The Daily Paul has been archived.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: Warfare State

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Choices (see in situ)

Warfare State

"I did not focus on the thought of the welfare state when I read that paragraph. I saw rather American prosperity and the continual drive to pursue more material wealth. I saw the word competition as meaning to compete to get more out of life."

In Equitable Commerce there was an example of how the pursuit of happiness can be competitively earned without passing on costs competitively as such:

Earn what you want to earn by not gaining at the expense of targeted victims.

Earn what you want while having to pass on costs to other people.

Wanting to make other people pay.

The pursuit of happiness can be accomplished by people who do not want other people to suffer as a rule not an exception.

The pursuit of happiness can be accomplished by people who want other people to suffer because that makes some people happy as a rule not an exception.

When the sociopaths take over government the price of admission is to make people suffer if you want to survive.

I think that Solzhenitsyn has not thought through political economy under voluntary rule since his life was spent under involuntary rule.

"According to Proverbs as quoted above, perhaps it is better to not desire to have more, but rather to desire to only have just enough, or only what is necessary, not more and not less, such that it does not hinder free spiritual development?"

Last night I skimmed through your whole response which is something I don't do often, and it may be significant that I woke this morning with a competitive angle of view on that question above.

There are people who find themselves attracted to capitalism as a method of pricing. Can we agree on calling this type of person by their names first and then any person fitting into this category can volunteer to join the list of names, but we need a name for the category and so I offer:

Category A: Extroverts

Extroverts, so named, are those who do not have any desire to hurt anyone but they will play by the rules of life at the time they are alive and they will seek to gain more tomorrow than today. They don't wait for other people to tell them what to do, they go out and get what they want, and they want happiness, and they will not settle for anything counterfeit. They want real, measurable, happiness as they see it, and they are going to get it one way or the other.

Category B: Workers

I do this on purpose, now, to illustrate a point and the point is to point out a need to avoid confusion.

So far there are two categories of A) described as extroverts or employers or capitalists and B) described as workers or employees but a third category aught to be identified so as not to confuse the other two categories for the purpose of knowing better as to who does what, why, when, and how much, and to who.

Category C: Sociopaths

If there are a whole lot of Workers, so named, it may be a good idea to identify what a worker is, exactly, compared to the other two categories in view with this angle of view offered now, and this angle of view that returned to me this morning, after I slept on your resent well communicated angle of view, concerning this forum subject, and The Problem in general.

A. Extroverts
B. Neither
C. Sociopaths

Who runs the world? Who moves capital here and there so as to accomplish this and that on their exclusive schedules, on their calendars?

A Capitalist (extrovert), not necessarily being a sociopath, will call the people being employed by such names as employee or worker.

A Socialist (sociopath, not necessarily being a capitalist) will call the people being exploited by such names as cattle or cannon fodder.

Neither capitalist, socialist, extrovert, or sociopath, just people, have one thing in common, and this group that is neither capitalist/socialist/extrovert/employer/mover and shaker is the largest number of people in the human condition, where these people are driven to live and let live, giving rise to sayings such as The Golden Rule, and such notions as charity, sympathy, empathy, conscience, justice, equality, equity, due process of equitable law, agreement, peace, love, kindness, meekness, etc.

Back to your question:

"According to Proverbs as quoted above, perhaps it is better to not desire to have more, but rather to desire to only have just enough, or only what is necessary, not more and not less, such that it does not hinder free spiritual development?"

I do not think so because I think that life must adapt in such a way as to learn how to move from one planet to another planet and absent that adaptation accomplished the force of life is powerless which is not good in my opinion. God, according to anyone else, may see a different angle of view. My angle of view is that the life force, the true life force, is forcing life to adapt, so why stop here, what makes here and now the stopping point of adaptation? We can adapt to cold by moving to warmer places, why stop there?

To me the reason why here and now is the stopping point of adaptation is an enforced limit on power by sociopaths who have taken over control with false things such as false advertizements, false governments, and false money. Absent that power forcing an end to adaptation there would be more adaptation, more liberty, more competition, and a harmony between people whose happiness is found in making more out of less on the one hand and on the other hand are those other people who merely want to get along in peace - those who will work for food, peace, harmony, and appreciation.

