Comment: Trying despreately to avoid furher confusion

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: You're catching on (see in situ)

Trying despreately to avoid furher confusion

"This short one addresses the fact that tech advancement should lead us toward utopia but for it to happen, we need to go all socialist to fix unemployment. That is where we differ."

People often confuse crime with socialism and I prefer not to do so myself. I take it as a form of crime for me, or any innocent person, to be misidentified as a criminal when anyone falsely associates crime with anything other than crime.

Since this TOPIC is about Fundamental Differences between us, I am going to reinforce this understanding of desperately avoiding confusion as to who are the criminals and who are the victims.

Involuntary associations are criminal associations exactly as determined by the full measure of involuntary servitude, as if saying "Had I known, I would not have proceeded down that path of involuntary servitude."

Anyone calling crime by any other name, call it socialism, call it taxation, call it capitalism, the fact is that the fundamental difference is that the word used is false by exactly how much the victims are then powerless to know better as to the actual full accurate measure of the connection being made between the criminals and the victims.

As to your title "You're catching on", I'd like to distance myself from a concept of not having already "caught on" before today, in case that is what you intend to suggest, or in case someone else reading this is thereby led to believe, that suddenly, now, I am "catching on" as if before I was not "catching on" until this moment.

Where I've been "catching on" 20 years ago, is exactly what is was when it happened, even if you have no concept of it.

I can safely assume that you are meaning that that I am "catching on" to your specific point of view, which I thought I had already confessed in many words that can be quoted. In other words: your viewpoint expressed in English, and now math, is a familiar viewpoint to me, because I share it, which means, in other words, I am not suddenly "catching on" to your viewpoint. I share it, where your viewpoint is agreeable to my sense of accurate measure. I certainly do not "catch on" where your viewpoint, in my opinion, does not measure up.

"This short one addresses the fact that tech advancement should lead us toward utopia but for it to happen, we need to go all socialist to fix unemployment. That is where we differ."

I can assume, which is risky, that you are targeting those words with the Web Page: "where we differ" and not me. If you are moving me closer to criminals (that may be called socialists in this case) then please stop.

I do not appreciate false association where I am moved closer to criminals in any way other than the ways that are accurately measurable, such as the transfers of power (under duress) from me, as I earn that power, to those who steal it, and then that stolen power is used to steal more, in ways that can be called socialism, or capitalism, or government, or whatever cover story works to cover crime these days.

"This short one addresses the fact that tech advancement should lead us toward utopia but for it to happen, we need to go all socialist to fix unemployment. That is where we differ."

I've been called many names, paranoid, brutally honest, honest to fault, etc., but precision in communication, to me, is a missing element in our human condition, and therefore worthy of the work required to turn that trend around to be something better than abject belief in falsehood without question.

I may go overboard, admittedly, the sinner that I am, the human who is very capable of error as I continue to be, despite effort to the contrary.

Which is better to err on the side of Liberty or to err on the side of abject belief in falsehood without question?

I think Liberty is better.

I don't want to be placed in the same cage as the criminals, ever, even if those criminals call themselves socialists, capitalists, or Central Bankers.

I don't want to be placed in the same cage literally or figuratively.

I really don't want to be a part of the whole mess - in any way.

Under duress, and without prejudice, are phrases that I am just now "catching on", if I can offer that as a confession of past failure to know best. I have been working for some time at knowing better.

"So all total, we spend as much as 80% on things that don't benefit us."

I'm busting in there to agree with the more precise measure of how much of productive power produced by productive people is then used "on things that don't benefit" those who produce it.

I'm busting in here to add that the stolen power is used, in very accurately measurable ways, to steal more, which is a whole different math problem compared to having power merely wasted.

I'm also busting in here to add to the already understood concept of how the NEWS is even worse still, because the positive side can be compared to the negative side, on both sides of the NULL VOID in the center.

Power used to make more POWER (Positive Side)
Power stolen and wasted (NULL VOID in the center)
Power stolen and used to steal more (That which your measure offers more precision than my rough estimates with 13 zeros)

It is not unrealistic to consider a possible NOW where "we" are colonizing Mars at this moment, or vacationing on Mars for 6 months this summer, had 1788 not been the year of Crime Made Legal, and instead had We The People avoided the "providing the means by which we suffer" routine, and instead of having all that power stolen (since 1788): instead we used that power to make more power for us.

1. Power making more Power does what?

2. Power consumed doing nothing does what?

3. Power consumed in the work required to steal Power does what?

"So all total, we spend as much as 80% on things that don't benefit us."

I jumped in at that point, barging in, to offer a measure of "benefit us" as a function of power used to make more power and what would stop the total sum of power reaching a point where human beings colonize Mars, Moon, and even build Space Stations for fun, or just in case one might be handy?

There is Helium 3 on the moon. Is that a good source of Power?

http://voices.yahoo.com/helium3-2064587.html

"I'm sure you're getting the concept that we're both keeping our "power" and sharing the wealth by not earning quite so much overall, even though our purchasing power will quadruple."

I think quadruple is merely a function of time once power is no longer used to destroy productive capacity. Why would there be a limit on power production?

Your numbers are better, it is good to see people doing good things.

Joe