Comment: Working on removing confusion

(See in situ)

Working on removing confusion

"On the deal about renting houses, if I understand Social Anarchism correctly, the application does not disallow anyone from renting, but rather removes the obstacles that make the “playing field not level,” and those obstacles being government monopoly whereby legal criminals make their crimes legal thereby putting labor at a disadvantage to capital. So, if capital (products) were only the price of cost, then capital would be within everyone’s reach."


It is made clear by Stephen Pearl Andrews that the unwise choice of employing the word Anarchism was originally made by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, and this was at the time of the forming of the modern vernacular of Political Economy into the two basic (false) "Sides" of "Capitalism" and "Socialism".

Anarchism was wrongly chosen as a word to be used to differentiate between those people who work toward Liberty (strictly voluntary associations) and those people who work toward Slavery (Involuntary associations or Monopoly), so the use of the word Anarchism, or Socialism, or Capitalism, has to be understood in the context of goals.

If the goal is Liberty, then the words used will be accurate words, intending to inform, not intending to deceive.

If the goal is Slavery, then the words used will be false on purpose, intending to deceive, not intending to empower, inform, enlighten, in a competitive (not antagonistic) way.

"...the application does not disallow anyone from renting, but rather removes the obstacles that make the “playing field not level,"...”

I think that it is very important to get all the pieces together and then look back at that sentence from a viewpoint that identifies the word "removes" as a contentious word. The force that "removes" anything is a force that is cooperatively competitive, as opposed to antagonistically competitive.

Better is chosen over worse, in the sense that many better choices are much better than one poor choice, and in the case of money the concept of cooperatively competitive versus antagonistically competitive shows up without any room for doubt as to which is better, and which is worse, and if people have the choice, many people on a long, long, list of people, all having a choice, then all those people choose better, and they all don't choose One Legal Fraud and Extortion Money made Legal, by criminals with badges.

"...the application does not disallow anyone from renting, but rather removes the obstacles that make the “playing field not level,"...”

The force that removes the obstacles that make the playing field not level is, in the very capable illustration of legal money, choices for many people to make, between better and worse, and worse goes out of circulation, and better keeps on getting better, and that is called competition, but again, words either have accurate meaning or words are purposefully intended to deceive the targets, and confuse the targets.

Might makes Right, for example, is an antagonistic from of competition, as if saying, OK, the person or group that can lie the best, threaten the best, and violently destroy innocent people the best, is the perfect example of the best competitor.

If that "might makes right" is your working definition of the word "competition" then you won't understand a word written by Josiah Warren, Stephen Pearl Andrews, Benjamin R. Tucker, or Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.

If that is your working definition of "competition" whereby "Might makes Right", then you are more likely to understand Marx or Ben Swan, or anyone else having that working in their brains, where Might makes Right, and that process is the shinning example of what is meant to compete in competition.

I know I go off on these tangents, as do you, but we are just two competitive people seeking better for worse, and having a very difficult time finding agreement. Wouldn't it be easier for either of us to just cut corners, resort to deception, instead of actually working toward a negotiated agreement?

"...and those obstacles being government monopoly whereby legal criminals make their crimes legal thereby putting labor at a disadvantage to capital."

Here, in those above words, are to me cause for more celebration, not Glory, but cause to step on this step and look all around, and see, and know, that this is a point of competitive understanding.

You don't say "government" without the qualifier of "monopoly".

Now you say, or write, "government monopoly", and to me the use of the word "government" is the one word that does not fit, since it is "monopoly" that is the working thing, not "government", but the words do combine to make better sense of what type of "monopoly" is being looked at, inspected, measured, and found to be what it is, and found not to be what some people claim that it is, for whatever reasons they may have for falsifying the meanings of words.

"...labor at a disadvantage to capital..."

Here is a potential mine field. Just as it was demonstrated by Andrews that the word "anarchism" is a poor choice of a word, because it alienates so many people right away, turning so many people off, like a "knee jerk reaction", immediately turning off so many people to any further interest, the words "labor" and "capital" are as potentially destructive in the same way, to enter a person's brain, to then be immediately rejected, calling forth any number of bad feelings, and then that interest in that person to know what anything else might be said by that person, is gone in a flash.

You combine those words in that order and your intended partner in competition toward knowing better is put off, never to listen to you again?

"..labor at a disadvantage to capital.."

It may be a good idea to avoid those words,and to speak in more accurate terms, since no one is going to buy those words, since those words are on the bad list of words, for about half of the worlds population.

If you are speaking to the non-capitalist polarized world, then those words will be welcome to them.

"..labor at a disadvantage to capital.."

