth.16 And Abimelech said unto Isaac, Go from us; for thou art much mightier than we. 17 And Isaac departed thence, and pitched his tent in the valley of Gerar, and dwelt there.18 And Isaac digged again the wells of water, which they had digged in the days of Abraham his father; for the Philistines had stopped them after the death of Abraham:

Oh here is why: Genesis 26:14 For he had possession of flocks, and possession of herds, and great store of servants: and the Philistines envied him.

They were jealous!

The Philistines are the Palestinians. Abimelech and Abraham made a covenant to deal with each other’s offspring in truth:
Genesis 21:22 And it came to pass at that time, that Abimelech and Phichol the chief captain of his host spake unto Abraham, saying , God is with thee in all that thou doest : 23 Now therefore swear unto me here by God that thou wilt not deal falsely with me, nor with my son, nor with my son's son: but according to the kindness that I have done unto thee, thou shalt do unto me, and to the land wherein thou hast sojourned . 24 And Abraham said , I will swear

Instead, when Abraham died Abimelech’s people stopped up the wells. It appears to me that people have been fighting over water and making power scarce for a long time.
------------------------------
“China is being boomed, that place is now being visited by Legal Crime Central people, have you seen what is being done to the air?”

No, but I am looking it up now. Also, it has been my understanding that all the EPA regulations is part of what drove industry to China. So, were the regulations made in order to drive industry to China? Here is an article: http://www.eoearth.org/article/Air_pollution_in_China :

“As China Roars, Pollution Reaches Deadly Extremes” must give the impression that total unprecedented situations regarding air pollution are encountered in China”
How about this thought RE the carbon tax…the Criminals are polluting China during the boom and they will recoup the boom by charging China a carbon tax…or am I connecting dots wrong? How about that for a bear theory? Or has someone else already thought of it?
----------------------------------
“and that Russian guy is discussing these things with me via e-mail, and he already gave me permission to publish our discussion as another book.”

I find that very interesting. Does he know what he is talking about? Because when I am talking to you about ownership of things, they are actually concepts I have never really thought or cared about before. So I feel ignorant, and a bit stupid. If you would like a bear break so you can use your power to learn from the Russian guy, say so, and I will not bother you with such things as ownership of paper, food, salt & pepper shakers, etc. I think those things are on the list to discuss. Here and this writing space is narrowing down quite a bit.
---------------------------------
“"color of law" usurpation, and of no legal standing, in many cases.
Interesting?”

Yes, very! You are learning a lot Joe!

I happened to read the articles of confederation today as well as the Northwest Ordinance. There was some land information in those documents. If I ever get to the bottom of the list I might add some of the land stuff. You may already know it though.
------------------------
“If I control access to water, by stopping someone from getting it, then that is measurable as a crime, so why not call it a crime, why call it "water rights"?”

Crime and cruelty. But is someone actually doing that? If I buy property and dig a well because there is no water running to the location, do I have a right to my well water?
-------------------
"I think public is something that all people are invited to access. Private is something that does not include access to all people. I think that is simple."
That is nonsense.
---------------------------
Why is it nonsense? It makes complete sense to me. I see your point about the Walmart drinking fountain. So were is a public drinking fountain? The Zoo, or the National Park, or is a lake public water? But, just because criminals took people’s lives at Waco, does not mean that they didn’t have their own water, oh, but I suppose the criminals might of turned the water off? Or stopped up the well.

But even if all water is public, how will that ever keep criminals from stealing what is public?

To me, the problem is not whether something is public or private or who owns what. The problem is people with evil in their hearts and that evil not being checked and allowed to run rampant. Here are God’s words to Cain before he killed his brother:

Genesis 4:7 NIV If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it."

Jesus explains how we are to interact with one another: http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/matthew/5-audio.html

What if everyone acted that way? Would it matter who owned what?

...

Welcome

Thanks, I listened to Mathew and much can be discussed about those words in my opinion. Power is either or used to make more power and the evil way is the scarce way, in my opinion.

Psalms 25 is much more contentious to my way of thinking, but the words are typically vague, leaving much room for misunderstanding.

"Josf, if the PTB want WWIII we may not be able to do anything about it. If they make all power scarce, then what?"

The power that is left can either or be used to make more power. If not then the remaining power will be consumed, if so then there will be more power. I think it is easy to understand, not at all complicated.

"And also states that a socialist planned society cannot advance technologically by itself.” At 25.48"

I have as little trouble understanding someone discrediting "Socialism" as I have little trouble understanding someone discrediting "capitalism" when the context of their word choices includes all the familiar evidence confirming the fact that they are all speaking about Legal Crime.

By any other name Legal Crime destroys, so what's in a name?

A rose by any other name...

My discussion partner (friend?) from Russia is a very good example of this point of contention I have with many people in the West and in the East.

I don't know how our discussion will play out in time, I know that this friend in Russia is very unusual because of his determination to expose error in thinking. We are already thousands of words into a discussion and we have yet to make one step forward in resolving contentions. It is an epic battle.

