Comment: Power using math.

(See in situ)

Power using math.

I'm going to answer these questions with competitive answers in a general way and then a specific way.

Generally speaking the cost of "providing the means by which we suffer" is consuming all the power to produce anything of value since most of the power to produce anything of value is being consumed in all the work of destruction that is ordered by criminals in government to be done by the people hired to destroy things.

Make one bomb.

Make one war.

What is the cost?

If the bomb, and the war, was not made and instead what was made was a new productive (competitive) business making food, clothing, shelter, entertainment, education (competitive), art, literature, science, travel, space travel, whatever, then the net POWER supply increases instead of decreasing.

Bombs, and wars, consume productive power and worse.

Bombs, and wars, transfer power from those honest productive people to those criminals who have taken over government, making honest productive people less powerful and making criminals who have taken over government more powerful, and that makes the honest productive people less able to defend against criminals who have taken over government, and that power transfer makes criminals who have taken over government more powerful and more able to keep the victims subjugated and destroying each other.

So generally speaking, using simple math, what happens when Liberty replaces Legal Crime is more POWER available for the Liberated people (honest productive people who make anything worth stealing) to make more POWER.

What happens?

Power increases.

The power to make more power increases.

Power becomes abundant.

Each person no longer believes in the need to have an all powerful "government" to "protect" powerful people when everyone has enough power to defend themselves.

That is why war is necessary for Legal Criminals who use war to destroy any increase in total power that goes beyond the threshold of containable power commanded by the victims.

Now each question specifically (offering a competitive answer):

"What could America be?"

A place where runaway slaves can find sanctuary from criminals and especially where runaway slaves can find sanctuary from criminals who have taken over governments in other places, but not here. Sadly the criminals have taken over government here in America, or U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) as America is current run by criminals who limit their liabilities when they commit very serious crimes against humanity (everyone they target).

"What if people were free to start a business without having to ask for permission and approval?"

I think that that is a misunderstanding, or sloppy English, since anyone working to supply what other people demand, and do so honestly, are "asking permission and approval" from the potential traders who may want what is being produced by the producer of the products (or services) in question.

"What if people were free to "ask permission and approval" to produce something, and having a yes answer answered by many, the producer then has found a way to make an honest living, without having their earnings stolen, and then having their stolen earnings handed to a competitor (subsidy) who manufactures a demand (false advertizements), and then supplies counterfeit crap to the targets who have been led to believe that they need that crap (like war) sold to the masses who have had their "consent" manufactured with brainwashing, response conditioning, behavioral modification, and false advertizements paid for by the criminals who took over government?"

If that happens, then a person can make an honest living, and many people making honest livings results in higher standards of living and lower costs of living since the POWER to do so is no longer stolen and then consumed in war and lesser crimes perpetrated by the criminals who take over government.

"What if they didn't have to check local ordinances to determine whether they were allowed to defend themselves with a weapon in that particular city?"

That appears to me to be ill conceived. Any person not knowing how local people think and act on any introduction of any new person into their sphere of influence is a person who aught to "check local" thoughts and actions, written as ordinances, or just ask someone local, or ask two people who are local, before introducing any new person into their sphere of influence. All government is not bad, so why employ prejudice to people who may govern themselves well enough for them, without prejudice, and you introduce prejudice into their competitive forms of government? That, to me, is the problem, not the solution.

Ask for permission and if you don't get permission to carry a gun, then do you carry a gun despite objections made by honest productive people who will not harm you? Do you strip naked and start humping stay dogs in the neighborhood? Do you drive on the right side or the left side of the road?

If the locals prefer that you don't carry guns, and the locals demand that you do own, and know how to use a gun, and you promise, by oath and affirmation that you will defend innocent lives with your guns when called to do so, here, locally, and if you refuse any of those local ordinances then you are not welcome in any case, then it may be a good idea to find that out before you settle in the location where those locals think and act in those ways. They may make an exception, you may be blind, but you may be good at repairing guns, so asking, negotiating, may help in such a case no?

"What if we were allowed to grow our own food instead of relying on South America to grow our broccoli?"

Legal criminals at the "Federal" level of government (actually National or Criminal not Federal) steal the power from the victims here in America, and that stolen loot is used to "subsidize" a select group of farmers. That destroys competition. When competition is destroyed there is no longer any force that forces quality (of food) up, and cost (of food) down. So the obvious result of ending the reign of those criminals who took over government is a steady increase in the quality of food, and a steady lowering of the cost of food, once the criminals are no longer stealing the competitive power from the competitors and then spending that stolen power to monopolize the food producers as competition is thereby destroyed.

"What if we were able to keep the fruits of our labor instead of working half the year to cover our tax 'burden'?"

No more aggressive wars for profit. The National Debt is roughly equal to the cost of war. No more criminals in government at the National Level (it is not Federal), no more aggressive wars for profit (they profit you don't), no more National Debt, how much is your Federal Tax "Liability"?