A. Highly motivated toward production (extroverts)
B. Highly motivated toward acceptance (workers)
C. Highly motivated toward destruction (sociopaths)

Why confuse any person with any other person as if the deeds done by one person are deeds done by the person who did not do those deeds?

"According to Proverbs as quoted above, perhaps it is better to not desire to have more, but rather to desire to only have just enough, or only what is necessary, not more and not less, such that it does not hinder free spiritual development?"

Settling for only what is necessary is the same thing as refusing to store extra tomatoes in jars. The principle is the same there is a difference in degree of storage. Just because sociopaths have destroyed everything including banking, making the counterfeit version more powerful than the true version, does not mean that the true version is bad.

A very spiritual group of people, such as many Native American people, although not Christian, and therefore damned to eternal hell, on earth, and after life, were hindered in spiritual development by being slaughtered by their conquers who had more opportunity for spiritual development since they were alive not slaughtered. That is one measure of hindering spiritual development, so who is doing the measuring? Those Christians doing the measuring were doing the measuring with swords, spreading spiritual development in the form of piles of dead bodies, for the crime of not being as spiritually developed?

So if the shoe was on the other foot, and the Native Americans had invaded the Christian people's lands, slaughtering them, enforcing whatever dominant spiritual development they had reached, over and above the Christian version, would you be championing some other religion, or would you be hiding from the sword now?

When the Chinese take over the world and enforce their spiritual development upon everyone else will your kind, Christians, be once again slaughtered, and this time that competition will reach the final solution?

Why blame anything other than the people who decide to resort to deceit, threats of violence, and resort to violence upon the innocent for those things done by them exactly?

Why blame (counterfeit) Christians for slaughtering non-Christians.

Why blame greedy capitalists for the crime of making it much less labor intensive to create as much food, clothing, and shelter as is needed for good life, and therefore having much more time to pursuit other things, including spiritual development?

Is the thinking such that the only way to gain true spiritual development is to labor constantly? If that is the thinking then I can see how that thinking would produce a ready supply of workers who are willing to work for nothing - how convenient is that type of thinking for someone who wants to get something for nothing, or lower labor costs so as to increase personal profits?

"Perhaps active and intense competition should not be focused at all on gaining a more and better quality of life. Rather we are to seek God first and let Him add to our lives such as He sees sufficient."

If I were a capitalist seeking to reduce labor costs I'd say that those ideas are great for the workers, let them eat cake. The response may be to say that workers are seeking profits too, rather than seeking spiritual development, and all those starving people around the globe merely need to be born again, and once they accomplish that goal, then they will no longer starve, and they will no longer be fighting each other for any job offer that may arrive at their doorstep, hand delivered from the same people who took over control of the land, the water, and the money.

I'm not so confident in that type of thinking.

I see patterns here, no different than the patters recorded in the books I've read about American history, whereby a very few very bad people take over the power supplies and they use those power supplies to destroy things because that is what they do, and that is what they know that the need so as to keep the power supply flowing to them. They take over all the power supplies, and they use that power to destroy anyone else seeking to take over that same power.

So blame the people who have an interest in making more power out of less power? Blame honest productive people for the crime of making more than they need at any given moment in time? Blame those honest productive people for the things done by the Legal Criminals who steal that surplus wealth and then use that stolen power to steal more, or blame it on surplus wealth?

Too much power is the problem, so stop making more power than the power needed right now?

Why does that sound so convenient for Legal Criminals to have their targeted victims thinking such things?

Rather than accurately identifying the actual people who commit these horrible crimes: the victims and the witnesses are blaming each other, or blaming honest productivity, or blaming things, anything but actually holding the responsible people to account for what they alone have done.

How convenient is that, and how powerless is that, compared to the competition: if any extra power could be employed in a high profit investment with exceptionally wealthy returns on investments it would be a capacity to earn enough extra today to then be able to purchase the knowledge required to disconnect the victims from the criminals and then make that happen on our schedule.

Blame things for the crimes committed by actual people, which is an employment of extra power, an investment of time and energy, a use of power in the work required to blame things for the crimes committed by actual people. Stop working, but have enough spare power to stay alive while work is momentarily stopped, and in that window of opportunity the concept here is to blame THINGS for the crimes done by actual people.