If we do get around to the socialism versus capitalism subject matter my expectation is that I will again be expressing my standard viewpoint, a viewpoint that does not change in the least when speaking to anyone who discredits "socialism" or "capitalism". I'll ask for specifics: what do you mean?

If I hear that socialism is a study of society, including the study of politics and economics, and if I hear that people have used socialism to discover the fact that liberty is the only way to move toward prosperity, then I can agree with what I hear.

If I hear that socialism must be enforced by a select few exceptional individuals who are then given all the power they need to take all the power they need whenever they alone think they need more power, then I'll know what they mean, and I can then know that they are speaking about crime made legal.

If I hear that capitalism is a method of pricing things according to a specific plan, a planned economy, where central planners plan on making things scarce so as to then be in a position to set a price as high as what the consumers will pay for something they need, then I'll know that they are speaking about a pricing method that works to arrive at the goal desired by people who use capitalism. If they reject any use of lies, threats, or violence as a means of making things scarce, then I can know that they too are speaking about liberty and how liberty is the only way to move toward prosperity, even if these people use their capitalist pricing method.

If I hear that capitalism requires a few exceptional people to take power by any means, including lies, including threats, and including violence upon the innocent, so as to enforce capitalism, since socialism is so bad, and therefore we must be capitalists since socialism is so bad, then I'll know that they are speaking about Legal Crime.

Is that not simple?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-------------------------------------
“If I am paid back, for all my digging, why does someone else owe me anything for future use of that supply of water?”

What if there is a cost to maintain the well? And in modern times, what about the electricity it takes to pump water from the well to the well tower? What if there are on-going costs besides just digging the well?
------------------------------------
“That is not how it works, and you know it. The one well digger invents a "law" that says no one else is allowed to dig another well unless a "license" is issued to a fellow "Union" Well Digger.”

You are too generous, because I do not know that. But I do know that the Amish hand dig wells here without union diggers. But, I do not know the rules about well digging in Missouri, so maybe the person has to be union, I don’t know. I suppose if I were to build a house in the country where rural water is not available I would soon find out!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

When I say "you know how it works" I was not being generous, I was speaking about "it" being crime made legal. I may have been assuming too much, as in assuming that you know what I mean when I say "you know how it works", but not being generous - at least I don't see it that way.

If someone hand drills a well into a water supply that connects to a well where some people are dumping poisons into that water supply, it does not matter to the water that the Amish have dug their own well, at their own cost, without "tax payer" dollars covering the cost of digging the well. If those people become very sick, growing tumors, deformed babies, they die miserably deaths, drinking poisoned water, then that is what happens.

My brother is just now moving out of Hinkley, by the way.

"Is that part of the economic hit man stuff? It is so hard for me to fathom that people want to go and ruin people’s wells."

Whose idea was it to put fluoride into the water supply, not just any water supply, almost all the water supplied to almost all the "tax payers": whose idea is that, and why did they implement that idea, what was their real goal, not their stated goal?

Just now, just now, after years of being the nutcase in my family, I am just now, just now, after decades, gaining currency, where my closest human beings are just now listening to the information I have discovered.

I am crazy. I have "issue". I cost too much to have around, because I am so full of crap. Decades.

Why are people just now listening?

Everyone now knows someone dying of cancer, and those already dead don't have ears that can listen to the sounds of warning?

I know this stuff when I heard about 911 while it was happening, I was driving my wife's car to her office. Hey, guess what, I'd say. What, she would say. They are starting World War III on schedule. Oh, really, that's nice, here are the bills, can you pay them?

Fukushima? Hey, guess what? What? I wrote a song, and I'm actually singing now, do you want to hear it? What is it called? Radiation Blues. No thanks.

"I suppose filling in people’s wells comes from that same evil, ill, regard towards a person or a group of people. Jacob’s wells were filled in:"

I don't think that way. You are not the problem, and a million times a million careless thoughts by everyone on the planet does not equal one very evil person who sets about to destroy everyone else with World War just so that that person, or that select few people, can maintain their power over their targeted victims. These people are sociopaths, psychopaths, pedophiles, rapists, torturers, and mass murderers. They are not guilty of cracking a smile over littering toilet paper.

"They were jealous!"

If you pay your own costs for jealousy, and you are still jealous, then maybe you like paying those costs, sure, but what does that have to do with Legal Crime and how the victims may, or may not, survive a few more days, weeks, months, years, centuries, or as long as God intends?

I think there are things to do, so I do things, like type, read, learn, discover, and communicate accurately.

1.
End the FED
2.
End the IRS
3.
Bring the Troops Home
4.
How about a schedule and a to do list?

I'm a broken record?

"Instead, when Abraham died Abimelech’s people stopped up the wells. It appears to me that people have been fighting over water and making power scarce for a long time."

OK, so you see that routine, what is the opposite of that routine?

Use scarce power to make power abundant?

What happens then?

"No, but I am looking it up now. Also, it has been my understanding that all the EPA regulations is part of what drove industry to China."

If that were true then how is it that Elon Musk is making competitive cars in California today.

I think you are being duped if you buy those lies.

