The Daily Paul has been archived.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: Reading ahead note:

(See in situ)

Reading ahead note:

Note: I read ahead to the point at which the concept of scarcity versus abundance was brought into view, which means that this is a note that marks that change from the normal "simulated conversation" where I read as if reading in a conversation, and then I stop reading, and then I reply. This note says that I read ahead this time, and I did not simulate a conversation: so defined (and this becomes significant).


"I was thinking of singular control or singular ownership of currency by an individual. I realize I forgot apply to hardness or cost instead of just hours. But that currency is within the individual control/printing by the individual; i.e. a check which cannot be manipulated."

I think that you may have missed another point offered by Warren in Equitable Commerce and the reason I do not miss this point is because my first reading of Equitable Commerce was after I had figured out much of this stuff, as if circling a well hidden dragon, and then Equitable Commerce showed the dragon, in clear view, and the dragon was defeated, step by step, in Equitable Commerce.

The point (or key) that you may be missing has to do with the pricing method, whereby it is not necessarily Labor, or a Gold Standard, or time, or "intensity" or in your words "hardness" that is the principle involved in defining the difference between an equitable price and an inequitable price, the significant factor is the absence of deceit, threat, and violence from one person onto the the other person and all that Warren does is set that up, and prove it, and so a method had to be the method chosen, by which the price is set, and that is why Andrews, in his version of the story, uses the words "Dogma", to describe the choices made, which are dogmatic, or "of the world", and they are not "God's Law" stuff, to put this into a spiritual frame of reference, which I think is significant, which neither Warren nor Andrews nor even Tucker (Benjamin Tucker later on) does (as far as I know).

In other words: The whole thing falls apart, even if everyone follows the step by step procedure, in any case, call it Socialism, call it Equitable Commerce, call it Federalism, call it Austrian Economics, call it Conservatism, call it Religion, call it Christianity, call it Nirvana, call it Paradise on Earth, call it Fried Chicken, it all goes out the window when any individual, in any case, thinks up a lie, invents that lie, produces that lie, like putting a thumb on the scale of justice, employs the lie upon the targeted, ignorant, victim, and follows through with that devilish plan, threatening the relative happiness, livelihood, survivability, and POWER, of the target, so that the criminal gains (something for supposedly nothing) at the expense of the victim, again so easy to see if you use a power perspective, since the proof of the crime is measurable as power transferring.

A life is snuffed out, incrementally, or all at once, while the individual making the snuff film, with or without film to show off the event, or inculpate the criminal, or make a killing on the open market where snuff films are so scarce, even relative to the very limited demand for them, as power flows the way it flows, life draining from one life and life charged into another.

What makes a narcissist, pshycopath, sociopath, torturing, mass murdering, devil in the flesh, get up in the morning?

What makes them ever so happy as they pursuit happiness?

Nourishment is not the same thing for everyone and that is the point.

The most competitive pricing method is the one the seller chooses willfully and since there has to be a buyer, eventually, (or does there? - what if both are considered sellers?) there will be two competitive pricing methods converging during the VERB which is commerce, and therefore both, or all, involved in the exchange of commerce, by some competitive method (not criminal), are employing their own, sovereign, individual, pricing method, without prejudice, so both sellers, if that is what you want to call them, use their own pricing method, chosen by each one, without deceit, threat, or violence.

I don't use your pricing method, I use mine.

You don't use my pricing method, you use your pricing method.

I'm not the seller (dominant) and you are the buyer (subject).

These are mere words, the actual fact of equity can be narrowed down precisely in point of fact, shown to each person involved in the equitable transaction, over, and over, and over, repeating the same, each time, and arriving at the same conclusion each time, whereby each individual confirms equity, and never is there any room to honestly, accurately, claim otherwise, whereby one person claims, falsely, that the other person "took them to the cleaners", because you, during the transaction, in fact, used your own pricing method, so if anyone was to blame, or be responsible, and accountable, for having been "took to the cleaners", then you need to go to the mirror, and at that same time the accused, presumed to be innocent, cannot falsely deny, if in fact the facts do prove, that a person did pass on costs, unknown costs, to the victim, such as having the thumb placed on the scale during the exchange, or exchanging a weight of gold on the outside but the "seller" of that gold had hollowed out the inside and replaced the inside with lead, or any other such resort to deceit, or any other resort to crime of any kind, not limited to deceit.