Use that same time, effort, and energy, that was spent on blaming things, or blaming victims, or blaming bystanders, or blaming witnesses, for the crimes committed by actual people, and instead of using up that power for that useless, or destructive, purpose, instead, use that power to accurately identify the actual people committing the actual crimes, so as to at the very least, avoid being the next victim.

If there is no supply of surplus wealth then there is a reason for it, and if the reason is that everyone is no longer creating any surplus wealth, including tomatoes in jars, because everyone is working all day, to make only what is needed for today, because everyone is gaining spiritual development that way, then that may be our salvation when everyone does exactly that every day.

If one person doesn't follow that method of spiritual development and that one person resorts to deceit, to threats of violence, and acts of violence, while everyone else stays on the spiritual development course by working all day for only enough to eat that day, then how ready are all those victims for that one criminal?

How easy is that situation for the one criminal? Like taking candy from a baby?

Will one of the ready victims ever say, hey, we may want to do something about that one criminal among us, seriously causing some of us injury, and if so, then what is done?

Make just enough more today to be able to have time tomorrow to deal effectively with the one criminal?

At least know who the next victim may be and warn them?

"Perhaps the real problem is that we do not love our neighbors as ourselves and so what is mine is mine and it is not yours and I will not give you what is mine even if I see that you might need some of mine because I am too busy getting more of mine so that mine will be more than yours."

We do that? You do that? I do that? Where is this nebulous "we"? A person who seeks to use the power God gave them to make more power today than yesterday can be someone who then gives half of the extra production away in the form of higher wages, and the other half of the extra production is invested in starting another venture of similar design, whereby the object is to use the power God gave them to make more power, and that is done on a regular basis, and to top it all off the extra production is priced very low, or at cost, so that the workers, even those workers, can afford one of the things produced.

Where is the harm in that unless there is added to the network of producers, workers, employers, consumers, suppliers, builders, designers, and accountants, added to all those people, "we" add a criminal or two?

So blame the rest and ignore the 2 criminals among us?

Are there 3 criminals among us now?

Blame everyone for the deeds of the criminals?

How convenient is that type of mind set for the criminals?

How dangerous is that type of mind set for the ready victims?

"In other words, I see you have a need, but I am not going to help you, so “Good Luck,” hopefully God will help you, but God may not use me or my resources in the process."

Harkening back to my "run" for congress where an old woman responded to my speech concerning voluntary taxes as opposed to the involuntary taxes she needed to keep the bad guys at bay. She asks the candidate a question, me, and the question had to do with who will help her when the bad guys are breaking into her house if taxes are voluntary and no one wants to pay any taxes?

My answer was for her to get a gun, or for her to know her neighbor well enough to inspire them to be charitable enough to help her in any case such as that case, since the neighbor may be a lot closer than any one responding to a 911 call.

That was the quick answer and not verbatim. I was not elected of course. The point is that many of us are born into a mind set that transfers responsibility to a THING called government while the same mindset transfers all accountability to each individual as in:

Who do you call when you need help? 911.

Who do you blame when things go wrong? Your neighbor.

My neighbors, I know, will help me and at least one is a very good shot with his .308.

None of my neighbors are kidnapping child sex slaves, running torture chambers extracting confessions, or mass murdering "collateral damage" piled high reaching for the stars, yet each one of us are financing, hiring, and employing people who are doing those things, and those Legal Criminals aren't even hiding their crimes anymore.

Those Legal Criminals are boasting about their crimes now that they are so filled with hubris and our stolen surplus wealth. Those neighbors of mine who are still duped to a point of thinking that their tax payments are voluntary, or necessary, are still, in my view, victims: failing to know any better yet.

The affordability of stupidity is evaporating, so the flow of power will stop soon, but it may be too late to avoid shooting in defense of Liberty - unfortunately.

"Do you think perhaps he alluded to it here:

“An oil company is legally blameless when it purchases an invention of a new type of energy in order to prevent its use. A food product manufacturer is legally blameless when he poisons his produce to make it last longer: after all, people are free not to buy it.”

It is what I call Legal Crime. Why call it "capitalism"? Capitalism is a method of pricing, and if that method of pricing is connected to "government" (counterfeit government) then Legal Crime includes that method of pricing. What is more important?