Check this out:

http://live.wsj.com/video/elon-musk-ill-put-a-man-on-mars-in-10-years/CCF1FC62-BB0D-4561-938C-DF0DEFAD15BA.html#!CCF1FC62-BB0D-4561-938C-DF0DEFAD15BA

I just found out that Tesla did get a loan from the Legal Criminals, previous to that news I had followed this effort during the time period where Tesla had to go to Germany and Japan for investors.

Note: Loan is a Loan, paying interest, a loan is not a subsidy or bail out.

I was looking for this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9ftbRWqkj0

My brother Danny (Goldstone Man = Deep Space Tracking for 30 years) has a story about a supplier for parts to Space X (Elon Musk).

“As China Roars, Pollution Reaches Deadly Extremes” must give the impression that total unprecedented situations regarding air pollution are encountered in China”
How about this thought RE the carbon tax…the Criminals are polluting China during the boom and they will recoup the boom by charging China a carbon tax…or am I connecting dots wrong? How about that for a bear theory? Or has someone else already thought of it?"

My son decided on his own to go to Cambodia a few years back, and his story is that China is very bad, very bad for pollution, but he did not go in to China with his friends, he stayed in Cambodia instead. That is a long story. He is now home. The point is to point out more than just main stream news on this subject.

If the victims of pollution could sue for damages, in some way, would it be more or less expensive to run a business that destroys the lives of millions of people?

Again, same brother, Deep Space guy, is just now moving out of Hinkley and that same brother is just now starting to listen to my version of reality.

"If you would like a bear break so you can use your power to learn from the Russian guy, say so, and I will not bother you with such things as ownership of paper, food, salt & pepper shakers, etc. I think those things are on the list to discuss."

I have specific things to say, and almost no one wants to hear what I have to say, including you, we go off on your tangents, and so does the Russian, but I would be a hypocrite if I demanded to dominate and monopolize the topics for discussion. I don't pick the people who want to discuss things with me, they pick me.

I sent a note to Howard Bloom, no response yet, to see if he could offer advice on selling a book, getting printed copies made, etc. I picked him, we can see how far that goes.

I picked my other machinist brother, the one in New Jersey, not the one in California, as a consumer of the book, he asked for an autographed copy, and then I told him about the costs of printing, he said he would send 100 dollars.

My wife is not a money tree, we are struggling at this point, so inventions have to be invented, or discovered, or reinvented, or rediscovered, as to how to market the book.

It may take off, who knows?

If you write something, so far, have I not responded each time?

Is that worthy of credit by some measure? I mean to say that I don't have an reason to stop discussing things with you, there will be time for it, or there wont' be time for it, and then another day arrives, so then what happens on that new day?

What has the past shown to be what may be the future in any case?

"Crime and cruelty. But is someone actually doing that? If I buy property and dig a well because there is no water running to the location, do I have a right to my well water?"

I refuse to think in terms of standardized lies, so I invented my power perspective, and it works for me, so my answer is to say that my answer is competitive, demonstrably competitive, and my answer is that the power to consume the water is gained by someone, an individual, and the power to exclude other people from consuming the water will be gained by that individual, so where does the concept of "rights" fit in?

If you drill a well and you consume water and I drill a well diagonally or a well that taps into the same underground source of water, and I pump all the water out of that source, and you then have none, or I pump in a poison, such as fluoride, then I am excluding you from consuming water and/or consuming water without poison added to it by me, I am creating law without morals, I am legalizing my crimes, because that is what I do in fact.

You can call it water rights I suppose.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-------------------
"I think public is something that all people are invited to access. Private is something that does not include access to all people. I think that is simple."
That is nonsense.
---------------------------
Why is it nonsense?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Do all the people invite all the people? If such an event occurred, anywhere, then you could demonstrate such an event as having happened once, or if it is happening now, then you can demonstrate it happening now. Unless I misunderstand what you mean, that which you write, is nonsense.

If public is: "all people are invited to access", then who does the inviting?

"So were is a public drinking fountain?"

I know of no such thing, not until I know what you man by Public.

"But, just because criminals took people’s lives at Waco, does not mean that they didn’t have their own water, oh, but I suppose the criminals might of turned the water off? Or stopped up the well."

I don't remember exactly but I think one of the dead victims (human beings) fell into the water tank after being shot up by a gunner on a Helicopter. That may be completely wrong, but the case of Waco does exemplify something significant in human history here in this thing called America.

Rights?

"But even if all water is public, how will that ever keep criminals from stealing what is public?"

When I do figure out what you mean by "public", then I can discuss that topic with you.

"To me, the problem is not whether something is public or private or who owns what. The problem is people with evil in their hearts and that evil not being checked and allowed to run rampant."

So why does this concept of "rights" persist?

Why does this concept of "public" persist?

If you see nothing in it, and I don't see anything in it, what is it?

"What if everyone acted that way? Would it matter who owned what?"

What do you mean by "owned"?