So...the point offered in equitable commerce is not to claim, dogmatically, that this or that pricing method must be used by everyone, every time, no, the point offered is such that an accurate pricing method can be invented, used, and voluntarily chosen by people who decide to use accurate pricing methods, at their own cost, and without passing on costs willfully whereby the measure of exchange is willfully moved OFF OF EQUITY, on purpose, for the profit of one individual and at the expense of another individual.

The reason why this is often missed by anyone, has to do with the hidden dragon I uncovered in Carl Menger's work, and even in Murray Rothbard's work, whereby people raise themselves above other people, for fun and profit, at the expense of those who are lowered in that same thumbing of that same scale - in their own minds.

What is good for the goose, by that definition, is not good for the gander.

I get to take them to the cleaners, the story goes, because they deserve it, or some other such deception that can only work one way, certainly not something that works both ways - if you can, please, see this point that you may be missing.

It is not the hardness, or cost, alone, nor is it the time factor, nor the intensity, alone, that makes the measure of the PRICE/COST equitable, it is the fact that no COSTS are passed on by resort to crime that makes equity no longer equity, the method of pricing is either accurate or it is willfully inaccurate according to the ONE who willfully makes it inaccurate, at the expense of the other one.

I have participated into discussions whereby a anachrocapitalist, defined as he may please, claims that two people can set out to screw each other, whereby the net result is something similar to equity, and I agreed. Both are equally screwed.

Both have their thumbs bore down the same amount on each half of the scale, stressing the bearing, and bending the axle.

But now the scale is broke, and whose scale is it?

Who has to buy a new scale, or is the broke one good enough for government work?

"So, I am going to define private as singularly owned/singular responsibility"

The test here is to take out the word and just use the definition of the word in place each time you want to use the word in question, if you want to test your new found perspective, and test your new found perspective in a competitive way.

It seems to me that your new found perspective leaves absolutely no room for anything, ever, being public.

"And public as jointly owned without singular responsibility."

Again, it seems to me, you missed the point offered in Equitable Commerce, and The Science of Society, since it is impossible to "jointly own" anything, not without redefining the meaning of responsibility and accountability.

If you redefine responsibility, then what do you mean when you use the new version of the meaning of responsibility?

Why do you have two meanings and one word?

That is the defining of the process known as duplicity. You are doing that, perhaps, not some nebulous boogie man in the dark.

"I would also add semi-private as a form of property ownership."

Why can't you see that you have made an error, and now you need a million libraries full of errors to cover up the first one.

Responsibility is individual, or there is no such thing.

If you are speaking of something other than responsibility, then it may be a good idea to see what it really is that you are speaking about, since it isn't responsibility.

"I am going to say neither public nor private has any moral value. The reason I am saying this is"

You are creating things, it seems to me, rather than measuring the existing things in a way that is accurate.

"Singular or private ownership can still result in lack of responsibility because it is up to the individual to assume or be responsible."

I think the problem there is the Dragon you still need to slay, whereby you have the Dragon almost bled out, but it is still breathing some fire, singeing your mind. You may yet be thinking in terms of static time, things sitting, not moving, never moving, and that is not true, everything moves, so it helps, or at least it helps me, to think in terms of dynamics.

Take apart the sentence:

"Singular or private ownership can still result in lack of responsibility because it is up to the individual to assume or be responsible."

Note: Before I take apart that sentence I can claim that the ability to think dynamically is exemplified in the reading I just did of Justice Marshall in his official Supreme Court opinion concerning the Marbury versus Madison case - and this is useful information to me, and could be useful to other people - perhaps.

The word Response Ability means something specific, or it does not mean something specific, and two people can't respond at once in the same exact way, in the same place, at the same time, so the use of the word responsibility combined with the concept of "public" or "jointly" is a connection that does not exist.

First sentence:

"Singular or private ownership can still result in lack of responsibility because it is up to the individual to assume or be responsible."

No, it is not, a person will eventually respond, because the person has the ability to respond, so response ability is merely factual, and not a choice, a choice is a choice, so the response is made, and the person making the choice, makes the choice, that is how the persons responded, a fact, not a choice, in time.

Like this:

1. Before the choice.
2. During the choice.
3. After the choice.

At any time the person can stop and unmake the choice unless the choice is to pull the trigger and then the bullet leaves the gun, but the person is still responsible all during the process, and the person can even then be responsible for trying to put the bullet back in the gun, but that does not work, in fact.