The pricing method.
The fact that victims are being injured by criminals with badges.

Why convict everyone as being guilty for everything when very few people are actually causing very serious injuries to real people right now and those worst of the worst criminals are acting willfully, not by accident, actual, real, and very destructive, crimes, by criminals, made legal: why not call it by a name that accurately identifies what it actually is, instead of calling it a name that misdirects defensive power away from an actual remedy?

"Do you know a good source to read about America during 1776-1788 so I can understand how things (individuals and states and civil governments etc) worked as a Democratic Federated Republic?"

My study is very limited and focused along the lines of a specific legal precedent, so my offering of reading material will be along those lines as such:

Shays's Rebellion

Franklin State

Not Counterfeit Federalists

Gag order

After the Usurpation

Shays's Rebellion showed how a Democratic Federated Republic is supposed to work whereby the employees at the Federal Level are employed by the employees at the State level and the Federal employees have no power to "return runaway slaves" such as the case of Daniel Shays as he was deemed by law to be a slave in Massachusetts and failing an effort to regain control of the criminal Massachusetts State government Daniel Shays, and others, fled (voted with their feet) to Vermont. The Federal government could not force Vermont to return the runaway slaves back to Massachusetts. That was a legal precedent under The Articles of Confederation, and it was a well known legal precedent at the time, despite there having been no Internet to rely upon and despite the fact that much of the major media was owned by the Legal Crime Class.

That was the significant legal precedent that sent Alexander Hamilton to George Washington to get him out of retirement because the writing was officially being written on the walls, so to speak, and something had to be done about those Rebels, those Insurgents, those people who still think they have the right, or the duty, to abolish a government gone bad.

That Shays's Rebellion precedent was cause for getting rid of a voluntary Democratic Federated Republic and instead of it the Legal Criminals had to construct their Nation State, and they had to do so behind closed doors, with a Gag Order, so as to fool the targeted victims, keep them in the dark, until it was too late for those targeted victims to know better, and too late for those victims to do something to remedy that move from voluntary government to involuntary government.

From a Democratic Federated Republic Voluntary Competitive Government

To a Consolidated Legal Crime Nation State Despotism used by Legal Criminals to make all competition against the law

The State of Franklin helps in seeing what type of person took control of government, including false flags of dressing up as Indians, slaughtering white settlers, blaming the Indians, and then slaughtering Indians to get the prime land from the slaughtered Indians. War made legal, warfare state.

The Non-Counterfeit Federalists (called the "other founders" or "anti-federalists) blows the lid off the supposed Monopoly of Founding Fathers being one thing, when in fact there were many groups of people trying to deal with many problems at the time and there were definitely two groups, at least, where one was Counterfeit Federalists who where actually Nationalists, and there were actual Federalists who were called Anti-Federalists; whereby the Founding of a Democratic Federated Republic was done between 1776 and 1788 by the True Federalists and then there was a "founding" of a Nation State in 1788 by the Nationalists hiding behind a very thin veil of "Federalism".

The Gag order ordered into being at the Secret Proceedings confirms any notion of there being one Monopoly Group of "Founding Fathers" as the insiders to the Club blew the whistle on the Secret Proceedings and Debates: there were two sets of founders, one counterfeit and one real, founders of a Republic on one side, and the counterfeiters won when they got their Nation State: the Counterfeit Founders were self confessed Nationalists.

The last reference (Whiskey Rebellion) had to do with King George (Washington) assembling a conscripted National army in order to enforce a money monopoly, perpetrated by King George after the Nation State was constructed and it was no longer a Declaration of Independence to abolish a criminal government, now it was against the law to abolish a criminal government, now according to King George: so fatal a spirit as exercising your duty to abolish a criminal government will be crushed by King George and his conscripted Army of aggressive war for profit as the National army invaded the formerly Sovereign State of Pennsylvania so as to enforce a tax on whiskey, payable in gold, whereby whiskey was the money competitor invented and produced because the counterfeit legal money used to finance the previous rebellion (legal then) and the counterfeit legal money kept on the books since the previous rebellion drove all the gold out of the colonies by way of Gresham's Law (importers refused payment in counterfeit money).

I have to get work done so I'll will return here to this welcome exchange later.

"#2 was my guess because it is what has influenced me. Maybe I should say money again because that is the vehicle by which we must disconnect from the Legal Criminals?"

Counterfeit money aught to be compared competitively with honest money before fully realizing the true answer to the question which asks:

Which connecting medium is the most dictatorial in nature, which one is a method by one person, or one small group, to alter the behavior of targeted victims?

How many competitive money counterfeiters exist now, and how much power is being spent on reducing the number of competitive money counterfeiters to ONE?

1. One way connecting mediums such as Television (or the press)
2. Chat Rooms and Forums
3. Money
4. A Spiritual Connection

QUOTE: “Which one reaches closer to a connection that manages to reach the goal of everyone knowing better soon enough to avert becoming victim to crime made legal?”

#2 was my guess because it is what has influenced me. Maybe I should say money again because that is the vehicle by which we must disconnect from the Legal Criminals?

My opinion is that a spiritual connection will be the power than people find when people finally realize the need to disconnect from the Legal Criminals. A legal criminal may even connect spiritually and decide, voluntarily, to stop being a Legal Criminal.

"I dare say the majority of Americans, do not even recognize the enemy, so how is one to even fight against it?"

Common Sense was a pamphlet written by Thomas Paine in 1776 and it was a sold at the cost of printing so as to gain as much currency as possible.

46 Pages

"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."

When the demand for knowledge, by spiritual connection or by whatever power imaginable, is gaining currency, when more of us demand to know better, there will be a supply of accurate perception that will be well communicated as has happened in the past.

We will stop providing the means by which we suffer or we will continue to suffer on our own dimes and in our own names, and that path, that providing the means by which we suffer, can continue to be capital flight flowing into World War III on the calenders of those who own us and when World War III is over those owners will then be demanding payments of war debts - Made in China.

I'm not the only one seeing these facts, but there are too few who care enough to even look - at this time.

Times are changing.

"Do you think Solzhenitsyn understood the depths of the plan as you state it?"

I think that Solzhenitsyn was spiritually connected much more so than I am, but as far as his understanding of Political Economy in a way that can be well communicated, the evidence I've seen does not support much agreement between my viewpoint and his; however he does, obviously, point out the very obvious fact that China is gaining power relative to all the other Political/Economy Powers, which leads to obvious conclusions.

"How do you define Conservatism?"

How did Solzhenitsyn define Conservatism?

"Western thinking has become conservative: the world situation should stay as it is at any cost, there should be no changes."

I think that there are two forms of conservatism where one is originally based upon that spiritual connection to do good and the other is counterfeit. The good version, or true version, of conservatism is the one that intends to conserve the spiritual connection and conserve the use of power to do good things, not wasteful things, and not sinful things (crimes).

The false, or counterfeit version, is a method by which Legal Criminals modify the behavior of their targeted victims into making their victims believe that they, the victims, are powerless, and unable to adapt to anything, unless the victims are given permission by authorities to adapt, and then the victims are led to believe that they can only adapt in the way they are told to adapt, and that Master/Slave connection is the THING to be conserved in that counterfeit version of conservatism.

"How are we going to elect you? You see, I think I am one of those follower sorts."

The idea is to begin thinking in terms of hiring someone who actually represents the goals shared by the employers, you, or any voter, in a Democratic Federated Republic or voluntary government. Once you get that in mind you are then working that way, not the default way, not the "follower" way. That is a huge step for each person, and then the power of numbers may, or may not, work out in time.

If you connect to someone else (not spiritually because that connection works for good by definition) through speaking, or writing, and you see a need to communicate to someone based upon an obvious measure of the person being connected to you as being a "follower", then it may be worth the effort to offer a competitive viewpoint. You can say, why vote for that person? Why not vote for yourself? If you are too busy, then vote for me, just don't sell out your power to a lesser of two evils, or any other nonsense, because, seriously, that is the problem, not the solution.

"Is the above quote an example of defenseless violence? I don’t quite understand what is being offered as the remedy. Is it Eugenics?"

Stephen Pearl Andrews was obviously (obvious to me) speaking out against abortion. The connection was made where women (property) were enslaved by "legal" marriage, being raped legally, bearing rape babies, and murdering the rape babies rather than bear them. So the "legal" marriage thing turns women into murderers all nice and legal.

How nice.