The Daily Paul has been archived.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: What is Public?

(See in situ)

What is Public?

Josf: "If you do not focus on the meaning of Public, as if there is no way for you to explain exactly what you mean when you use the word Public, then that is like, or similar to, a Gold Bug that is unable to tell me what ideal money is as far as they know.

What does that tell me?

I don't know.

I can ask, and I can guess.

What is the meaning of the word Public?

If we both focus on that, then we both agree to focus on that, and then maybe we can both find out what you mean by that, and we may even discover, with our combined focused effort, what that is, in fact.

So far as I can tell the word Public is a complete fabrication of lies."
Then why are you making me explain what I mean by that word if it is a lie? Why don’t you just tell me why you think it is a lie. Maybe that would be easier. Because you know me, I will use the dictionary,public :
1828 Definition
PUB'LIC, a. [L.publicus, from the root of populus, people; that is, people-like.]
1. Pertaining to a nation, state or community; extending to a whole people; as a public law, which binds the people of a nation or state, as opposed to a private statute or resolve, which respects an individual or a corporation only. Thus we say, public welfare, public good, public calamity, public service, public property.
2. Common to many; current or circulated among people of all classes; general; as public report; public scandal.
3. Open; notorious; exposed to all persons without restriction.
Joseph her husband being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. Matt.1.
4. Regarding the community; directed to the interest of a nation, state or community; as public spirit; public mindedness; opposed to private or selfish.
5. Open for general entertainment; as a public house.
6. Open to common use; as a public road.
7. In general, public expresses something common to mankind at large, to a nation, state, city or town, and is opposed to private, which denotes what belongs to an individual, to a family, to a company or corporation.
Public law, is often synonymous with the law of nations.
PUB'LIC, n. The general body of mankind or of a nation, state or community; the people, indefinitely.
The public is more disposed to censure than to praise.
In this passage, public is followed by a verb in the singular number; but being a noun of multitude, it is more generally followed by a plural verb; the public are.
In public, in open view; before the people at large; not in private or secrecy.
In private grieve, but with a careless scorn,
In public seem to triumph, not to mourn.
Yep, that basically covers what I think public is. I had never considered it a lie.

The word public is not in the Bible.

I told you that God owns it all. I am telling you. That as far as I am concerned God owns everything. Psalm 23 The Lord is my shepherd. That means that I am a lamb and He is my shepherd. He takes me to the green pastures so that I can eat and rest. He leads me beside still waters so that I can drink without being swept away. I am not in want because He takes care of me. When one believes that the earth is the Lords and the fullness thereof and that the cattle on all the hills belong to him as well as every living creature and that by Him all things exist and consist, then one does not own anything. Owning something is but a figure of speech. I am but a steward of things under my control. - Those things that God has added to my life. I am to take good care of those things because they belong to God. As far as rights. The truth is, I have none. I have given all of my “rights” to God and He may do with me as He pleases. But you want me to talk in a materialistic way. Well, I had you listen to Matthew 6 because it says not to worry about what to eat or what to drink or what to wear because all of those things the gentiles seek. But I am to seek first the Kingdom of Heaven and all those things will be added to my life. Josf, I have no worries. Even if I walk thru the valley of cancer, I fear no evil because He is with me. The truth is, we don’t own things, but rather “things” own us because they demand our care and time and energy. The Bible says what does it profit a man if he gain the whole world and loose his soul. It says that after speaking of a rich farmer who stockpiled his goods and decided to eat drink and take pleasure. God called him a fool.

Now if those words above were a tangent, then you need to tell me because you say you appreciate my spiritual viewpoint in so many words. When you say that it encourages me to give more spiritual viewpoint. If you do not want me to do that you must say so.

Now as far as owning things like land. It seems to me that Josiah Warren decided that it was important to have land ownership. He determined that from first hand experience after living in a communist style setting where there was not private land ownership. I think if I remember correctly, he felt that the lack of ownership did not lend towards the goal of responsibility. It seems to me that I remember in Equitable Commerce the discussion of ownership of machinery and also animals as well as land. Does Josiah Warren speak the right language concerning ownership? I see in both the Old and New Testament people purchasing land. I saw in the Northwest Ordinance that land was to be passed to heirs. When a person dies, they cannot take anything with them…except their soul and that can be lost as well.

Here from his own work :
“BY natural wealth is here meant all wealth; so far as it is not the result of human labor.
The COST principle being made the limit of price, opens all this wealth to every one at

Land being bought and sold on this principle, passes from owner to owner with no
farther additions to prime cost than the labor of buying and selling it. If improvements C
have been made upon it, their cost only being paid, makes the natural wealth free and
accessible to all without price. In this manner simple equity would free, not only public,
but private lauds, from the trammels of profit-making. If it could not be sold for profit, it
would not be bought for speculation; and, it cannot be sold for profit in competition with
those who will buy and sell it for an equivalent.”

Or here :

“Government still interferes to control the public domain; but already an organized and rapidly augmenting political organization is demanding in this country a surrender of this whole subject to the Individual Sovereigns who make the Government, and who need the land. Nor are the modest pretensions of Land Reform, which as yet touch only the public domain, likely to end at that. The very foundation principles of the ownership of land, as vested in individuals and protected by law, cannot escape much longer from a searching and radical investigation; and when that comes, the arbitrary legislation of Government will have to give place to such natural and scientific principles regulating the subject as may be evolved. Land Reform, in its present aspect, is merely the prologue to a thorough and unsparing, but philosophical and equitable agrarianism, by means of which either the land itself, or an equal participation in the benefits of the land, shall be secured to the whole people.”