"Singular or private ownership can still result in lack of responsibility..."

How? A plea of insanity? No judge, the gun did it, and no judge, the Dog named Sam made me do it?

If the person is brainwashed, on autopilot, and the actions done by the person are done in a trance, whereby the person is not acting upon their own individual power of will, then sure, factually, if that isn't a lie, then that crime may be perpetrated by the person responsible for controlling the brainwashed robotic vassal, and the puppet, machine person, is not responsible, so, then, in that case, who did the brainwashing, and why did that person, or that other person, do that brain washing upon that victim?

Where, exactly, is this point in time and place where the ability to respond is removed from the individual person who commands the power to choose between right and wrong when that person is not brainwashed?

It is said that clinical narcissists do not have the same brains as normal people so that their choices, made willfully, are that of lower forms of living beings, having no moral conscience, but they still choose, they still are able to respond, and if they are not brainwashed, hypnotized, and acting robotically according to a will power separate from their own will power, then they are responsible, they have no conscience, but they are responsible, because they control a decision making process, they decide, not someone pulling their strings.

The puppet does the deed, but all that is needed for the puppet master, to get away with another murder, is to attach strings to another puppet.

You can remedy the crimes done by the puppet, insane, or brainwashed, out of control, not responsible, or no longer responsible, response ability having been taken away, no power of will, willpower stolen, and the puppet master merely get's another puppet, another robot, another machine, to do the deeds chosen to be done by the master.

Where are there any such things in reality?

So I say, hey, you are "providing the means by which we suffer", please stop, and once that message is known, then the person is no longer able to claim that they were just following orders, or that they did not know, they are no longer puppets, they are their own masters who respond willfully after that point of moving from unknowing into knowing.

On judgment day all the excuses in the world, after that point of moving from not knowing, into knowing, won't work, not at that point, the bill will be due at that point.

Dynamic thinking may help.

"Semi-Public/Public Ownership can still result in responsibility."

If that can work, then an example if it can be worked out in time.

"then our joint ownership will produce something worth keeping"

Is that static thinking taking over? How is something "kept"?

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

My house is my semi-private domain. It is my family’s private domain. Other people do not come barging in and get in our beds in sleep in them. When I go to bed at night, ain’t nobody gonna be in that bed except Jeff. It is our private bed. This is our private home. When we wake up the only other people here should be our children. Not anyone else from our church or neighborhood should be in our house when we wake up. It is ours. If someone needs to stay with us, well they would ask and we would or wouldn’t agree, or perhaps we would invite someone.

This is now more like reading Justice Marshall explaining his opinion, step by grueling step, in justification of a nebulous point of fact.

The subject here, though, involves a capacity to divide response ability, it seems to me, and no such thing can occur.

"My house is my semi-private domain."

To me that sounds like semi-virgins.

Semi-dead people.



The house exists, that can be measured. You may occupy it, when you occupy it. That can be measured.

"It is my family’s private domain."

Do you mean a list of names or do you mean an entity that is, itself, as a whole, a THING, that is responsible?

"It is this list of names of real people and it is known that one or more of the people on this list of people who may, or may not, occupy the house."

"Other people do not come barging in and get in our beds in sleep in them."

No, they don't, or yes they do, and if you say no they don't, then I think you are telling the truth. No one ever will barge in, when you are there, or even before or after you are there, never, no one will ever occupy the house?

That is speculation.

"When I go to bed at night, ain’t nobody gonna be in that bed except Jeff."

Do you own the bed, or control who sleeps in it, so far?

In a dynamic sense, not a static sense, 1,000 years may go by, and then what happens?

You don't own the bed, you don't control who sleeps in the bed, then.

"This is our private home."

In context of our discussions, involving me and my perspective, and so, so, so, I can respond to that statement, I have that ability, and I think, on my own power to think, as I own my power to think, that sudden noises happen, time after time, and often these days I think in terms of bombs, bombs that I make, with my earnings, as my earnings are stolen, and the thieves buy robots, who claim to be robots, but they know better, they are not robots, but they are bought, and they sell out, and they are told to make bombs, and then those bombs go off, in houses.

Then someone is told to think in terms of collateral damage, and they are told to not question that thinking.

"This is our private home."


I hope that thinking keeps working that way. I'm not so secure in that thinking, myself.