To be more specific, consider, competitive terms as such:

"...honest productive people are at a disadvantage to criminals with badges..."

I don't know if you can make any sense of all this, at this point, but the Web of Deceit is woven very tight, and has been worked on, by very bad people, for centuries, so the job can't be easy.

"So, if capital (products) were only the price of cost, then capital would be within everyone’s reach."

Again, terms that you now understand may not convey well to anyone else, since you have done so much costly work on getting past "seeing red", or seeing past the lies, and instead you are finding the facts, just the facts, thank you very much.

I see you use parenthesis, toward that end, on your own now, as if you do realize what I am trying to say to you.


Competition A:

"So, if capital were only the price of cost, then capital would be within everyone’s reach."

Competition B:

"So, if capital (products) were only the price of cost, then capital would be within everyone’s reach."

Competition C:

"So, if products were only the price of cost, then products would be within everyone’s reach."

Here, even here, without using the word "capital" there are people who will be threatened by those words as they want to hold their "profits" dear to their hearts, and if that is so, then there is confusion on their part.

Costs are whatever the most efficient producer makes them, including the costs of going on vacation, to charge batteries, and those costs are added to the Cost/Price so long as some other competitor is not offering lower Cost/Price without the vacation.

So the falsehoods still work upon the dupes who can't see, as they are then inspired, by falsehood, to claim that no one can afford any vacations under such conditions of competition.

That is not true, and the reason that is not true is knowable when understanding how power abundance works compared to power scarcity.

In Josiah Warren's day, for example, mid 19th century, the work load per person for an average standard of living was about 4 hours a day. That was before the use of oil, electricity, and natural gas, and that was before modern communication, connectivity, where information can travel instantly from one person to everyone else.

Where does all the profits go (why use the word profits?) while there is now so much more power that allows human beings to work less and get more for each hour of work?

A person reading your words, and then claiming that you are working to take away their profits, take away their vacations, take away their retirements, is a person stuck in the Web of Lies, and they are inspired to write another check to the IRS, or lie less on their Federal Tax forms, or at least hire better liars to make the "workers" pay their taxes, and put in jail those who don't, so as to perpetuate this method of making sure that the "laborers" don't take over MY MONOPOLY "government".

This is where I ask you, over and over again, what makes an employer no longer an employee?

What makes a borrower no longer a lender?

The President of a Bank does not work?

The President of a Bank does not labor?

Cut through all the Might makes Right dogma, please, and just ask, and find out, where does all the power to purchase go, since we human beings are now so able, so capable, of making things that make things, and once made, turn on the switch, and things that were scarce are now abundant.

Where does all that power go, and how does all that power flow that way, and any time spent on this trail constitutes following the ONE MONOPOLY money trail.

Forget about all the dogma about who earns what, how, and when, until you solve the Monopoly Money problem, and then things may fall better into place as to who is a Friend of Liberty, what they are going to do to get away from the opposite, and who is a Friend of Legal Crime (Legal Money Monopoly Fraud Crime in Progress) and what they are willing to do to get their way.

One way is honest and productive, and measurably so, and the other way is dishonest and destructive, and measurably so, and what then is the standard of measure in either case?

"So, then, with my understanding of capitalism is that prices are set upon supply and demand, then that would not work with the idea of cost being the limit to price. Am I thinking correctly?"

Pricing POWER has to be understood in any case, and I think it is vitally important to do the work necessary to know better, and in any case of anything one person has in exchange for something another person has, the work, in each case, has to be done, over and over again, until you defeat the dogma/dragons/lies/propaganda/brainwashing/response conditioning/behavioral modification that infects your brain.

Why is one person said to be selling and another person said to be buying something? Each person, in an equitable trade, each time, is seller and buyer.

In each case of just two people, each is seller, each is buyer, not one at a disadvantage to the other, or if there is disadvantage, then what is that disadvantage, and how is it measured?

I can offer an example, and my choice is chosen for a reason.

Ben Bernanke is selling this very big lie to everyone using dollars as money. Ben writes a check for as much money as everyone else combined, and then Ben sells that check to everyone else, and in this case of commerce, in this case of trading, in this case of an exchange of one thing for another thing, what does Ben Bernanke get, and what does everyone else get in exchange for that check?

Is that too complicated?

How about you writing a check for tomato jars? You write a check that says this money is good for 10 tomato jars full of delicious tomatoes. Can you sell that check?

So, you have now two homework assignments, if you care to do the work, and tell me whatever you can about these two transactions, as to how one transaction compares to the other transaction, and in this work you can answer some of your own lingering doubts as to what you do know and what you have yet to know, and know better.