Joe

I am not done reading yet, but I am here and I am saying

"I have specific things to say, and almost no one wants to hear what I have to say, including you, we go off on your tangents, and so does the Russian, "

I want to hear what you say. Please, tell me what you say. I don't want to go off on my tangents. Please, just tell me what you want to say. I will try to talk about it. I don't realize I am not talking about the right things.

I want to hear what you say I even copy and paste quotes of what you say. If I didn't want to hear what you say I wouldn't keep looking for what you say. Have you not said what you want to say?

Please, keep the topic focused off of my tangents and I will try not to get on them. If you identify a tangent, maybe then I will know what one is and stay off of it.

I have to go for the rest of the day now.

I have work too.

The point is: If I dictate, and monopolize, the things said, then I am a hypocrite. Did you not send me links to scripture concerning warnings about hypocrites?

The concept of leadership, doing the right thing, thinking the right things, saying the right things, and acting the right actions out, is not a human power alone, as if one human is a God among humans, it is a negotiated power, a finding out process, and it is impeded, set off on tangents, by deception.

I don't think that your tangents impede the path that our discussions take, and my statement concerned more of the power I have to convey what is the right things to think, say, and do, an less a demand to somehow get that power by some form of deception, or threat, or any other means other than earning it.

When discussing matter with Gold bugs, what do I learn?

I do not learn what they think is idea money. Their tongues tie up, then they go off in tangents.

If you do not focus on the meaning of Public, as if there is no way for you to explain exactly what you mean when you use the word Public, then that is like, or similar to, a Gold Bug that is unable to tell me what ideal money is as far as they know.

What does that tell me?

I don't know.

I can ask, and I can guess.

What is the meaning of the word Public?

If we both focus on that, then we both agree to focus on that, and then maybe we can both find out what you mean by that, and we may even discover, with our combined focused effort, what that is, in fact.

So far as I can tell the word Public is a complete fabrication of lies.

Joe

I went here

http://www.dailypaul.com/259985/liberty-day-challenge-july-4...

for a larger writing space, unless you want me to go somewhere else.

I went to the link.

I found your answer to the public and private question.

I read my response and I can't believe I wrote those words. Maybe my memory is worse than yours. I answered this already, point by point.

I can go over it all again. I won't do that tonight. I'll make it a point to listen to Griffin, the whole thing, and then I will do something.

Lies are what they are, they are false, and it is past time to stop believing in them as if they are true.

Joe

Helping simulate conversation.

One of the reasons I keep employing my invention, or discovery, of Simulating Conversation (by NOT reading through your responses before I respond) is the often case of catching myself "jumping to conclusions", so the process helps me focus attention on my own weaknesses.

"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."

There is a shaky bridge built from my being to your being and the shared understanding is not deceit, to reach a benefit at the expense of an innocent victim, and the shared understanding is not threats of violence, to reach a benefit at the expense of an innocent victim, and the shared understanding is not violence employed upon some innocent victim so as to gain power from that victim as all the power is drained out of the target.

What does that leave, after all that stuff is left out, to make the bridge a more solid foundation?

"Romans says that we know there is God by creation."

How can anyone disbelieve? What evidence do they have to prove that there is no creator? Look around, what exists, how does the existence of creations, everywhere, prove that there is no creator. I don't get it, so we two share that foundation.

"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."

Listen, and try to find words that confess the true motive, and if the obvious, repeated, true motive is a desire for hatred, then anything hated is as good as the next, who needs an excuse?

If, on the other hand, a person was sold a lie, a lie that says God tortures and murders people for fun and profit, because of your skin color, or because of where you were born, or because of the language you speak, or because of any lie whatsoever, then what do you think a reasonable person is going to do in that case?

Abject belief in falsehood without question?

Seriously, consider, a person found in a village somewhere, and a person sent to bring back Gold, or whatever power can be found, this person finds this native, and when the villager doesn't confess where the Gold is, that villager has parts cut off, still no confession, more parts, then the Crusader, or whatever costume is used to cover up the truth, says NEXT.

OK, so that Costumed Crusader finds a villager who finally knows what the Costumed Crusader wants, they go to where the Gold is, and a Preacher shows up to help the ones left alive, to help them know the meaning of God.

Is that a case of mixed messages or a test of faith for the preacher?

A villager says to the preacher: I think your God brings bad things, so no thanks.

Uphill battle?

"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."

Me too, but a voice that may have been here is no longer here to hear? What happened to the OP?

"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."

I think I told you about one group of religious people showing up at my door and the conversation concerning innocent people being victimized in Palestine by the people claiming to be Jewish and therefore claiming, I suppose, title, and occupation, of The Promised Land, where these "Settlers" are "Settling". My impression, and I may be wrong, was that the answer to my question was relish, a desire for, a wanting of, torture and murder of the natives who refused to get the hell out of The Promised Land.

I can admit that I may have been wrong, but I told those people my perspective on that point, not wanting anything to do with their God, if that is what that God brings.

Does that convict me, and does that seal my fate, and does God now wash his hands of me, for that error, if it is an error, or, and I'm asking the wrong person, so sure I have a prayer in mind now, does my actions constitute just another case of human failure?