Truly, in our world there is an inspiration to qualify speech, to alert the listener, this time, at least for now, I'm going to be telling the truth, just so you know, this time, an exception to the rule perhaps, truly, honestly, I hear things, sudden noises, and my sense of security is challenged as I imagine me being on the wrong end of one of those Drones, or Bombs, that appear on "News" casts, for our mutual benefit, since we all want to know what may be arriving one if by land or two if by sea.

It is very early in the morning, I could not sleep. I read but did not respond last night and I am not finding it easy to get to the question of scarcity versus abundance POINT.

I hope that you can forgive me for speaking so freely, challenging your senses, as you have told me often enough that I do, but truly, I'm just the messenger boy.

Someone else responds with the bombs, and the drones, and it may be a good idea for us to know better than to actually be providing the means by which we suffer.


"When we wake up the only other people here should be our children."

You don't need me to figure that out, and I am not rubbing your face in it, as if you don't see it too, I'm sharing a moment of weakness, and again, I hope you can forgive me.

Some dots are better left unconnected.

Someone does have to care, or there is no care anywhere.

How about borrowing from Ron Paul, and then I can try again to reach the point?

End the FED
End the IRS
Bring the Troops Home (not to enforce 1 and 2)

"In a public ownership setting, like a public beach, I have no say who is going to be on that beach with me. If I am camping a t a public campground…who knows who I will be camping next to. I have little control."

OK, there is a big part of the puzzle, and to me you nearly have that dragon buried, to rise no more, and the word that helps (the meaning) is "control".

Control = Response Ability

That is dynamic thinking, and it works better, it is verby.

Work is a verby thing.

Shifting gears:

"Your daughter then went to Public High School."

No, I use "public", with the quotations, they, in those buildings, are perpetrating crime, because they issue fraudulent threats, and when they are challenged, they know better, they know that as far as their POWER to CONTROL you, they don't actually back up their threats, so they admit it, it was an idle threat, but then there may be someone, in those buildings, certainly there are some people, in those buildings, who make good on those threats sent in the mail, where the criminals demand obedience without question, and when the threat is made good, a parent is injured, a child is kidnapped, sent to pedophiles to be worked on, who knows what else, parents fined, sent to jail, "publicly" demonized, etc.

"Public" High School is Legal Crime, more of us providing the means by which we suffer, through the Legal Money Monopoly Power connection, through the Extortion Racket "Federal" Income Tax "Service", and the "Public Servants" know who butters their bread, and it isn't the parents of the "students".

"You had to pay for that education regardless of whether your daughter attended public or private school and you had very little say in how things were going to go there in that public setting because that school is going to get its money regardless of what you say."

Oh no, you read too much into my words. I was barely touching on full disclosure. We fought back. As the "teachers", two in particular, one in "private" and one in "public" school, as those teachers taught our daughter evil, we taught our daughter, and she taught us, how to fight back against evil.

The reason why my daughter was targeted by those "teachers" was, specifically, because she, my daughter, does not obey without question, she never has, and it is genetic, and it is her parents influence, and it is common sense, and it wasn't beat out of our daughter, and there was no way the "teachers" were going to "win", no way.

So the "education" in both places, "public" and "private", including who knows what else, including the "economics" (brainwashing), was, in point of fact, a lesson in what not to do, the "teachers" taught by example, and the lesson was how to fight back, how to expose the liars for their lies, and how to force them to back down because they are lying, and it was close, who knows how close, before someone may have called in the bullies with the guns, to make an example of these specific people who do not obey without question, and make good on the threats.

You have no idea, perhaps a worn out phrase, perhaps not true, perhaps an example of hyperbole, what happens when my wife is challenged by these pompous windbags, with their counterfeit pretensions of absolute authority, and she is my better half, and we have been in this town for some time, many brothers, same school, so the actual point of facts concerning our daughter's education may not have been well communicated in even this much text.

"I wonder if that teacher that caused injury was bonded?"

No, again, I could go to those "teachers" and give them a good hug, for the lesson they taught my daughter, by example, a lesson that was only theory up to those points, in time, where my daughter faces the bullies, deals with them, and then finds out what happens when you don't cower down and accept their authority, no matter what the stakes may appear to be, according to them, in the mail, or in person.

My daughter in the first case was driven into depression, serious depression, but she pulled herself out, and that was supposedly "private" school, supposedly "christian" school, but it was a teacher, an individual, in both cases.

