Comment: In CONTEXT of Rebulicanism

(See in situ)


In CONTEXT of Rebulicanism

Please consider stepping back a moment and if possible see from my perspective for a brief moment.

There is a slim chance that this election cycle could be revolutionary as the old criminal regime is rendered powerless by a new age of true liberation for all.

How can that happen?

Enough people from all walks of life, including the many people who are now described as the left, including those people who are described as OWS or Occupy Wall Street, and including the many people who are now described as the right, including those people who are described as The Tea Party, anyone, anywhere, who merely share a desire to leave the dictatorial methodologies behind and set about on a path that liberates each of us from all those crimes that are injuring all those people right now.

It seems to me that it won't help to resort to dictatorial methods if this path toward liberty is going to be followed by the required number of people.

If half the people on the fence, at the tipping point, are almost ready to set about on the road to liberty use a sign in the distance toward liberty and on that sign the word democracy is written, and they truly mean liberty, even though the sign says democracy, then is it OK for them to start marching toward liberty, even if the sign says democracy?

In whose best interest is it to confuse language? In whose interest does it work to have half the people seeking liberty while they use the word democracy and meanwhile the other half of the people marching the same direction use the word free market?

What is the problem?

If you are still using my perspective then you may now see the problem as I describe it with words:

The problem arises when some of the people think they are marching toward liberty but they have been had, they are fooled, they are marching toward abject obedience to criminals with badges, and the sign they may be carrying may say one thing but it means exactly the opposite thing, and some of them, on that path, are unaware, and some of them on that path know exactly what they are doing, and where they are going, because they are criminals, they are willful criminals, and they know that the sign is false on purpose.

Ron Paul uses the word democracy to mean majority rule, and those on the right, as many as that number may be, share that meaning of that word.

In whose best interest is it to confuse that word, democracy, to have two opposite meanings?

Many people who define the word democracy as a rejection of despotism, or legalized crime, desire, and work at, greater liberty, and they seek to get as far away from legal crime as possible, and what happens when those people, as many as they may be, holding that definition of that word dear, are attacked by people using an opposite meaning of the word?

In whose best interest is it to have such confusion, by so many people, over the meaning of one word?

Your words:

"Democracy and liberty are not compatible."

Only when you dictate the meaning of the word democracy to mean exactly what you say democracy means to everyone and anyone without exception.

As soon as I, or anyone, uses the word democracy to mean something that is compatible with liberty, what happens?

Confusion?

Who is confused?

Your words:

"Democracy is a collective deciding what is right for everyone, liberty is individuals deciding what is right for themselves."

What is a collective? How about an example?

Voluntary Insurance is a process by which many people produce more than they consume and they send their surplus to one central collective or fund.

Is that a collective?

Voluntary Insurance can be a competitive process by which one insurance provider, which can be one person, or several persons employed in that productive work to provide that one Insurance Policy, and it is a higher quality and a lower cost Insurance Policy compared to a lower quality and higher cost Insurance Policy in a free market.

Is that still a collective?

Many people collect their surplus wealth into one fund, an Insurance Policy, in a free competitive market, and the method by which benefits are taken out of the fund and transferred back to some of the people volunteering to purchase that Insurance Policy, is dictated on paper, written on paper, or any form of record or contract.

If A happens to you, and you purchased that Insurance Policy according to those set of rules, competitively, in a free market, you get benefits according to those sets of those rules - unless there is confusion, or unless there is hidden costs, or unless there is a resort to fraud, or unless there is World War III.

Your words:

"Democracy is a collective deciding what is right for everyone,"

Since when did you become the sole power capable of defining and using the meaning of words?

OK, supposing that you are that sole power, in this endeavor to communicate, to communicate with someone as confused and as thick headed, even stupid, as me.

Suppose you have absolute control over the meaning of the words that you use for your own special interests.

Granted.

I hereby grant you that power, over me, to make me agree to your exclusive meaning of that one word democracy.

Now, please, tell me what you mean by the word collective.

A Democratic Federated Republic is ONE thing having ONE job only, as far as I understand the principle, and if you borrow my viewpoint on this, which agrees with Ron Paul's viewpoint on this, as far as I know so far, then that ONE job can be explained as an Insurance Policy against loss of Liberty by any power that is a greater power than the Democratic Federated Republic.

The People volunteer to live in one of the Legal Fictions within the Democratic Federated Republic like buying into this ONE insurance policy. Pick any State, move there, and you are now holding one of those Insurance Policies.

You don't want to buy in, move to some other area on the planet, or you may find that you are not covered in this area.

What does this Insurance Policy cover?

It covers against the loss of liberty for those holding the policy.

Pay in, voluntarily, and you are covered.

Don't pay in, voluntarily, and you may still be covered by charitable means, but if there happens to be a great threat to liberty, currently, there might not be enough to go around, as the policy is stretched to the limits.

What about the fine print?

Ideally, as the thinking goes, a Democratic Federated Republic, is run at the level of each individual and that is enough, so what, ideally, are the expenses?

Who, or what, threatens liberty?

How about crunching some numbers, doing the job of an actuary?

The greatest threat to liberty, historically, if the actuary is going to do a good job, is despotic (or criminal) governments. Involuntary associations, dictatorial regimes, organized crime with badges, etc.

Which ones are most threatening at the moment?

How much will it cost per person, as a premium, to ensure that there is enough power in the fund so as to pay out to all those who are in imminent danger, or have suffered injuries at the hands of criminal legal regimes, here and there?

Money, or surplus wealth, or earnings exceeding costs, or saved production above consumption, is transferred from individuals, honest productive people in command of the power to produce surplus production (above consumption) send their earnings to a central collection point?

A Democratic Federated Republic, according to the design that I am aware of, does not directly connect the Federal Government to the individual wealth producers.

An Income Tax, at a Federal Level, is by that definition, of that wording, not possible.

An Income Tax would stop a Democratic Federated Republic and begin a Dictatorial Nation State.

An Income Tax, directly connecting wealth producers to the Insurance Providers as designed in a Democratic Federated Republic ends that design, makes that design null and void, and creates, instead, in my own words: Legal Organized Crime or Extortion.

The concept of a Democratic Federated Republic, such as the working example known as The Articles of Confederation disconnected the ONE legal fiction, the one Insurance Policy Provider, providing the insurance policy against the loss of liberty by criminal governments, to The People directly.

On the other hand, competitive State Governments were less constrained in their methodologies of collecting collections into the collective, and some of those State Governments dabbled with, or can experiment with, Income Tax, or taxes on whiskey, payable in gold, enforced at the barrel of a gun, or a pointed stick.

People within a Democratic Federated Government, thus constructed, could vote with their feet, going from one State, within the voluntary union, into another, less despotic state, and still have their Federated Insurance Policy Benefits, enforced, even if that enforcement means that the Federal Governors do nothing. Even if the Federal Governors don't enforce a "runaway slave" law.

Demonizing democracy, it seems to me, misses the point. Why not demonize the demons, who earn such accurate appraisals?

If a person claims that might makes right, then they are demonstrably defining, in their own words, crime. Why not call them criminals?

Joe