I should have tried harder to heap coals upon their heads?

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.

Equality, enhanced interrogation techniques, quantitative easing, and my favorite, because it just rolls off the tongue: Extraordinary Rendition, are lies. A lie is a lie and if a power exists to expose it, external, or internal, the victim of the lie will want it exposed, and the willful employer of the lie will not, it seems to me.

Equality is a word, when it is employed as a lie, it is only a lie if it works to accomplish the goal in the mind of the liars.

The lie didn't do it.

The gun didn't do it.

The government didn't do it.

Who did what, exactly, and if they lied, then either they can be exposed as a liar, or not, and if not, then does that make them a good liar?

If they are really good liars, who pays them so well, and why?

_______________________________________________
“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?
_________________________________________________

I have read that many people in Russia have just gone through a very tough couple of centuries where Gangs of criminals with badges and Gangs of criminals without badges roamed their part of the Earth, and so they had to adapt. How bad do things have to get before hitting bottom?

So they look West, to America, and what do they see?

Right now, this afternoon, my wife and I ate the one meal I have had today, and we ate in style at a restaurant in Barstow. There at one large table were about 10 mixed members of Authorities wearing guns, with Police, and Highway Patrol, and Sheriff badges on their uniforms, and my wife was thinking it might not be safe.

My wife has one brother who spent almost his whole life in prison and the crimes he committed are numerous, he died already, and my wife has another brother, who in my opinion has a good heart, who has also lived in prison for many years, and my wife is not at all afraid of getting right in the face of her little brother and telling him what he is doing wrong when he is doing something wrong.

Gangs.

Right now there is a "Cop" who is in the News, "spotted in Barstow", where this "Cop" told on another "Cop" and the Gang of Cops Ganged up on this Cop who broke the Golden Cop Rule (told tell on each other), so this Cop is now seeking revenge, killing Cops, with guns, and killing family members of Cops, women, teenagers, for effect - I suppose.

Coming to a theater near you.

So the guys, and gals, in Russia, having fully 2 centuries of this under their bridge, looking West, saying, hmmmmmmm, that sounds familiar.

How familiar?

Would you like to know?

I would.

"I don’t understand those words either. What person is told that God is behind all the torture and mass murder visited upon them?"

Total ignorance combined with a refusal to learn, or a very good question? Lenin and the Gang knew which things to leave out of the propaganda, and which things to inject into it. So what kind of official bedtime stories were told in any home, or school, in Russia in any case? I don't know. I was not there, but I can guess, and guesses are too often false in my case.

How about Russian Television?

You are either with us, or you are a terrorist?

Any lie will do, but some are better than others, to fit the occasion?

_________________________________________
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?
__________________________________________

As explained above, the case of religious people knocking on my door, and despite anyone else in the house thinking otherwise, I want to know what they have to say, and I have questions. A specific case in point, concerning an appearance of (I perceived) relish, at the thought of evicting the natives, torturing and murdering them, if they resist eviction, despite the fact that their ancestors occupied that land for centuries, or thousands of years, and so, yes, that is what I am saying, that exactly, that supposed God appears to be Evil incarnate to me. I can be wrong, I can even admit it.

"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?"

I am as suspicious, if not more, than anyone I know, including you, so are you now preaching to the choir, so to speak; but if I don't ask, and if I don't listen, there is no way I can know.

I don't have your safe place, so I ask people. I can also ask God, or Jesus, but so far they don't actually talk back, and so far as I know, they are not writing words on any forums.

"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."

How about a different angle on this subject? During the first Ron Paul Liberty Campaign, which was in direct opposition to the Legal Crime National Election Psycho, I found the following web page and I watched it in real time. The web page started out with few votes and it grew to the vote count that remains to be what it was when it was current. Please look at it, and please look up Russia, China, and any other country on the list, and then please tell me what you think that information means, if that information is accurate by some measure?

http://www.whowouldtheworldelect.com/index.php

"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."

Any lie will work, if it works, if it does not work, then it is powerless, so which lies work, which lies don't, and that is the world you don't know, and that is OK. But if you want to know, then you can't seriously refuse to listen to the facts, and where are you going to get the facts?

When the criminals say here is your Capitalism, is it a gift, and is it the same capitalism as you understand it to be, or is it remotely possible that it will be a counterfeit version?

Fascism, you say, is not nice, but many people were sold that lie, and they believed it, what did they get for their trouble?

Dresden remodeled? Poster boys and girls of torture and mass murder for fun and profit?

Do you have any reservations about claiming that Americans are busy employing capitalism here in good ole' U.S.A.? We use fraud as money, so, what does that mean? We heap almost all the power we can produce onto the best liars so that they can lie even better: is that capitalism?

Torture is legal here, and so is mass murder. Is that capitalism?

---------------------------
"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?
----------------------------

False Socialism is almost identical to False Capitalism and if you can find a different way, you, find a different way to get the victims to allow you to make fraud, child molestation (if you and your buddies do it), extortion, rape, theft, slavery, torture, lots of torture, serial killing, mass murder, war, ohhhhh the war, you, if you can figure out how to make the victims believe that all that is OK, by some other way, a competitive way, then you can add to the list of ways.

