The Daily Paul has been archived.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: Finer, deeper, points worth measuring?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: b :) e :) a :) r :) (see in situ)

Finer, deeper, points worth measuring?

"So what does that make the dictator of that dictation?"

The concept of willful intent may be worth considering in any case. I've thought about this some and it is possible, it seems to me, to be less dangerous to life on earth in general, and less dangerous to one life on earth specifically, to be suffering from a dictator who is willfully, knowingly distorting the truth, whereby the actual goal is thoughtful, measured, and finite, whereby the victim is to be squeezed, and bled, and suffering, to a point just short of death, while the dictator who merely parrots a lie, where the dictator believes the lie, may not be as well governed, and the subjects are, or subject is, tortured and then murdered, for their own good - according to the well meaning, but evil, dictator.

So, which is the lesser of two evils?

Willful, purposeful, deceivers, who dictate those deceptions, threats, and violence, while knowing their deceptions are false.

Victims of deception, deceived themselves, whose actual motive is to "save the children" by torturing and murdering them?

The obvious conclusion is such that deception is bad, for those who are deceived, not as bad, for those who are not deceived.

Which brings back to my mind the words of Henry Ford:

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

"Wrote memory, not application of memory. i.e. you are right on calling me out on me believing socialism does something as opposed to humans doing something. I had to drive to town and back this afternoon. It was another time of enlightenment for me as I realized that was exactly what I had been doing."

That is a huge victory and you should certainly pat yourself on the back on this one, because this key unlocks very many more falsehoods along the way.

A huge victory.

"We are unionists"

As with counterfeit religion (crusades, inquisition, end times) the thing being counterfeited is often opposite the genuine article, and knowing this aught to clue the person knowing this on the actual tool being counterfeited, as to why it was counterfeited, and what the genuine article was actually designed to accomplish.

Socialism and capitalism are not opposites, capitalism (a pricing method) is a subset of socialism (scientific social study) so the counterfeit versions of Capitalism (Fascism exemplified with Nazi Germany) and the counterfeit version of Socialism (exemplified in Bolshevism Russia) are as opposite the original versions of capitalism and socialism as legal crime is opposite liberty - exactly so.

Exactly as opposite as accurate communication is opposite deception.

Exactly as opposite as is religion opposite false religion, and here is where this meaning may only make sense to someone who is truly religious, since non-religious people, or false religious people, may consider all religion to be false, so the analogy does not work for them, but suffice to say that an honest factual communication of truth, such as "do not look directly at the sun for more than a few seconds because you will harm your eyes", is opposite a lie such as "please stare at the sun for as long as you can stand it, because that is the right way to make your eyes work better for you".

"I think that group is speaking another language than Warren/Andrews, at least I think they are. What do you thing?"

I am grateful for having the opportunity to learn so much more than expected though this Forum, this medium of exchange, and in particular the Spiritual viewpoint, and now, in particular, the Common Law viewpoint, since I now have more keys to unlock more doors that have kept me out of rooms full of light.

The word Union, now, has a much greater significance, now that I can apply it to the Union of Law professionals, which is specifically designed to be monopolistic, to thereby make Law Power scarce, so as to make the cost of Law unfordable for specific people targeted for exploitation.

I wrote that paragraph that way, because now I am unlocking that door, where previously I was locked out, because I did not have the Common Law key.

Now I have the Common Law key, which can be analogous to your efforts to seek, and then find, the key that unlocks the lie of making things accountable for the actions of people, which you found, despite the closed loop that hid that key from you, in your own mind, which again, is a great victory.

If I have been a help in that great victory, then it is my pleasure, and a shared victory, so thanks for the opportunity, and the hard work.

"I was born 49 years ago. I only know how socialism is used by individuals today. I know how socialism is used by decision makers in our government."

Can I pile more hard work on you by rewriting your sentence above so as to reinforce the new keys that you now have in your control?

"I was born 49 years ago. I only know how Legal Crime is used by individuals today. I know how Legal Crime is used by decision makers in Legal Crime."

Consider the significance of the word changes - please.

Our government is God's law, according to you, and I can almost share all of that version of law according to you, but the words that I think I would use, at this time, is Common Law, or Natural Law, or God's Law, as our government, which is a voluntary agreement, subject to revision, but based upon the same voluntary government, avoiding deceit, threats, and violence willfully perpetrated upon the innocent.

A whole paragraph of specifics, mere words, but the intent is to be self-governing, and the intent is to avoid being subjected to false belief in lies without question.

"I was born 49 years ago. I only know how socialism is used by individuals today. I know how socialism is used by decision makers in our government."

