Comment: Funny you should ask?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Thank you (see in situ)

Funny you should ask?

"I think we are supposed to be talking about the good form of socialism which is based upon voluntarism. Is it also based upon individualism?"

Here is the good socialism straight from the horses mouth:

"What, then, if this be so, is this common element? In what great feature are Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism identical? I will answer this interrogatory first, and demonstrate the answer afterward. Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism are identical in the assertion of the Supremacy of the Individual,--a dogma essentially contumacious, revolutionary, and antagonistic to the basic principles of all the older institutions of society, which make the Individual subordinate and subject to the Church, to the State, and to Society respectively. Not only is this supremacy or SOVEREIGNTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL, a common element of all three of these great modern movements, but I will make the still more sweeping assertion that it is substantially the whole of those movements. It is not merely a feature, as I have just denominated it, but the living soul itself, the vital energy, the integral essence or being of them all."

Cutting out what may sound too wordy into something that goes right to the root of the question asked:

Question asked:

"I think we are supposed to be talking about the good form of socialism which is based upon voluntarism. Is it also based upon individualism?" bear

"Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism are identical in the assertion of the Supremacy of the Individual,--" Andrews

Stephen Pearl Andrews is not just some guy picked out of a hat, so as with Griffin, or even Ron Paul, there are ways to credit a person if the words are not good enough on their own.

The words are good enough on their own, no need to even consider who said the words, in my opinion, but failing my opinion to mean much, and having focus directed at the person delivering the message instead, Andrews shines like few others.

Andrews was against Slavery to the tune of much personal hazard.

Andrews has written the only book I ever heard about on The History of Socialism, a book I can't yet find, for reasons that include a lack of effort to find it, but also a lack of a supply.

Awhile ago I tried finding copies of The Science of Society, quoted above, and at that time there was similarly no ready supply. Now, in part because I contributed in the effort, The Science of Society is more abundantly available. The first copy of The Science of Society I found was a copy eluded to on a web page and the actual copy was in a Library in Australia. I paid to get the librarians to hand photo and copy each page from the book and send those paper copies to me, from Australia.

Since then I uploaded those pictures on the internet, and helped hand type some pages on another web page someone else produced, and since then I found my own hard copy, and now The Science of Society is available as a .pdf file, and printed on several web pages.

Bad socialists hate good socialism more than they hate capitalism, if you think about it, the same is true about the bad capitalists, since the bad capitalists hate good capitalism more than they hate socialism, and why?

Because good socialism and good capitalism say the same things, like this:

"all governmental powers reside in, are only delegated by, and can be, at any moment, resumed by the people,--that is, by the individuals, who are first Individuals, and who then, by virtue only of the act of delegating such powers, become a people,--that is, a combined mass of Individuals." Andrews.

When neither the Good or Bad Capitalists have no clue as to the existence of a good version of socialism, why is that any different than neither Good or Bad Socialists having any clue as to the existence of a good version of capitalism?

"As in responsibility must be individual? So that moves us to the discussion of ownership? Which lead me to give the link of Griffin as he was speaking on topic, but he lumps all isms into collectivism vs individualism. And says the only individual system is free-enterprise capitalism."

So...what is the definition of "collectivism" now that we know the good guys, who are individuals?

If the definition of "collectivism" is the same definition as the definition of a criminal who makes their crimes legal, then why not call them criminals? Why add to the false definitions of words?

Why add to the false definition of words when you are saying that adding to the false definition of words is a problem?

"So is the exercise in discussing ownership of the list of those 10 things going to help explain the good form of socialism? I am past seeing red."

And all that credit for that hard work goes to the individual - YOU.

"People stole wells and so wells continued to be dug until they were allowed to have it:"

Here is where my discovery of the power principle adds to the work of Warren (Andrews was more of a cheerleader for Warren, the work was Warrens) and my work uncovers the false capitalism factor of enforced scarcity. Here is why I want you to work on the differences between political economy concerning POWER (water, food, land, oxygen) and non-POWER products/things/consumables, and we don't even need to (not yet need to) add the POWER of knowledge/falsehood into the mix.

What is the difference between Chair Political Economy and Water Political Economy?

No need to steal all the chairs, and make all the chairs scarce, so as to then make those who need chairs beg for more chairs, when all you have to do is sit on the ground, or make/shift chairs out of boxes, or tree stumps, or sticks clued together, or take turns sitting on each others back, or sit back to back.

How much POWER is their in monopolizing POWER?

None if the monopoly POWER uses the POWER to make POWER abundant, because at that point everyone has more POWER than they can use, including the POWER to defend Liberty with the press of one button on a hand held defensive weapon.

"and digged another well"

Power Independence = every individual has a ready supply of clean water.

Does that sound like a God given right or does that sound like something I need to buy with my labor as I toil all day and hand over all my earnings so that some other guy can use an eyedropper to give me my share of water?

If someone invents a way to make water scarce, and they employ it, is that a crime that can be measured precisely according to the many people who are then paying that monopolist the price demanded by that monopolist without question for a share of the monopolists water?

"It appears to me that at one time people dug wells and that gave them the right to the water and that water was shared with the community."

Where is the working definition of a collectivist? Where is it?

Please, if there is a working definition of a collectivist, then I want to see it.

If the working definition of a collectivist is exactly the same thing as a working definition of a criminal, then why cover up the crime with a different word?

"I hear water rights have been bought up around the world as well as here in the US."

You use the word "rights".

Do you mean God given rights or do you mean something else?

If you do not mean God given rights, and you mean "rights" that are exactly the same thing as a crime, then why call it "rights"?

"I hear water rights have been bought up around the world as well as here in the US. Water represents control is suppose, so he who controls water controls the people."

Water is a power, not like chairs.

How about chair rights?

Money is a power; who owns the right to print money?

Anyone, including a bunch of people called WallMart, their money is called coupons.

Who has the exclusive right to print legal money?

What is the difference between public and private?

"I suppose the controller is the self-made owner for do good or for evil."

You cannot control that which is not within your power to control.

How much power is contained in the lie that things can be held accountable for the actions of people?