How many ways?

Socialism

Ok that is one.

Capitalism

Now there are two?

No, it is the same thing, it may use different slogans, but what is actually being done?

1.
Deceit
2.
Threats of violence
3.
Violence upon the targeted victims

Those are words, not the actual dynamic events playing out the same way each time, the same way each time, the same way each time, but the costumes, and the scripts, change some.

The fundamental principles (or lack thereof) are the same - each time.

"Why do you say validity to exist. Doesn’t everyone have validity to exist?"

A liar will say yes, everyone has a validity to exist, but what does the lie intend to do? The liar is covering something up, or why lie, so what is being covered up?

Lies are designed to remove the power required to exist. Is that a true statement, or am I making up stories here?

"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 see a criminal. Which is a more accurate viewpoint? What is the point? If my viewpoint is more accurate, and your viewpoint less accurate, then which viewpoint holds the person accountable for the willful actions done by the person and which is less able to respond in an accountable way?

If I say criminal then it is that individual criminal who is responsible for what that individual criminal does; so I call the criminal a criminal. If I say legal criminal then all those people who "believe" in the right of those crimes done by that criminal, all those aiding and abetting that criminal, following those criminal orders without question, are inclusive into a list of criminals connected in that way. Legal Criminals have investors.

If you say socialist, then, I guess, help me out here, I'm supposed to blame Hugo Chavez for the crimes done by Americans who fund what the criminal Obama does?

Is that the point of using the word socialist, so as to gather all those socialists under one tent, and then what, offer cool-aid?

This isn't that tough, is it? Which is more accurate, tell me, and then I can use the more accurate term, and consider explaining why the more accurate term is more accurate in your own words as I have done competitively.

Legal criminal intends to identify, and hold accountable, the criminal who makes their crimes legal.

Socialist can mean just about anything, including a family member, who is a collectivist, and someone who works harder for the good of the family, not his, or her, own profits, if that is how I employ that word.

How can I employ the word criminal in such a way as to make it look less criminal?

Call a criminal a socialist?

If that works, for you, then why can't you see how it works to call a criminal a capitalist as well?

If I call a criminal a legal criminal, it is not an intention to dress up the criminal in a costume, it is an intent to identify the fact that the criminal has dressed himself up in a false costume.

You say that Obama is dressed up in a socialists costume?

So, who cares? Not me, the guy is a criminal. His Blue costume will turn back to Red soon enough, depending upon which audience is targeted for deception.

The point is, at least my point is, to point out that the costume is false.

Your point, apparently, is to point out how the costume is true - or am I beginning to fail even more miserably at understanding your incapacity to define the word socialism precisely.

What is socialism precisely? Maybe we ought to work some on that definition, so as to arrive at the goal of avoiding further repetitions of the same confusions.

Is socialism, the story you are going to stick to, equal to, or exactly the same as collectivism?

If so, then what is collectivism?

If collectivism is exactly the same things done by every criminal who makes their crimes legal, and you are going to stick to that story, without variation, without adding or subtracting, then that is crime made legal, not collectivism.

What is collectivism?

You tell me. I can't discover what you think collectivism is, and why not?

"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."

What is the definition of misunderstanding? If someone misunderstands what you mean by God, and so that person does not believe in something that is based upon a misunderstanding, then what is that person guilty of doing, in your eyes?

For all you know, because of the misunderstanding, the belief that the person has is practically identical to yours, but the misunderstanding hides that fact. Is that possible, or as a matter of fact, is it not possible, and if so, why?

"When someone denies God they are in darkness."

So, someone, somewhere, may calm themselves down, listen carefully, and focus their attention upon the unknown, and be receptive to any external power that will help the person love other people.

Do you do that?

What do you actually do, without the words, what do you actually do, where you are better than someone else, in any way imaginable, or in any way in fact?

I don't have to be a part of the judgment, at all, leave me out, and so you do this, and other people do that, and then judgment day arrives, and forget about me. What constitutes, exactly, unforgivable actions?

Matthew 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

That means something. You once told me, if I remember right, that there were no magic words. So what is meant by "against me"?

If someone is told a pack of lies that causes that person to believe that God is Evil, or that there is no such thing as God, then they repeat those words, those magic words, and as a matter of fact, according to you, what happens?

"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."

If they are denying a lie, because they have been told that God is a lie, then they are a caught up in a lie, believing in a lie. That is not necessarily denying God, is it?

If they are told a lie that says God is evil, and they then take it upon themselves to not believe that lie, so they say that the evil God does not exist, then they are not necessarily denying God, are they?

If God does not need to say, in any way, you, you there, I am here, so what do you think about that, and that person says, no, no, forget about it God, I'm not buying it, OK, what does that have to do with you or me?

Me, I want to know, how that went down, in that person's own words.

You do what?

"What is wrong with that?"