Ben Bernanke writes a check that amounts to "as much purchasing power" as everyone else combined, and Ben does, in fact, sell that check to everyone else who uses FRNs. To be more clear, every producer of wealth who uses FRNs to do business, they buy that check from Ben Bernanke because Ben Bernanke spends all the "profits" earned by all the producers with that check Ben Bernanke write for himself and his exclusive group of Legal Criminals.

bear writes a check for 10 tomato jars worth of tomatoes in jars, and bear imagines finding someone who will buy that new inventive form of competitive money.

"It is very hard for me to conceptualize cost being the limit to price…for everything."

The work you may do on 1 and 2 above may help. How much do you get when you sell your check for 10 tomato jars? Do you settle for a trade that is less than all the costs you spend on making those 10 jars of tomatoes? If so then it won't do you any good, economically, to spend that one check on buying only 10 empty glass jars. Can you add the cost of going on vacation for a year in Rio? Ben Bernanke can buy all the materials needed to start, persecute, and clean up World War III.

Somewhere in the middle of you with your money and Ben with his money is people happy about eating tomatoes in jars and people happy about buying World War III.

One direction works to use the power available to make more power, to make power move from scarcity into abundance, and the other direction works to move all power from every source to the few legal criminals and in order to accomplish that goal all competition must be destroyed.

If you can think in terms of power, where is it, what is it doing, then you can start seeing the difference between productive power, what does it do, how is it measured, who measures it, how much is there, how much will there be in the future, and what a future looks like when productive power is abundant, and compare that future to the future that is demonstrated by those who use the power they steal to then steal as much as they can, and inevitably they must destroy all competition to keep that power going, and it is destructive power and by that process the inevitable goal is reached, where power is so scarce that almost everyone will do almost anything asked of them, to avoid starvation, and death.

This is not so tough, but your work has to be done, when you have the power to do the work, and if you don't have the power to do the work, then you are powerless, as power is scarce, so why does that not make sense?

Take the historical example of Egypt and see how power was so readily available, so abundant, that those people could live, reproduce, and make Pyramids.

Take away their power to farm, take away the power of irrigation, take away the water, and can they still build Pyramids?

What happens if instead of building Pyramids they used the power consumed in that work to make more power out of less power?

No Pyramids, what did they buy instead?

Take modern times, today, and wake up tomorrow with no more gasoline, no more home heating oil, no more coal, no more electricity, no more water, no more food, no more houses, no more clothes, and everyone tomorrow morning wakes up in the dirt.

Power is relatively abundant right now. Tomorrow it is scarce compared to right now.

Who does what, competitively, to make more power out of less power, and what does that person do with that new supply of power abundance?

Does that person use that power to do The Ben Bernanke on everyone else, or does that person try to find someone willing to repeat, reproduce, the example, and then other people have more power too, and in what way, what form, what type, of power is produced with the scarce power available?

Productive power?

Destructive power?

Which direction is better?

What is the goal?

Use scarce power to make more power out of less?

Use scarce power to steal power from other people who also have scarce power, and logically, use scarce power to defend against people using scarce power to steal power?

There is, obviously, measurably, three types of exchanges of power, that can be measured physically, as in a measure of Kilowatt Hours, or calories, but that also requires a psychological power to judge if a calorie is worth anything compared to a kilowatt hour.

Focus on the three types and then things may make more sense.

1. Inequitable by mutual agreement (charity)
2. Equitable by mutual agreement (equity)
3. Inequitable by lies, threats, and violence (crime)

Which way ends up with more power at the end of the day compared to the amount of power at the start of the day?

"So, that link I handed you this morning…the guy was talking about federated voluntarism…would anarchistic socialism work in limited area, or would it take a great country of space and people to realize the benefit?"

You are where I was, low power at the start of the day, lower power at the end of the day, and eventually, if you persist, in my opinion, you can figure out how to use scarce power to make more power by the end of the day. Things begin to make sense, and then it begins to be a self sustaining power that can be called knowledge, but there are dangers, since the subject matter can be very disturbing.

To be more specific:

"would it take a great country of space and people to realize the benefit?"

Economies of scale work this way, where a small benefit is gained by one person, where the day starts out with low power and the day ends with more power, in a physically measurable way, and as is found out the next morning, in a physiologically measurable way, starting out another day with even more power than yesterday, and ending the day with more power still, and that is then physically and psychologically (what I say is economic and political) powerful.

Less in the past, more in the future, power, reaching toward power independence - individually.

What happens when two people are on that path competitively, each showing the other one how to gain more during the day compared to yesterday?

