The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: Parallel paths

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Urban dictionary term. (see in situ)

Parallel paths

Or all converging onto one point?

I think your answer to your question is competitive and therefore valuable compared to my answer, thanks.

If one person can find another person to agree on something, so long as the something agreed upon isn't to target and then injure an innocent person (crime), then naturally that process is exactly what it is, an agreement.

That is naturally a voluntary agreement among those two people reaching that point of agreement. It happens that way each time, no matter who does it, the result is the same, they find agreement, just like that, each time, naturally.

Nature can be understood as an objective measure of that which is measurable, measured by anyone, anywhere, and the same measurement shows up each time anyone measures the same thing.

Nature = The Scientific Method used on measuring that which is, or "nature".

Nature without anyone measuring it is still natural, but the fact is that human beings are measuring it. Some find the same measure, some don't find the same measure. Nature doesn't change to fit the subjective measure of the person doing the measuring. Nature doesn't play favorites, it seems to me.

Those two seeking agreement may agree to call that process of finding an agreeable measure of nature by saying that it is law, or fried chicken.

Law is a popular term for that type of process.

Fried chicken could be an agreeable word used by 2 people to call the process of finding agreement, but probably not many more that 2, since Law has so far been used by more people in that way.

The word Law has gained currency among the law abiding, as they seek agreement.

It is law because it measures the same way each time no matter who does the measuring (so long as the measure is true, accurate, not false, and not willfully deceitful for some strange reason).

Suppose the natural process of seeking and finding an agreement between those two people (not an agreement to target and injure each other or to target and injure an innocent person that they call collateral damage, nothing of that sort since that is another thing entirely, another subject entirely, another natural thing entirely, another natural process not connected in any way to this process) turns up with a mutual agreement to employ a word that conveniently identifies this process of finding agreement and the word chosen is Law, and the word chosen is not fried chicken?

Where once there was no agreement, naturally, now there is agreement, and among those who found this agreement they choose to call it law.

Conversation on this subject exemplifies this process.

Can we call it Law?

What are we calling Law?

"Natural Law is a Deistic term applied to the concept of law. it is meant to be a framework for cooperation and understanding. to level the political playing field if you will."

What happens when any number of people anywhere, ever, find out that their number is threatened by anything, but in particular the thing threatening them is alive and very destructive, not a natural storm, such as a hurricane, but a natural human being gone bad, not a wild bear, and not a swarm of locust, but a naturally occurring human being that willfully targets and then willfully injures other human beings for fun and profit?

Going back to the 2 law abiding people finding agreement as to how they treat each other, lawfully, agreeably, there is now an awareness produced by these 2 law abiding people of a threat that has turned threatening targeting sights upon those 2 law abiding people.

Patented Absurdity:

Make it a law that someone who injures the innocent shall not do so.

Criminals don't agree to obey laws.

What does work?

A group of sociopaths bent on enslaving everyone that can be enslaved gather in a secret place and they enforce among their number total secrecy concerning the agreements they are hatching so as to reach their goal of total enslavement of mankind, to the extent of their power.

Should anyone be concerned?

Keep in mind a natural law:

Sociopaths do not obey laws agreed upon by honest productive people who are not sociopaths: not criminals.

Secret Meetings

Some of the people involved in Natural Law at that time blew the whistle, some blew the whistle better than others, I have my favorites:

Whistle Blowing 101

Hey! Is anyone listening? The Sociopaths are taking over, and one of the first things they do is steal our labels and then they use those stolen labels to cover their crimes up. Not only that, if you are still listening, they label us with bad names, so as to transfer power from us to them.

How does that work, naturally? How does natural law work when they do that very thing?

A. Bad guys look like good guys, because they use good names to cover them up, making them stronger, and making their victims weaker.

B. Good guys look like bad guys, because they are falsely given bad names, making them weaker, and making their oppressors stronger.

Still listening?

How about these warnings:

The other founders

In that book (and many others I can link) the message is clearly communicated concerning how The Monarchists (Nationalist, Monopolists, Fascists, Communists, or Legal Criminals: as words in English meant to convey accurate meaning) hid behind a false front of Federalism while the actual Federalists were falsely labeled as Anti-Federalists by those who stole the label.

Constitutional government can be a natural law document shared by people seeking to preserve their power, or their liberty, to avoid being victims and to avoid becoming criminals themselves.


Constitutional government can be a natural law document shared by sociopaths who employ the false front to accomplish the goal of absolute despotism or Monopoly Power of a few who enslave everyone else.

Which do you prefer?

What is the goal you have in mind?

Who is on your side, with the goal that you share with those on your side?

How absurd is it for me to call the others on the other side by the word sociopath?

How about this:

Sociopaths 101