"I was born 49 years ago. I only know how Legal Crime is used by individuals today. I know how Legal Crime is used by decision makers in Legal Crime."

Mere words, for your considered judgement.

Socialism is a thing, a noun?

Legal Crime is a verb?

How do those people get away with torture and murder?

They, those people, make torture and murder legal.

What is the actual problem?

Torture and murder.

Not socialism, a thing.

Not Legal Crime, a thing.

Torture and Murder made Legal, actions, perpetrated by guilty people upon innocent people.

Which version sends the more accurate, higher quality, lower cost, message through the medium of exchange that transfers the message from one sovereign individual to another, or many, sovereign individuals?

What is the goal?

To miss-communicate or to communicate accurately?

"You are asking me to replace 40 some odd years of the application of socialism by individuals in our society with the application of socialism by persons that lived almost 200 years ago named Josiah Warren and Stephen Pearl Andrews and I have a very hard time cutting the definition of current socialism and replacing it with a definition almost 200 years old."

I am not asking you to bla, bla, bla; not me.

I am pointing out, for your consideration, the very serious closed loop falsehood whereby a thing is accountable for the actions of people. How you manage to deal with that information is how you manage to deal with that information.

Victories like this are hard battles, hard won battles, and no one but you can fight them. I can't fight your battles.

All the credit for the victory goes to the victor, that is how accountability works - it seems to me.

" There are very few people who will understand anything but the current version of socialism. I think it better to use a different word. And I will probably continue to think it is better to use a different word."

It is not the word, not the thing, it is the action, it is not the noun, it is the verb.

This is fundamental and if anyone challenges you on socialism versus capitalism then consider the possibility of challenging THEM on the verb, not the noun.

I know it is not easy, and I know the nature of the beast, it is almost insurmountable, and my next quote won't appear to make the battle any easier for you, because of the name attached to the words, but this is another test, for you, and now you have the key to pass the test, or fail, on your own.

The following words contain meaning, a challenge, for you, or anyone, to challenge your own understanding of the Power Struggle between Legal Crime and Liberty.

Test yourself, it matters not to me how well, or how poorly you fare in the test, this is an offering of words, for you to consider, on your own volition.

Here is the source:

The title:

The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness

If you can't find the time to read the book then you will not have as much information available to make sense of the quote:

For Marx, capital and labor were not merely two economic categories. Capital for him was the manifestation of the past, of labor transformed and amassed into things; labor was the manifestation of life, of human energy applied to nature in the process of transforming it. The choice between capitalism and socialism (as he understood it) amounted to this: Who (what) was to rule over what (whom)? What is dead over what is alive, or what is alive over what is dead? (Cf. E. Fromm, 1961, 1968)

You can make of those words whatever you will, because that is in your power to do so, not mine.

You will not get a thing out of it, if that is what you are looking to get out of it: a thing.

When I speak of getting a key, for example, it is illustrative, a verb, illustrative, illustrating, communicating, acting, action, moving, doing, not static, set, unmoving, fixed, and inert, and power-less.

If you please.

"I understand that Warren advocated private currency based upon the time and effort required in one’s personal labor."

I understand that that is destructively absent much in the way of understanding what Warren did advocate, since Warren's proven work has been, over time, misunderstood, and confused with a nebulous counterfeit version called "The Labor Theory of Value", and therefore it is, in my opinion, important to point out the difference between the genuine PROCESS advocated, and proven to work, by Warren, and the counterfeit THING called "The Labor Theory of Value".

Along these lines:

Genuine versus Counterfeit

Competitive Money versus Counterfeit Monopoly Fraud Money

Religion (Christianity for one example) versus False Religion (Inquisition for one example)

Socialism as a Science versus Socialism as crime made legal

Capitalism as a method of pricing versus Capitalism as crime made legal

Common Law as a power employed by sovereign individuals versus Collectivist Law as a false thing used by criminals to enslave victims

Equitable Commerce as a method of conducting commerce equitably versus a lie, which is a thing, called "The Labor Theory of Value"

Documented ongoing Conspiracies versus a nebulous THING called "Conspiracy Theory" that exists like a boogie man lurking in the darkness of falsehood.

"I can understand and see that value in a privately sovereign individually based and issued currency."

Currency has to be understood as a connecting medium between individuals, not something used by one person alone, since one person alone has no use for "currency" outside of his, or her, own head, or outside of his, or her, own body, or outside of his, or her, own process of employing the scarce power available to produce enough power to survive in life, alone, without any other human beings contacted in any way, ever.

Currency has to be understood in the context of human interaction.