In a Federation the Federal Employees are Employed by the State Governments and the Federal Employees are not allowed to "Tax" The People with a Direct Tax.

You can't wrap your head around that fact?

Look here:

"Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers that it is a national government, and no longer a Confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the general government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes does, of itself, entirely change the confederation of the states into one consolidated government. This power, being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of control, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly a confederation to a consolidated government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the state governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: the general government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than the state governments, the latter must give way to the former. Is it to be supposed that one national government will suit so extensive a country, embracing so many climates, and containing inhabitants so very different in manners, habits, and customs? It is ascertained, by history, that there never was a government over a very extensive country without destroying the liberties of the people: history also, supported by the opinions of the best writers, shows us that monarchy may suit a large territory, and despotic governments ever so extensive a country, but that popular governments can only exist in small territories. Is there a single example, on the face of the earth, to support a contrary opinion? Where is there one exception to this general rule? Was there ever an instance of a general national government extending over so extensive a country, abounding in such a variety of climates, &c., where the people retained their liberty? I solemnly declare that no man is a greater friend to a firm union of the American states than I am; but, sir, if this great end can be obtained without hazarding the rights of the people, why should we recur to such dangerous principles?"

The Revolutionary War was lost in 1788.

Wake up people.

"What if people could say what they felt without any fear their government wouldn't like it?"

You can't just sit by and allow people to shout FIRE in a crowded theater. Don't tread on me.

Don't tread on me.

There is meaning in words, but meaning has to be understood.

"What if business owners could risk alienating paying customers by not installing expensive ramps and rails, a reasonable decision in a so-called free society?"

What if half the population ends up in wheel chairs? Cost benefit calculations are always individually done, in each individual case, so "laws" that try to fit everyone into the same Gulag are exactly what they are: cost benefit calculations done by criminals. Why not call them criminals when their actions define the true meaning, the accurate meaning, of the word CRIME?

When speaking in terms of "Federal regulations" it may be a good idea to understand the facts. Criminals took over government in 1788, that is a well documented fact. Failure to know is costly, but failure to know is beneficial to those criminals who continue to take over government at the National level (criminal level = it is not Federal).

"What if children were allowed to learn about what interested them and what they were good at rather than being processed through the one size fits all cookie cutter educational system?"

Criminals target victims. When criminals take over a country, such as America, the criminals who took over are building a Gulag, everyone will eventually be forced into labor camps where the workers are fed less than the required POWER (calories) required to survive, and that is how that works every time that is done, in human history, when the criminals take over.

It is a National (criminal) government. It is not Federal. Know what you are talking about, so what happens if this country is no longer run by criminals? How would that happen?

End the FED
End the IRS
Bring the Troops Home

Now, after that is done, the State governments may yet be run by criminals, but The People are no longer under the thumb of two Crime Bosses, one a the State level, and a bigger, more costly, Crime Ring at the National Level (and an even bigger Crime Ring, but hidden, at the Global Level), so The People can begin to force their State Employees (government) to increase the quality and lower the cost of hiring employees to run State governments.


People can choose State A over State B, and that is called Market Forces. State A starts moving toward despotism and The People get out of that State and find sanctuary in another State.

If you don't know that, then you aught to know that, as that is how a Republic is designed to work, where the Federal Government is nothing more, but nothing less, than a voluntary union with voluntary union dues that the State governments either join or do not join in just that same way as The People either join, and pay for, or not join, and do not pay for, a despotic State government within the voluntary Union of Federated States.

This is really not that difficult to understand.

"What if they were able to make financial decisions based on the assumption that their money would always have value, instead of being thin sheets of paper that can be turned to ash in moments?"

Paper money is not the problem. A Legal Monopoly (crime) is the problem. If there are 10 or 50 competitive monies to choose from, all are legal monies, which means that any of those 10 or 50 choices are "good as gold" as far as "paying tax liabilities" (legal money) then the force of competition works on all 10 or all 50 producers of legal money.

What happens when there are 10 or 50 competitive producers all asking for permission to please, please, please, use our money instead of the competitions money?

No answer?

The quality goes up, and the costs go down.

Why is it impossible to see this fact? (does the shoe fit or not?)

"What if businesses owners could find out what products people in Iran, Cuba, and Libya are interested in buying, and supply them with those things?"

Quality goes up and costs go down when competition is not destroyed by criminals who have taken over government where those same criminals call their confidence scheme "legal tender" and those criminals call their extortion rackets "taxes" and the victims actually believe the criminals without effective question, or resistance.

"What new and unimagined heights could America reach,
if it were ever allowed to be free?"

America, if the word means a list of names of all the honest productive people who will no longer aid and abet criminals who have taken over governments, then we may be vacationing on Mars all summer by 2050, before going back to work for 6 months, 4 hours a day, 4 days a week, in 2051.