In the second case my daughter had the whole class rallied on her side, going to the teachers boss, went my daughter, on her own initiative, with some help from us, but may daughter earned the credit of slaying this dragon.

I played a part, sure, a reserve to be called upon, and in one case I trusted the teachers word, having been used by that teacher to "make a deal" with my daughter, I was the intermediary, and only later learned, myself, that the "teacher" was not honest. It was later understood to be, without question, a lie, a false perception projected to me, by the teacher, to be something harmless, a mere case of a student failing to measure up, when in fact it was a battle of will power, and the teacher was going to win, by hook, or by crook. My daughter did not resort to the same dirty deals, she fought back inwardly, her reinforcements failing to help, but her mother stepped in, moved the student to a different teacher, and guess what? My daughter went from failing to the top student like magic.


Some dragons are not easy to defeat, it can be very costly.

"Moving on…But, if you paid to have your daughter privately one-on-one educated, you would have complete say as to how your daughter was going to be treated and what kind of education she was going to have because you would be the single purchaser of that education and the educator would be beholden to your wishes if they wanted to retain their job as your daughter’s private educator."

I have an entirely different viewpoint on the concept of education, apparently, since instruction is one thing, to be instructed, and then there is learning, something different.

There is a book on the subject worth reading here:

Paying for education is done by the person who gains knowledge, not by the parent who works for Federal Reserve Notes and then passes those tickets, or zeros, onto some "private" or "public" "employee" in the world of falsehood.

During some points, in time, and place, my viewpoints are transferred intact, without distortion.

I report those times to you, and you listen, it is amazing. It is amazing that it can happen without the personal contact, the eye contact, and the finer points of subtle expressions common during personal discussion.

Like the interview at Jury Duty example. You were not there, I was, and you get it, I think. We challenge the false fronts, like the story about the Wizard of Oz, pulling back the curtain.

I told you about my running for congress.

It was not just theory, idle conversation between two people at work, during a coffee break. Not a couple of "conspiracy theorists" with that hobby, sharing stories.

So I can see a Carl Miller example, on youtube, and it is more than fantasy, more than a show.

Like this guy:

I knew that guy. BOOM



He was shot by the police.

How close to home does it have to get?

"It" is all around.

There is a serious infection, brainwashed drones, half in, half out of moral consciousness, seemingly capable of self motivated human action, almost.


Challenge them.

Feel right about it.

You do.

Not me.

You do.

I may be able to help.

You have the power, not me.

If you think it is your house, and you think you own it, then stand on that principle, stand firm, as tall as you can reach, more power to you, as far as I am concerned.

If I can help, it may be in pointing out the chinks in your armor, if there be any, and if my daughter exposes my weaknesses, great, thanks, who cares if the message is delivered by a little girl, the message is.

The message does not depend upon what is IS according to a well paid liar working for narcissists, psychopaths, sociopaths, demons in flesh, who torture and mass murder for fun and profit.

"There are semi-privately owned companies where you and some other guys/gals may go into together and share joint ownership of a construction business, each person having stock in the company, but not on the public stock exchange."

"semi-private" again?

Semi-virgin again?

Semi-dead again?

Semi-responsible again?

Semi-brainwashed again?

Ok, so semi-brainwashed works, but only until that moment when YOU, or someone else, brings the message to the semi-brainwashed, and the spark of light, through the crack in the door as it opens, reaches the eye of the beholder, who may have been an innocent victim up until that point in time, and then the former victim slams the door shut, CHOOSING, at that point, TO BE, willfully providing the means by which we suffer, because they want that something for supposedly nothing, which is, in fact, a gain they want, at the expense of the victims who are, because now they know, THEIR VICTIMS.

I won't be the judge that counts.

I'm not even wanted on a Jury.

I'm not even wanted in Congress.

I'm not even wanted on so many forums.

I'm not even wanted in so many virtual or real living rooms.

I'm not even wanted on the list of houses to visit, to knock on the door, and to spread the World of God.

But I am certain that judgment day will occur, and a full accounting will be made, and there will no longer be any room for any doubt at that moment, when that day arrives, for that responsible living being who shut that open door to that ray of meager accountability PROVING the FACT that that living being CHOSE to provide the means by which we suffer.

How many times?

How many doors are shut, each time, each time the message is delivered, each time the "news" is closer to home?