It seems to me that both Andrews and Warren use the word public. A lot of times the word is used to mean “the people in general” from what I can tell.

Driving to the dentist today I saw 2 signs with the word “public” on them. One was Montrose Public School. That school is available to the public of Montrose. However, I suppose it is not truly public because my children cannot attend that school because we do not live in Montrose…even if we used the road that went by the school on the way to the dentist.

The other sign I saw was on some Cor ground. That Ground is owned by the United States and the sign said: Public use access ends here. So supposedly anyone may use the public area. That ground was purchased from individuals whether they wanted to sell or not. A lot of it was fertile bottom ground that flooded and was good for farming…or bad for farming from time to time when flood waters overtook the farmland. I don’t think the Federal Government had any right to force individuals to sell that land to them. It is part of the Conservation system here. Lots of people can hunt on that public property so people here are happy that the land is open to “public” access.

As far as rights. The Articles of Confederation only relayed rights to who were free and were not paupers, vagabonds or breakers of the law.

So, it appears that a right is a privilege.

You Josf, has specific things that you would like to say. You may not be able to get me to say specific things so you can say your specific things. I can’t even use the English language correctly. Please, why don’t you say the specific things you want to say and then I can discuss with you until I understand…or until we decide I will never understand, or perhaps I will just disagree.

I think I am supposed to talk about the ownership of paper next. Paper can be bought at the store. After I buy the paper it is mine. Someone can take it from me. Someone can burn it up. Someone can put poison on it. If they do those things they are infringing upon my claim to the paper as I paid for the paper with my own money. Paper comes from trees. So the people who make paper have to purchase the things needed to make the paper. So when they sell me the paper, they have to recoup the cost and I suppose they make a profit as well to make it worth their time.

As far as the water tower in Waco, from what I remember a man didn’t fall into the tank but was left to decompose upon the tank after being killed and later a grappling hook was used to remove him. I had forgotten about the water tower. I suppose the Dividians had their own water source. It did not do them any good though when the criminals decided to execute the routine upon them.

That is good news that your brother would like an autographed copy. I would like an autographed copy as well. I think that if Howard Bloom does not answer you right away, that maybe we could each order a hard copy from zulu because I am not certain the book is paginated correctly. We could both look at it, critique it, fix it and order a corrected copy. Then we could “take orders” from our copy and that way we would not be out any money…except about $25 each since single copies are $8.95 and there is probably shipping too. I would gladly front your $25 as well as mine so that the $100 from your brother goes for printing good copies or marketing or whatever you want. Josf, you will accept a gift from your brother but not from me? My words are in the book too.

As far as your discussion partners choosing you, Yes, I can see that. I contacted you to ask you what you thought about Tom Woods Liberty Classroom. I picked your advice for some unknown reason. I think you picked the Russian though. And the Russian obliged. I picked you and you obliged. Discussion is a 2-way road. I was only trying to give an option if you need to concentrate on working with the Russian. I cannot do a lot of things at one time. I probably put that on you. You, though, are able to do many things at one time.

Honestly Josf, I want to hear the specific things you have to say. I am very interested, and if I do not agree, then that is part of discussion. I am not well-read like you are. I do not understand even the simplest things like “division of labor” without asking. I don’t have a reservoir of political economic ideas, theories, and actual working systems from which to draw. I do not have much in the secular way to offer as I am nearly 50 and just have my own thoughts, experiences and knowledge from the Bible. I do however find discussing with you challenging, but that may be for you about as challenging as playing chess with me. There would be no challenge.
“I don't know how our discussion will play out in time, I know that this friend in Russia is very unusual because of his determination to expose error in thinking. We are already thousands of words into a discussion and we have yet to make one step forward in resolving contentions. It is an epic battle.”

You expose error in thinking too. But what are the contentions?

I have a contention: “If I hear that socialism is a study of society”

Who says socialism is the study of society? I say that is not the correct definition. You say it is. So how do you know you are right?

“If I hear that socialism must be enforced by a select few exceptional individuals who are then given all the power they need to take all the power they need whenever they alone think they need more power, then I'll know what they mean, and I can then know that they are speaking about crime made legal”

How do you know the legal criminals did not use your definition of socialism to figure out how to steel power? Did they apply science to society and figure out how to game the system?

I see no reason to make things scarce. However, it seems in our current system the criminals have figured out how to make things “break” on time so that new purchases have to be made…or to not add all features into a release so as to make things obsolete. Personally, I would prefer to own the same dishwasher and never buy a new one. I don’t like spending my money on dishwashers. They have also figured out how to make clothes fade in the wash. I think it is part of the new “green” technology. Clothes that I have had forever now fade when they are washed. It makes me mad. Why would someone engineer something to break on schedule? So they have an abundance of their product to resell? It would not do for a person to own one dishwasher or refrigerator or car or mattress for a lifetime.
“Just now, just now, after years of being the nutcase in my family, I am just now, just now, after decades, gaining currency, where my closest human beings are just now listening to the information I have discovered.”

I am glad for you and for them. What you know is needed and to be heard is needed as well. I am still trying to be heard by those closest to me and it is very frustrating. Seems I am mostly misunderstood. It hurts me to the core.

Look at this: Do you think I would be asking questions here and talking here if I could be heard? Wouldn't I love to have a deep conversation with my husband about these matters? Wouldn't I love it if he would research and give me answers? Yes 100 times yes. I tried yesterday. It was horrible. It is better not to try and just do the small talk and get my "intellectual" fill at the DP.