One of Rand Paul's reports at the Liberty Convention concerned a person fleeing the East to end up in an American prison for buying a piece of land and then cleaning it up. He fled Legal Crime to arrive in American to be victim to Legal Criminals hiding behind Federal Environmental Protection Agency Badges.

"private ownership of capital"

What is private? What is public?

If we do not work that out, I can't answer your question.

"What is wrong with that?"

Capitalism is a pricing method. The dictionary parrots an arrangement of words that say nothing, or words that can mean one thing one minute, and words that can mean something else the next minute, depending upon who you ask.

What, in your words, happens when someone employs capitalism as you know it to be, so as to nail down what it is, instead of pointing at something hiding out in the darkness?

If you ask a vital question, can you expect to OWN the accurate answer without earning it?

"I disagree somewhat, our form of government respected the bill of rights."

That is patently false. The Whiskey Rebellion is one case that proves the statement, in English, to be false. The Alien and Sedition Acts further prove the case.

What is "our form of government"?

How did that thing respect anything?

I can imagine what you mean, but if the idea is to know what you mean, then guessing is, in my experience, counterproductive when the intent is to know what you mean.

"I disagree somewhat, our form of government respected the bill of rights."

How did "our form of government" handle the Indian Problem? How did "our form of government" handle the legal slave problem that was made legal with "our form of government"?

"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.."

The Constitution was founded by Nationalists, Monarchs, Central Bankers, who made it legal to own slaves, which was part of what became known as The Dirty Compromise, that was 1788, upon ratification, so is that what is meant by "quickly becoming.."

Masters could cut off parts of slaves. Masters could rape slaves, use them to make more slaves, for fun and profit. I think that is called torture, someone can say that I'm being Liberal with the facts. You there, that baby is mine, I want a new watch, so off to the store I go, and by the way, I'll be back early to make more things to sell.

Legal.

Dirty Compromise.

1788

How quickly, exactly, was "our form of government" "quickly becoming" "a law unto themselves"?

"Right now I am pretty tired and I feel like I am talking in circles and not making sense."

If you really want to understand how your mind can work, it helps, in my opinion, to stress test it. Your honest, open, generous, offerings are a gift to me - in my opinion - a gift from God.

You may find it to be problematic at times.

I am as honest and open, as far as I can tell, but not as much as I prefer; I appreciate the help.

Thanks.

"However what is the preoccupation with socialism?"

I will repeat the answer that I keep repeating hoping that this time the answer will be recognized as the accurate answer.

Roughly half of the population of the planet is being polarized to destroy the other half, so it may be a good idea to figure out how to build a bridge in the effort to avoid those events that will be known as World War III.

"Australia is a socialist country from what I understand. Is their style voluntary?"

You mean Legal Crime when you use the word "socialist" and I don't, so I'm at a loss here, throwing up my hands, and if you can define, in your own words, what is socialism/collectivism, then I can bring my hands down. I'm all up in arms at this point.

"However, insurance is no longer voluntary."

Then it is not insurance.

"And I hear I can’t even get my money anymore unless I show some kind of hardship."

I told you how I got "my" 401K money. It is in the book.

It isn't money. It is a crime called fraud in progress. We here in America are so far down the road where slavery is legal, believing lies, that what can be expected in our future?

When is the bottom hit, and when can we gather up what is left and start in the right direction - as a country?

We are individuals.

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

1 is ending now. 2 will change drastically from bad to worse. 3 will be realized as the Troops will be collecting World War III debt.

Why wait?

"So I would say involuntary collectivism is a problem."

I'd know what you mean if you could tell me. My arms are up.

"And somehow things that start as voluntary seem to turn involuntary…by design?"

If you are speaking about "our form of government" then you are speaking about slavery made legal at the start in 1788.

Has the start pistol to try something other than slavery made legal gone off, and no one heard it?

Were the good guys painted up with false costumes by the bad guys in false costumes, so no one knows up from down, or Federalists from Anti-Federalists, let alone friend of liberty from legal criminal?

If that is what you are claiming is "Collectivism", then it is legal crime, confessions of legal crime, by the legal criminals, so why use their costume word instead of the accurate word?

What is the purpose of calling crimes made legal by a neutral word such as "collectivism"?

Collectivism can be demonstrated by capitalism as capitalists sell stock shares and then the capitalist selling stock shares collects the collections of shares into a Central Planning Planned Economy Fund, and then that collectivist, collecting those funds into that Central Bank of Collectivist Collectivized, Collection, of the many collecting their individual powers into one Collection of Power, to then have that Collection of Collectivized, Collectivist, Collections, Collected for some reason.

That is capitalism?

Corporate Stock Shares?

Can collectivism be voluntary?

Can collectivism (Legal Crime) be voluntary?

No

Can collectivism (voluntary capitalism exemplified with stock shares) be voluntary?

Yes

Can voluntarism exist without individualism?

There are no individuals living on the Sun, or Mars, or the moon.

Can voluntarism exist on the Sun?

No, it is too hot.

Mars, perhaps, but there is a lot of work yet to be done.

The moon? Ask someone who went there, I didn't go there.

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

If it is difficult to read, stop, please. When I read it there was no putting it down.