Notice how there was no response to my last offering in the Debate with the Grandchild Topic. How about your reinforcement, any response?

Falsehood, illustrated as a dragon, is a THING.

Who has a use for it?

Why do they feed it?

What is their stake in it?

What is their interest in it?

Why do they not admit it?

Why is there no supply or demand for the truth of it, with few exceptions?

Conservative capitalist non-socialist, lesser of two evils, profiteers seeking all their own requirements at the exclusion of all others?

Joining them because, obviously, they can't be beaten?

They, those bad guys, do this and that with our government, so I wash my hands of it, until I need it to collect the rent owed to me according to the contract signed under duress by the stupid idiots who can't even think they are worked so hard into abject poverty without rest, and better for them because without me, and our government, they wouldn't even have that job?

It takes money to make money?

If I don't profit someone else will?

"Or like in Warren’s everyone pitch in to buy a commonly used machine."

No, if you are right about that, then I am dead wrong, because no such thing was printed by Warren.

You are misrepresenting the work of Josiah Warren or I am, so it may be a good idea to follow that trail back to the source of it, get the quotes, and we can nip this false path in the bud - please.

In fact, although it is a very long reply already, and I haven't even arrived at the point that woke me up, where Scarcity Versus Abundance, despite that, I'm going to dig into Equitable Commerce to find the relevant quote on controlling machines by individual people, NOT, some nebulous "collective ownership" LIE.

"Or like in Warren’s everyone pitch in to buy a commonly used machine. That machine belonged to those in the community, not those in the whole land from sea to shining sea so it was semi privately owned."


I think I need to pull the curtain back on that sentence, no matter what power is at work in inventing that sentence, it exists, that sentence exists, and it is now a published sentence.

"Or like in Warren’s everyone pitch in to buy a commonly used machine. That machine belonged to those in the community, not those in the whole land from sea to shining sea so it was semi privately owned."

Here is a copy of Equitable Commerce:

Note: I skipped past some other information offered by Warren on machinery and I skipped past an interesting reference to BONDING.

I found this:

In all these operations the store-keeper acts entirely as an individual; if he wishes for counsel, he will seek it of those whom he thinks most capable of counseling. If he wished to know the views of the whole on any point, he can obtain them at the public meetings, but having done so, he does not allow the public voice to rise above his individual prerogative; but paying as much deference to their opinions as wishes as he judges best, he proceeds upon his own individual decision, always at his own risk, and all is harmonious.

In a similar manner can manufactures and all other business be conducted. If each individual is FREE to make any investment or decline it-to invest one sum or another, according to his or her inclination in each case; and if the amount be so small as that the risk do not disturb the peace of its owner, and he is at liberty to withdraw it without words or conditions whenever he may choose, one may use the property of another for the general interest, without much disturbance of the general harmony, provided it be made evident to all, that the means are used for the purposes intended, and on the cost principle. So much of connected interests may not be perfectly harmonious; but the occasional discords may admonish us that the principle is wrong; and like those of music, if not too frequent and out of proportion, may serve to se off the general harmony to more advantage.

If one person have not sufficient surplus means to procure machinery for a certain business, all will have an equal interest in assisting in establishing it, provided that each is satisfied that he will have its products at cost; but if there is no limit to their price, then they have no such co-operating interest;: The wear of the machinery and all contingent expenses, together with the labor of the attendance, would constitute this cost. The owner of the machinery would receive nothing from the mere ownership of it; but as it wore away, he would receive in proportion, till at last, when it was worn out, he would have received back the whole of his original investment, and an equivalent for his labor in lending his capital and receiving it back again. Upon this principle, the benefits of the labor-saving powers of the machinery are equally dispersed through the whole community. No one portion is benefited at the cost of another. It one portion is thrown out of employment by it, the land, and all arts and trades, and professions being open to them, so that they are easily and comfortably sustained during a new apprenticeship, they are not only not injured, but benefited by new inventions of which they receive their share of the advantages, while they turn and assist in reducing the labor still to be performed by hand; but (cost being mad the limit of price) NOT THEREBY REDUCING ITS REWARD. Those engaged in these pursuits will now have less employment, but having their share of the natural wealth of the machinery, they have, in the same proportion, less demand for employment; in other words, THE BURTHEN OF THEIR LABOR IS REDUCED IN PROPORTION TO THE INTRODUCTION OF MACHINERY. This, cost being made the limit of price, solves the great problems of machinery against labor.