Productive, honest, accurate, mutually beneficial, voluntary, agreement type currency

Destructive, dishonest, false, something one gets at the cost of another, involuntary, disagreement type currency

What is the nature of the connecting medium of exchange?

"I can understand and see that value in a privately sovereign individually based and issued currency. "

What is the meaning behind the employment of the words "Private" and "Public"?

Why use two words when, supposedly, we are all supposed to be treating each other equitably, not criminally?

I could use some help with this question specifically.

When does a person stop being "private" and then the same person becomes "public"?

When does someone stop being "Employer" and become "Employee"?

When does someone stop being "Lender" and become "Borrower"?

When does someone stop being "capitalist" and become "socialist"?

Where is that line in that sand, and is it the same line each time?

What places one individual in public as the individual leaves the private condition of life, and then hopping back into the private condition, then back into the public condition, hopping, hopping, through this hoop, please consider this worthy of answering accurately?

"Perhaps their goals were Equitable Socialism as opposed to Collective Socialism."

Libraries are collectivism manifestations, things, things that exist as many individuals transfer, flowing, moving, things, currently flowing, from many places, then the flow of things, flows into one collected, collectivist, flowing, collection, of flow, as the collective sum of things flows, into the collected place called a Library.

Why is "collective" being used in a sentence as if a boogie man lurks in the darkness of "collective" things?

A bank is a "collective" thing, where individuals store individual things flowing, flowing, along mediums of exchange, flowing currently, from all the individual places, flowing along the avenues, many individual places, flowing into the one bank, collectivizing, collecting, collectivism, collections, like passing a collection plate in church, collectivizing, collections, of collectivism and within that thing lies the bogie man?

Consider the advantages of accurate currency as opposed to inaccurate currency demonstrated thusly:

Side by side comparison:

Perhaps their goals were Equitable Socialism as opposed to Collective Socialism.

Perhaps their goals were Equitable Commerce as opposed to Crime made Legal.

One version (1.) cannot ever be demonstrated in fact because that version of history is ambiguous, meaning that it can mean anything anytime.

The competitive version (2.) is demonstrable in fact as Equitable Commerce continues on today, in fact, in measurable fact, where it is measurably, factually, occurring today, while, at the same time, and in stark contrast, the opposite also occurs today, where Crime continues to be made Legal, in the form of what can be called by many names, such as The Dollar Hegemony, The World Reserve Currency, The Legal Money Monopoly Power, Wall Street, The Federal Reserve System of Fraud/The Federal Income Tax Extortion Racket, and U.S.A. Inc. (LLC).

"But in today’s terms, Socialism does not come with a pre qualifier."

Not so much of a victory after all?

You have the key but you don't use it?

Socialism does not decide to get out of bed, step into a suit, drive to your door, or mine, and arrive without prequalification. Which thing does so, which version of socialism does these things, exactly?

Why confuse one thing with the other?

Who benefits from that confusion?

Cui bono?

"It is just socialism that means collectivism."

So the bogie man socialism is rendered null and void, mere vapor, and now a new boogie man shows up called "collectivism"?

Is there ever an end to the current flow of things to be held accountable for the actions of people?

Old name is out, new name works?

"If one is forced into a collective situation as far as I can understand they are no longer sovereign."

No more banks?

No more batteries?

No more reservoirs?

No more useful things that can be blamed for the actions of people?

Then what? Everyone is separated from everyone else completely because every single connecting medium has been corrupted by a few people to the determinant of everyone else?

The bank did it, so no more banks?

"If one is forced into a collective situation as far as I can understand they are no longer sovereign."

"If one victim is willfully forced by a criminal to make the victim less powerful so as to make the criminal more powerful, as far as I can understand, the victim is no longer sovereign by that exact measure of that power being transferred that inequitable way precisely as it happens in time and place."

One sentence demonizes a thing, blaming a thing for the actions of a person, in such a way as to be so ambiguous as to be interpretable in any way anyone cares to interpret that sentence even to the point of meaning one thing one second and the opposite thing the next second.

The other sentence intends to identify an individual who acts criminally, to measure the crime precisely, and the sentence intends to identify a victim who can be measured precisely as a victim.

Sovereignty, if these words convey accurate meaning, is a power commanded by an individual, not a thing possessed, held static, like a hammer on a bench, sovereignty is the power commanded by the individual who can willfully pick up a hammer and use that hammer to accomplish a goal.

If the goal is to enslave another individual, with a hammer, or with that power of sovereignty commanded by that individual, then there is an English word for that sovereign act by that sovereign individual, and the word may be useful or not.