The benefits are not a sum of the two individual parts when there is cooperative competition (opposite of antagonistic competition) because of division of labor and specialization, something we can go over again, but the present question concerns the process, or phenomenon, of economies of scale, suffice to say that cooperative competition is an exponential increase in benefits and an exponential decrease in costs.

One person can only make enough to survive.

Two people can make a third person.

100 people can run a system called Trial by Jury based upon sortition and exemplify how crime can be practically eliminated from human activity.

How many people is required to send a person to Mars? How much power is needed, compared to the power required to build a Pyramid?

" if socialists had to compete next door to capitalists, would that work?"

In the case of the working example of The Articles of Confederation between 1776 and 1788 there were States of various stages of despotism, slavery, involuntary associations, among the competitive examples of cooperative political economy, making less power into more power, and some were this way and some where that way, and claiming that some were "socialists" and some were "capitalist" is part of the problem, a game of dividing and conquering, and those who buy into that falsehood pay the price, so I see past the labels, and I get to the root of the matter. If a person like Daniel Shays's continues the battle to stop the criminals from taking over the government in Massachusetts, but fails, then that individual can shop around for a better government, because the design of the government is a Free Market design, so Daniel Shays's votes with his feet, a runaway slave from Massachusetts, and he runs to Vermont, all nice a legal, in a Free Market Voluntary Government design, which is the way that works when it works that way.

No "federal" troops conscripted by a dictator in chief sent into Vermont to take the runaway slave out of Vermont and kidnap the slave, and enslave the slave, lawfully, placing the slave back into the hands of the slave masters in Massachusetts who have given themselves badges.

Free Market Government can be said to be a capital idea?

If it is a flow of power flowing from many people into one storage place, then it is socialism by almost every person who uses the word socialism, since collecting all those collections of all that individual power from all those individuals flowing into the one place, is by that physical measure, a collectivizing of power, or collectivism.

Every man for themselves, on the other hand, is not collectivism.

How bad can the evil of deception get?

How is bad measured?

I keep linking the autopsy (falsified) reports from Waco, where all those terrorists killed themselves by burning themselves alive, and their heads were missing, and their bodies crushed, and their bodies were piled up into one commingled mass of former living human beings, and I paid for it, that was financed by me, the "Federal Income Taxes" I paid at that time were enormous. I was taking in about 70 grand a year in those days, working my life to death.



Where are my blinders, my ear plugs, and my muzzle made in China?

"OK, this bothers me too:"

Please bear in mind that Andrews is speaking about the work of Benjamin Tucker who was speaking about the work of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. It was Tucker who wrote about the "anarchists" Warren, Proudhon, and Marx, where Warren and Proudhon went the Liberty Way (competition) and Marx went the other way (State Socialism or what I call Legal Crime), so, so, so, it is not Andrews to be held to account for those things that bother you, rather, it is Pierre-Joseph Proudhon who was speaking about religion.

I think that Andrews was trying to separate Proudhon, and his ideas, from Warren, Equitable Commerce, and those things proven by Warren to be true, and not just "theory".

Keep in mind that there is now this nebulous "Labor Theory of Value", something that may have been started by Benjamin Tucker, but that fails to actually convey the information offered by Warren in Equitable Commerce, so I think Andrews is offering a competitive "translation" of Proudhon, which is something that Benjamin Tucker was less able to accomplish.

Please note how Warren and Equitable Commerce is missing in almost every case of any discussion about Political Economy when any reading of the actual work uncovers very important discoveries, inventions, and step by step methods of reaching Liberty.


"Not that they would not deny religious freedom, but that Bakunin says if God exists, it would be necessary to abolish Him. That sure would leave a vacuum for evil, since of course God does exist and so does Evil. If God were removed, Evil would run rampant."

Yes that was the other person involved in Political Economy at the time of the beginning of Communism (Bolshevism being the historical example) and both Bakunin and Andrews were thrown out of The Internationale, for speaking their heresy (voluntary associations).

Bakunin, and many of the atheist, as far as I know, are targeting False Religions, and they declare their disbelief in False Religions, as everyone should, since they are false. As to what is, or is not, true religion, as far as I know, as far as I can know: God is either known, on an individual basis, or not known, according to God and God's will to let the individual in on the truth.

We go over and over that often, and I'm really trying to know better, but not much success is measurable in a physical way.

James 1:16 Do not er , my beloved brethren. 17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Words can be confused, "above" is a direction opposite the force of gravity on earth? If so then above is an infinite number of directions all at once. Looking up is the same as looking down, if the idea is to actually find God looking back?

I can wave, but I'm not so sure that he is waving back to me.