It has been sometime since I've last read through Equitable Commerce so it may take time, not now, to go into detail in comparing what Warren offers to what you offer here:

"Or like in Warren’s everyone pitch in to buy a commonly used machine. That machine belonged to those in the community, not those in the whole land from sea to shining sea so it was semi privately owned."

For now I have a few simple things to say, with few words.

When competition works (not crushed by criminal means) the PRICES of things are FORCED down to COST. That means that Warren is not merely offering a wild fancy or utopian dream, he is expressing what happens in reality when competition is not crushed out of business by liars and thieves, with or without badges. Today, for example, it is often the case that a sell of a very competitive thing, such as Skype, or Amazon, or Ebay, will give away (no cost) a competitive service, and make up COST with more elaborate services, thus exemplifying the point, since a "service" that is not competitive, such as The Federal Reserve Money "service" is not forced down to COST so much as it is costing everyone, except the Central Bankers, everything.

When free money markets are no longer crushed by criminals, with or without badges, there can easily be seen, by reasonable people, an increase in the need for workers, as more and more people seek ways to compete for a growing demand for things wanted, as more people are FREE from DEBT imposed by the Central Banker Fraud and Extortion Crimes in Progress. More people keep what they earn.

Let me repeat that, please.

More people keep what they earn.

More demand for good things, since more people keep what they earn.

Who is going to supply those good things demanded more and more by more people keeping more of what they earn?

More people supplying that demand, will be an increase in people supplying the demand for more good things demanded by more people who keep more of what they earn, since the Central Bank Frauds are no longer stealing everything, including everything nailed down, and including the nails.

What happens next?

Is this boring you to tears? I'm almost unable to stay awake.

More people inventing ways to fill the demand for more things demanded by more people who are FREE from Legal Crime, and in particular Central Bankers with their MONEY MONOPOLY FRAUD and their National Income Tax Extortion racket MEANS more demand for workers.

More demand for workers means that there will be less workers working to undercut each other to take control of the few jobs since there will be more jobs less workers.

More jobs, less workers.

What does that mean, to all the capitalists who like to fit their pricing methods only onto their own power to make Jobs scarce so that workers will do anything, pay any price, for the few jobs left?

More jobs, less workers.

What does that mean?

That means that "Employers" will have the shoe on the other foot.

More jobs, less workers.

That means that workers can pick and choose from the many Employers who find a SCARCITY of workers, where the workers are now jacking up the price of a living wage, using the capitalist pricing method.

If an inventor invents a machine, at that point, where 1 million jobs are wiped out because a new machine wipes out those jobs who cares?

The Central Bank monster is dead, the dragon is dead, the IRS is dead, no more dragon, and more people keep more of their earnings.

What does that mean, when more people keep more of their earnings?

More demand for more things.

People fill the demand for more things, more good things.

Not enough workers, again, despite the machine that saves labor, still, again, not enough workers, and workers have LEVERAGE and workers have the capitalist shoe on their foot, so they don't care if a new machine makes their hard labor worth nothing, because another job is open in 100 other places and there are only 2 qualified workers, so the 100 inventive people working to fill the demand for more good things are fighting over each other to get one of the 2 remaining people who just happen to like working to earn a living.

With that out of the way, hopefully, I can remove any of the false notions that may be occurring in between individual sets of ears whereby Equitable Commerce by Josiah Warren is falsely advertized as some collectivist scheme to share responsibility, which it is demonstrably not, so long as some effort is applied toward the work required to know better.


In other words: I may not have understood what the following words mean:

"Or like in Warren’s everyone pitch in to buy a commonly used machine. That machine belonged to those in the community, not those in the whole land from sea to shining sea so it was semi privately owned."

I think that the above is not well communicated as to what Equitable Commerce is in fact.

There is no such thing as some THING belonging to some THING.

Machines cannot belong to a community, and I don't think that Warren said so.

Warren is not perfect in employment of English, neither am I, and I know that you, Bear, make no such claim of perfection.

Failures to communicate can be expected, and so long as there are two wills, then there is a way to succeed in communicating accurately.

I will now take a break and since this went on so long, too long, I will work to start another reply, or a whole new topic, and I will title it Scarcity versus Abundance, and I think that I almost made it to that point in your reply above. I am looking forward to reaching that point later.