What is the accurate word for someone who enslaves another individual?

Tax collector?

Who benefits when criminals are called anything other than criminals?

I can guess, because I still have command of my own willful employment of my being.

"That is why you have helped me understand voluntary association. That is why each state should have its own voluntary system whereby people vote with their feet if they do not like the system. However, we do not find ourselves in that situation today. Today we are in a system whereby we are forced coercively to participate in a collective socialist system which is beholden to crony capitalism."

Still at it?

Socialism must be demonized by you, or you don't feel good about your use of time and energy, while you still have that power?

Why does capitalism get the pre-qualifier while socialism arrives without such fine print?

I am not intending to nit pick. Roughly half of the world population is polarized on one side to fight to the death the other side, for fun and profit, because of what - exactly?

Lies regurgitated in our sleep?

"Today we are in a system whereby we are forced coercively to participate in a collective socialist system which is beholden to crony capitalism. So in order to speak clearly I would say a qualifier needs to be added to the word socialism or a new word needs to be used to emancipate the truth from the error in the system currently used by criminals."

I spoke too soon?

We are on the same page on this point?

"To me it is like you telling me I don’t care what color the Republicans say they are. I say they are blue. They were blue and they are blue. I don’t care if everyone else now says they are red because they changed from blue to red. Don’t you dare call them red. They are blue. And I say When a rose changes colors it is time to take note and change words."

So that can't be rose colored glasses.

Violet colored glasses?

Roses are red, violets are blue...

"It is entertaining and fun to me and it is also work to try to apply new concepts to my thinking."

Carl Miller, if I remember right, says: "If you are not having fun, you are not doing it right."

I agree.

Fun, or no fun, this is serious business. This is as serious as working to earn a good life and having all that effort stolen and used instead for our personal misery and torturous death, so I don't know how this can be any more serious.

" I am not my own, I belong to everyone else, and this little space, this little place, I have found in writing and learning belongs to me. That may not make much sense to you, but it does to me. If that about me makes it so I am not qualified we need to know that. At the same time I need to have respect for the seriousness of the matter and the work you are about. I know it is serious. It is probably a coping mechanism for me not to think of the gravity involved; that being, the complete disregard for human life and the bodies stacked high to heaven."

In context, to me, you have worked yourself, while making the best of it, into a very important victory, as stated earlier, identification of a closed loop, in your own mind, is a huge victory, almost incomprehensibly impossible to do, alone, and if that has happened, then I am privileged to be a miniscule measure of help in that very serous battle and that very important victory.

"I can say when the cubs are involved a mama bear does come out, with claws. Maybe I just talk big."

Again, I am inspired to find those words in Solzhenitsyn's Gulag book that I don't remember verbatim, but that will have to wait.

"I guess out of respect for a request made by a friend."

We do not communicate well, it seems to me, on this point, so I can offer my standard answer to this type of situation:

Write me a script, as to what you want me to say, and then I can cut and paste those words from here to the intended forum topic.

"I never considered that I would not like what you had to say. OK never mind. I didn’t even consider how it would sound for me to ask you something like that with your own forum. I have seen people criticizing Michael and I wanted to do something to let him know that he is appreciated and that I appreciate this place in the world. I fail to look at all sides of things when I ask you to do something."

So we are simulating a conversation, this is remarkable to me.

"Maybe Bloom knows something. Maybe he doesn’t."

The messages are what they are, separate from the messenger. There is much value in the words I read from Howard Bloom so far, but there is much to contend with too. I think that my power perspective allows me to know better as to which information is productive and which information is destructive.

If Legal Criminals could, it seems to me, they would have all the females (except their close nit group) plotting to torture and murder all the males, and of course, to balance things out they would have all the males plotting to torture and murder all the females.

That scenario is ideal, it seems to me, for Legal Crime, and I think that things are done by Legal Criminals along those lines, sufficient to prove the case.

You used the term, if I remember right, man haters?

What do you think is behind the increase in homosexuality?

To me it does not matter, a female brain in a male body, I don't have anything against that individual, if that is how that individual exists, that way, without question, I don't know, it seems to be possible, very real for them, but my questions concern how does that happen, is it natural, meaning is it separate from a man-made alteration in genetics, or, on the other hand: are there things being done willfully, by people to cause those changes in genetics, done on purpose, to cause specific things to happen?

Along the same lines as Nazi's ordering forced sterilization of Jews who remained in Germany after it was clear that Jews were not going to be treated well in Germany, along those lines, what are the Legal Criminals up to now, and most people can't even ask this question if they are still assuming that "our" government is merely making mistakes when perpetual war for perpetual peace to save the children goes wrong for fully 2 centuries now.