You have serious responsibilities that only you can do as well as can be done by anyone. Thanks for your help, it is precious in my careful estimate.

Joe

Right on time?

"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."

bear,

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).

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).

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

I think it is essential.

What has to happen, if we are to listen, is to ask valid questions, and settle for no less than accurate answers.

"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'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?

I think the term "economic equality" means the same thing as no involuntary "subsidy", but here is becomes very difficult for anyone in the West to see past the RED (or now BLUE) color (as in "color" of law) because Bakunin explains the competitive advantages of voluntary subsidy.

I can be very wrong, so having a current voice on this subject is necessary since we can't ask Bakunin any questions; all we can do is read what he wrote, and find out what the man actually did with his time on Earth.

Next is this link:

http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2904931

When you send me to that link I'm unhappy about not being able to see the context of the link, but with some work I can find where that link can be found. I notice the date on the link as being 1-12-2013 or almost a month old, and this is the first time I will read that link. I don't know if I will respond to it, and I don't even know where that link is, since the way you link it is a way in which I can only see that one response by that one person.

I'll read it after reading and responding to the words you published after you linked that link.

"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?"

OK, right away, there is a problem:

"Socialism is not the study of society."

The problem there is called division. Who is doing the dividing? If I want to discuss the Study of Society with someone then I can employ those three words and then the meaning of what I want to discuss is undivided by you.

I can say to you, hey, let’s talk about the Study of Society, and I can say that during the Study of Society there are some people who Study Society and they find out that the first thing measured, the first thing realized, the first thing known to be true, when employing The Study of Society, is that voluntary associations promote life, and involuntary associations destroy life.

No division by you, so long as I remain within those boundaries that are acceptable to you.

As soon as I say that Socialism is The Study of Society, then, at the moment those words reach your brain, that very moment, there is division and instead of hearing what I have to say, you dictate to me what I think.

I say that Socialism is The Study of Society. That is, in fact, what I think, because of all the evidence I've uncovered that supports that thought, despite all the lies that exist that hide the facts.

So I know what I think. I know what I think. I can't help but know what I think. So I offer to you, generously, what I think.

Socialism is The Study of Society, and I've backed up my thoughts with historical references (Andrews in particular).

What do you do?

"Socialism is not the study of society."

What can I do?

I can refuse to engage in arguments. I can respond by saying, OK, the word causes division in your mind, so I can agree not to use the word that causes division in your mind, and instead of using the word that causes division in your mind, I can use the entire term instead of the one word, when I want to discuss, equitably, The Study of Society.

"Socialism is not the study of society."

OK, you win that argument. Now what?

"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?"

If we want to talk about Liberty, including The Study of Society, then we can both agree to talk about that subject and we can both agree to use those words, and we can both agree to not use words that cause a division in your brain.

If we want to talk about Legal Crime, then we can find, and use, words that we can both agree on as to the meaning of those words, so as to avoid any divisions occurring in either of our brains.

So which are we talking about?

1.
Voluntary associations occurring in liberty.
2.
Involuntary associations occurring where crime is made legal?

Let me know which is the topic, and I can offer viewpoints on one or the other, but not both at the same time as if both are the same thing.

"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?"

Very good question, and narrowing down into specifics, and moving from the general war (of words) to the specific battle:

If you are a member of a family and your papa is doing very bad things to you, then...

"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?"

But Joe, that is not a family, that is a crime in progress.

Does that ring true, make sense, cover the general and the specific concerns, and is that sufficient to competitively address the questions asked?

How about this:

If the community you live in becomes (suddenly or gradually) a Gated Community, and the leadership hired to run the Gated Community appear at your door with a bill, and on the bill it says pay this way or pay another way, it matters not to us, you will pay, one way or the other, or get out, which is another way that you will pay: paying the costs of relocating.

But Joe, that is not a Liberty, that is a Gated Community, that is socialism?

OK, the meaning of socialism, for now, is exactly the same thing as every other crime ever committed by any other criminal ever to have polluted the human gene pool.

Still not good enough?

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.

If you have no idea as to what I'm talking about since we have already discussed this, were examples of The Study of Society is a working family, and is a working military, and is a working insurance network of volunteers, and is so many other things, in reality, but certainly not "socialism", but none the less real, and none-the-less strictly voluntary (when dealing with independent people not dependent children), even so, even given that we have covered all that, and even as we covered The Military being another example of The Study of Society (but categorically not "socialism"), perhaps we have not covered the stark contrast between a Voluntary Military and an Involuntary (criminal) Military well enough yet.

Someone else has done some of that work and it may be information worth knowing:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard171.html

So the concept of The Military being all bad, because someone, somewhere, counterfeited (criminalized) The Military makes all of it bad?

So the concept of Capitalism being all bad, because someone, somewhere, counterfeited (criminalized) Capitalism makes all of it bad?

Is this familiar at all?

"What does it take to have voluntary socialism?

When I use the term socialism...

I have a lunch date at this time. Please know that words still cause divisions in my head and I need help. I intend to finish this reply eventually.

Joe