The Daily Paul has been archived.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: Narrowing down

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Finished (see in situ)

Narrowing down

"When fuel is scarce…so are wooden chairs?"

That is a powerful observation.

Note: Coal in Germany during World War II was used to make Synthetic Motor Fuel or Gasoline.


I found other references having to do with tests done on the synthetic aviation fuel used by the Luftwaffe.

So coal was as scare as gasoline by that measure, and gasoline was very scarce in Germany after 1943, certainly by 1944, so scarce that the pilots could not afford to fly the many spare planes, for training, not because there were few planes, but there were few liters of fuel.

As the current Legal Criminals buy World War III, they will make things even more scarce here in America, as things move according to their plans, we may find just how powerful wooden chairs are too.

"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 my current study. I have an Equitable Commerce and a Power Perspective, and even now I'm gaining a Spiritual viewpoint (thanks) that helps me in figuring out the truth from the fiction in so called "Rights" for so called "Property".

Someone has to pay the cost of moving power from sources of power to the point of consumption. Why does the person paying those costs lack the power to consume the power purchased by those costs?

In other words: If I dig the well then why can't I at least consume as much water as I earned by my expense of digging the well?

If I am paid back, for all my digging, why does someone else owe me anything for future use of that supply of water?

Who owns water?

It can be said that I own the well, because I dug a hole in the ground, but if that is the only source of water for 1,000 people who would die of thirst without a well, then why should I stand for someone else having to dig a well next to mine, when all they have to do is pay me back for my digging, and then they can have all the water they deserve after I earn back my costs?


No, you can't drink any of my water, you have to dig your own well, to bad for you?

That is not how it works, and you know it. The one well digger invents a "law" that says no one else is allowed to dig another well unless a "license" is issued to a fellow "Union" Well Digger.

In that way the water consumers have to pay "what the market will bear" and you know this bear.

It is euphemistically called Monopoly.

I call it Legal Crime.

It is the opposite of Power produced into oversupply reducing the cost of Power while purchasing Power increased, because Power reduces the cost of production.

That is political economy (genuine) in one sentence.

The opposite of that is counterfeit political economy or Legal Crime.

Power stolen to consolidate power increases the price of power paid by the victims to the criminals, while purchasing power for the criminals increases as their power becomes abundant, while purchasing power decreases for the victims whose power is made scarce on purpose, because power stolen by criminals reduces the cost of stealing power, and power stolen from the victims increases the costs of surviving, and survival becomes miserable as power diminishes.

Knowledge and understanding is a power supply, what is the current measure of that supply to anyone in particular?

"That is not free."

No, we can hand each other knowledge and understanding at the rate of millions of gallons per minute, but consuming it is another matter entirely.

"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."

While that is going on, "taxes" (extortion fees), flow to the "National government" (Legal Crime Central), to train people at a very high cost, to torture and murder, at places like "The School of the Americas" (Legal Crime Torture and Murder School), to then send those people, fully equipped (including tons of dollar bills if needed), to those "starving" areas, and they do what they are trained to do, which includes the routine of destroying all forms of power, including the power of water from a wells.

Dig a well, then fill it back in.

Does that sound like this:

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer." TP 1776

"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."

China is being boomed, that place is now being visited by Legal Crime Central people, have you seen what is being done to the air?

What was done to the air in the resent events now known as Fukushima?

Weapons of Mass destruction are not magic words, the lies have real physical consequences to life on earth. It is not accidental, it is willful, it is criminal, and it is all nice an legal. It is past time to blow the whistle.

"I suppose a water tower is a working definition of a collective?"

How about working definition of a water tower? Collective, the word, describes a process, not a thing.

Is the process understandable for what the process intends to accomplish?

Who is reaching for which goal when that individual employs any process to be understood by anyone?

If I dig a well, because I need water, then I get water. If I collect that water in a tank, then I can spend a day filling the tank, and then I have a weeks WORTH of water for use until such time as I have to pump water back into the tank, and I can produce water PRESSURE, which is POWER as I employ gravity and the mass of that tank of water focused into a small diameter pipe at the bottom of the tank.

If someone else needs water, and I need what someone else has done, then equitable commerce can occur, which is a process, or inequitable commerce can occur, which reaches for a different goal compared, competitively, with equitable commerce.

Why mince words?

Is that a process that can be called a "collective"?

You, you, and you, pay me as much as I demand, or you don't live, or I'll break your legs, or I'll take your children, teach them to torture and mass murder, and then pay them with the money I steal from you, to torture and murder you, or your neighbor.

Why call that anything other than crime?

No, Joe, I feel the sudden need to go and punch a hole in a card during the Election Psycho.

OK, that was then, what about now?

I don't know, but I am learning more about Land Rights, and the book may actually take off, and that Russian guy is discussing these things with me via e-mail, and he already gave me permission to publish our discussion as another book.

We can do what is in our power to do, equitably, and that is our self-imposed limit, according to God, and anyone else caring enough to listen to the truth?

I suppose when people buy land they are also buying water rights. Oops there is that word “right.”

As far as I can tell, at this point, the Legal Criminals tend to abide by their own set of rules, when challenged in court, and their own set or rules stipulate that your "rights" can be traced back to the original title of Land, and the laws that were in force at that time. There is significance in that knowledge, if it is knowledge, and it appears to be knowledge that is recorded in Supreme Court Cases. Land taxes, for example, and zoning laws, for another example, are "color of law" usurpation, and of no legal standing, in many cases.


"Are you saying that people should not have the power to control water because water is a God-given or natural right."

No, to be more specific, what I am saying is that water is for all human beings, and no one has the right (it is wrong) to use water to enslave human beings who have none. If I control access to water, by stopping someone from getting it, then that is measurable as a crime, so why not call it a crime, why call it "water rights"?

"Do you draw the same parallel with printing money?"


Access to Legal Money is "given" to one person (legal entity) and the "punishment" for "counterfeiting" (which is what they do) is severe in any case where competition exists.

How is that any different than the City where I live as (criminals) "give" one license to supply water to all the people in this City?

It is the same routine, different specifics of strategies, but it is the same routine: Monopoly.

Competition would force quality up and cost down.

"My answer is I suppose whoever makes the rules decides that. So the question is who has the right to make the rules?"

I use the word POWER. Who has the POWER to make other people think and act according to any set of thoughts and actions?

"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."

That is nonsense.

"Water in the water fountain at Walmart has public access."

No, that is false, by your own nonsense. Walmart is a Private Corporation of Limited Liability, and any person in POWER at that location can eject any person not welcome at that location according to whoever gains access to the POWER to do so, and make it stick.

If the "police" are called, for example, which police are called? Walmart security? The Sheriff? The "City" Police? The United Nations?
"Federal" troops?

There is what is real, and then there is what we are led to believe is real, one is real, the other is counterfeit.

"Water in my house is paid for by me and it is not open to public access."

Those at Waco may have thought the same thing.

"I do not know if all states have public water access rules."

Federal office holders, Legal Criminals if English means anything, claim absolute "right" over specific areas on this planet, but the good news is that some of those Legal Criminals stick to their own rules.

Burning down building with innocent people in them, are not rules of engagement, in writing, per se, but they are what they are in fact.

"I do not understand where I am holding things accountable for the actions of people. Or are you asking me a power question?"

I often repeat myself out of habit, and it may not be relevant to the specific subject matter, so please understand my tendency to get off track at times. I too have somewhat of a one dimensional attention span.

"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."

Thanks, and tomorrow I plan on fitting in some print shopping into the schedule (which is not much of a schedule).

No editing at this time.