Bloom appears to be infected with that nonsense, despite his obvious capacity to know much more about specific things than most everyone, he is a genius, one of a kind, and I have discussed my Joe's Law perspective with him on Skype. He responded to Joe's Law with "That looks right to me." or some other positive reinforcement in other words, I did not quote him verbatim.

I can say without reservation that I think that Howard Bloom is the genuine article, a genius, and he means well, and so there should be a significant amount of consideration, on my part at least, given to what he has to say.

I think that he thinks that the battle of races is natural, not man made, and I think otherwise, but the truth is obviously somewhere in between. There is a natural tendency for those who survive better to survive better, without question, but there is also an unmistakable application of man made force being used willfully in the effort to cause many people to destroy many people on purpose, for whatever "reason" those few people have motivating their actions along those specific lines, geared to reaching those specific goals.

In other words: Wars do not happen by accident, or randomly, they are driven by the deliberate willpower of specific people in flesh and blood.

I think it is very likely that Howard Bloom is a genius and a fool, look at Albert Eisenstein for example. Look at James Madison for another example.

"It looks like the Collectivists wanted some taxes which ended Modern Times. I had not seen that information before. It seems from that link that there is a doctoral student that did their thesis on Warren. It would be interesting to get a complete copy of the work?"

It looks like you believe the words typed by the reporter. Modern Times still exists in many forms, who says that it "did not grow beyond a village"?

What, exactly, did not grow beyond a village?

The report you found on the history of what Warren did, with Equitable Commerce, is designed to accomplish a goal, and the goal accomplished is to divert attention away from the facts, and to reinforce the lies that result in blind obedience to falsehood without question.

You don't see it, based upon your response to the report.

"It looks like the Collectivists wanted some taxes which ended Modern Times. I had not seen that information before. It seems from that link that there is a doctoral student that did their thesis on Warren. It would be interesting to get a complete copy of the work?"

I know this is a very long response, a huge work load, but please consider taking apart the text offered in the report on Modern Times:

"This, coupled with the labor-for-labor system, was to create a sovereign individual."

It was not labor-for-labor as in "The Labor Theory of Value", so that sentence is typically half true, failing to even touch upon the concept of TIME, or ACTION. There is no mention of the COST principle, and therefore the actual message by Warren is not simply discarded, it is falsified. Then the author claims that some THING creates a sovereign individual, which is patently absurd, because GOD creates sovereign individuals who are sovereign once they become independent beings, past the stage of growth where the being, the living being, the living human being, as a child, is nurtured by other people, parents, in a family, or if possible, but not likely the child somehow manages to become independent, and SOVEREIGN, without parents, without a family, a real family, not a counterfeit family, a good family, of good people, doing good things, like nurturing, not torturing, children.

Is that enough evidence to question the authority of the reporter reporting on the good work of Josiah Warren?

I can go on.

I still have to do some editing on this monster of a reply, and it is getting late in the morning.

"I was thinking maybe a link to your page would be in order?"

Or a link to the Worgle example of competitive currencies in that time period here:

"I offer Romans to you in that study of society and law. I believe it is speaking of natural law...from the Word of God. God does not make puppets. People choose individually whether to submit themselves to God and allow Him to work thru them in whatever way He, the Most Sovereign High God, chooses."

Any man-made laws are counterfeit versions of natural law, or God's law, of course, I see that, but waiting around for Jesus and God to help us STOP abandoning the victims, and start separating the criminals from the victims, or at least making crime pay a little less, is probably not a good idea, so there are things that have worked such as Trial by Jury, and Common Law based upon Natural Law or God's Law.

The Articles of Confederation appeared to set a decent enough precedent with Shays's Rebellion too.

You said this to me:
“I think our discussion has run it's course.
I could be wrong of course.”

That was in reference to the possible infection of making things accountable for the actions of people, and Speer, or Common Law, is where I will be going in my thinking, so help is appreciated.

"I do not understand those words, but they hurt my feelings"

When I see words published by you, or anyone, that can be interpreted by me as meaning that a thing is held accountable for the actions of a person, then I answer that possible meaning with questions intending to get to the bottom of the confusion. That will continue, both ways, if possible.

"Before you started talking to me you had plenty of time to develop Posts. Now your information is all directed to me for other’s to read as well, but are they?"

Who knows? I don't. But my thinking is improved though these discussions, and that is my goal, I see a serious need to know better. Not knowing better is a bad road to travel.

"This is a very long reply…as if neither of us had anything better to do."

Life is precious, including, in my opinion, these discussion.