Hmmm simulated conversation and I cannot wait till the end to send you this:
Inregards to Andrews:
"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."
I think of this:
Mark 2:23 And it came to pass, that he [Jesus] went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. 24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?...27 And he [Jesus] said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: 28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
You see, the Pharisees did not want people doing anything on the sabbath. Jesus got in trouble for healing people on the sabbath and here his disciples are being questioned by the relibious police for plucking corn and eating it on the sabbath as they travelled and were hungry. So, I see in Andrews words: people were not made for the church, state or society, but the church, state and society were made for the people just like Jesus said the people were not made for the sabbath, but the sabbath was made for people.
OK, I'll finish reading now. My hand didn't go up, but my mouth opened snd I interrupted you :)
Value of chairs is relative…
I had the occasion to read an Amish newspaper last week and was taken out of my myopic world for a short time. In that newspaper were some recently translated from German WWII letters from a non-Amish German person to an Amish person here in the US. The letter indicated that the WWII German person had not been able to purchase coal for 3 years and that there was no coal and no wood available. The people were cold and starving. So, I suppose that a chair could be used for fuel if it were made of the right material. This information seems quite insignificant now, but when I read it was a new look into the value in owning a wooden chair. I imagine that you already knew the information. I had previously only thought of chairs as things to sit on.
I need to go back and read your reply above and finish.
I realize that this is off the topic of good socialism, but it is on the topic of using words:
“…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?
I think I can understand now why you insist on using the word criminal when that is the word due. This story is not the story of a Preacher. It is a story of a murderer: http://www.dailypaul.com/274801/saudi-preacher-gets-off-ligh...
This is the story of a preacher:
• Romans 10:15 KJV
And how shall they preach, except they be sent ? as it is written , How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
I can see now how using good words as a title for those who do evil is counterfeit speech. It is a dragon that must be slayed. Words mean things. Thank you Josf. I will probably still err, but I think I understand better now putting two and two together in a more personal way
“What is the difference between Chair Political Economy and Water Political Economy?”
It depends on whether the chair is wooden and whether the people have fuel. I did not remember this part of your comment when I wrote what I wrote earlier about chairs and WWII. When fuel is scarce…so are wooden chairs? That WWII letter said that they spent the time in the kitchen to stay warm. I suppose they were able to have enough fuel for the cook stove or whatever they used back in those times. The Amish cook on wood fueled iron stoves in 2013 here in Missouri. The bread and cookies are delicious!
“How much POWER is their in monopolizing POWER?”
In the case of WWII Power was monopolized by consuming it on war and people died from war. Both from the direct effects of war and the indirect effects of consuming power on war…i.e. starvation and freezing. It is amazing what a trip with the Amish can teach lol :) I know, these are things you already know and they are real to you. I suppose they are things I might know, but they are more real to me now.
"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?
But someone has to dig the well if there is not surface water available. And in the case of Isaac, the rival herdsman kept stealing the wells. Isaac did not fight over them, he just went and dug another well until finally he was allowed to have a well to water his livestock. So, Isaac dug 3 wells, was prohibited from 2 of them and was allowed to use 1 of them.
I the case of today. Our water comes from a well. The water from that well fills the city water tower and we pay for the water. I do not know how much profit is made from the water by the city or how much tax we pay. But someone has to pay for at least the expense of the water. I don’t know how water towers work but somehow the water has to be pumped from the well to the top of the tower. That is not free. There are people in the Walmart town up the road that drill wells for free in 3rd world countries as a mission. They went to Haiti after the earthquake and did well work for the people there. People here paid to send the people there.
I think that it is equitable that water be provided at cost. Cost may include maintenance. I do not think that it is equitable that water be made scarce to drive the cost up or to hold the “privilege” of life from others. Withholding water is like withholding air. However, there may be a cost associated with water while there is no cost associated with air…unless air is made scarce, or the criminals figure out how to charge for the privilege of breathing.
“Please, if there is a working definition of a collectivist, then I want to see it.”
I suppose a water tower is a working definition of a collective? A water well is the same thing? Some people in rural areas have their own wells. However, they need electricity to pump the water. Some of the Amish dig their own wells…by hand. Then they might use a motor to get the water up, or bring it up by hand. But that water comes from a water table. I suppose when people buy land they are also buying water rights. Oops there is that word “right.”
The right to use the water under or on the land. When we had a home in Texas we did not have mineral rights…they belonged to Exxon. We bought the land, they had the right to what was below the land. But now I am venturing into the topic of land so I better not go there just yet.
“You cannot control that which is not within your power to control.”
Are you saying that people should not have the power to control water because water is a God-given or natural right.
Do you draw the same parallel with printing money?
“Who has the exclusive right to print legal money?”
My answer is I suppose whoever makes the rules decides that. So the question is who has the right to make the rules? http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transc...
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,”
“What is the difference between public and private?”
I think public is something that all people are invited to access. Private is something that does not include access to all people. I think that is simple. So are you asking me if water is public or private? I suppose it depends upon where you are. Water in the water fountain at Walmart has public access. Water in my house is paid for by me and it is not open to public access. However, bodies of water in Idaho and Wisconsin (from personal experience) must have public access. I do not know if all states have public water access rules.
"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?
I do not understand where I am holding things accountable for the actions of people. Or are you asking me a power question?
I'm sorry it took me so long to reply, but I knew I would not finish bookwork if I thought and wrote about this at the same time.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: