Comment: Liberty

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Josf, "If you do not (see in situ)


"Do I need to understand Tucker and Warren and Andrews in order to understand Liberty?"

I've been working on book thing today, doing chores, and wrestling with formats, confusing stuff, mind boggling puzzles, too much for someone too simple like me. But it is still fun, it is still a challenge, and for some reason I have been built to take things easy, even things that other people think are hard things.

I thought about your confusing what Tucker says with your own experiences. Suppose, I thought to myself, suppose that you were kept from God by a man with a badge, and a gun, and a license, and an order to be followed without question, and therefore you were made to abide by rules, and orders, and things that someone else thought was good for you, and so those events that led you to realize God, in your own special way, was delayed, or removed from your life by that man made law man, or group of men, and women, dictating to you what you must do, and what you must not do, according to you.

You, are taken out of the equation, and in between you, all your faults, all your mistakes, and all your lessons that you pay for dearly on your own, are removed from you, by some guy, some group, some license, some badge, and some man made authority, suppose, I think, suppose that happened to you, or instead of you, that happens to a million, a hundred million, other people, because that happens that way to all those people?

Instead of being unrestrained by man made laws that dictate what can or cannot be done, without question, there is instead a very powerful group of people, all men and women of flesh and blood, preventing all those millions of people from learning their own way through life, and what does that actually mean in reality?

Is it possible that instead of an individual having free access to God, if they will, if they may, if they can, instead of that, there is in place a very powerful man made road block?

I think that is the message Tucker offers, even if you refuse to see it.

"If I think I disagree with something should I find out why? I am sorry I did that at your expense." If I accept the challenge then it is not my expense, it is my fortune, not my expense.

"As an alternative, they favored 'free love' unions in which there was no state interference into the voluntary sexual contracts of couples."

Here again is the message in context with Man Made Laws that inevitably pervert God's Laws, so why invest so much into such things, when they are evil things?

That is the message. It is as plain as day to me. It is not what you keep claiming it to be, some nebulous support, investment, advocating, inventing, creating, producing, and maintaining of lust, adultery, and whatever some people will, may, or can do, if they are not aware of the error, or if they are not threatened with physical harm, and unfortunately some people do have to learn the hard way, and unfortunately there are not enough people who can stand as warning signs saying don't do this, because this will happen to you too, and unfortunately not enough people actually caring enough to listen for warning signs offered generously by people having the power of true authority.

"I suppose I also confuse the term free love with the idea of the sexual revolution of the 60's?"

I think that we both know that much of the supposed "Free Love" thoughts and actions were abuses of "public" access major media sources as supposed "communists" (Legal Criminals) were effecting their own plans to shape "society" in their image. That is exactly the kind of wrong that is traveled when people are led down false avenues such as a supposed need to "regulate" love and marriage.

Regulating love and marriage is just another false front covering up the real game at play which is making crime legal for the criminals.

Innocent targets fall victim to that false front as well as many other similar tunes played on the same fiddle.

"From my reading today, the only thing I am taking issue with is that love ends which then ends marriage. My understanding of Love is that it is not a feeling. Love is a practice. Love is patient and kind and not proud. It is giving and gentle and seeks the other person's good. Sometimes I have to work at those things because sometimes I am not a nice person."

Good examples can be ignores as well as bad examples and so what can be done to help other people avoid repeating the bad example, and help other people find even better examples to set?

The message offered by Tucker is to say, well, one obvious thing to not do, if the goal is Liberty, is to not, please don't, send all your earnings to the worst people on the planet, because those people will use the power they get to steal more power, to then define the meaning of crime as being what they do, and to then crush anyone else daring to do what they do so well, as they pay themselves liberally for what they do so well, and then they hand their victims the bill.

"If a man is pleased to dwell with a woman, I suppose he will treat her in a pleasing way and vice versa."

You can lead a horse to water, but making him, or her, drink is another matter entirely.

"I wonder if the person who said the constitution was for a moral people said that because liberty can easily turn in to tyranny as immoral people take advantage of those who are moral or weaker. Liberty can also be turned in to licentiousness as people begin to practice immorality. The other thing that happens is people try to prohib licentiousness in such a way that tyranny is caused as well."

That is well understood by me to be factual except the details on what you mean by "the constitution", do you mean a State Constitution or the Monopoly False Federal ONE?

"(rights that the husband did indeed traditionally enjoy under 19th-century American law – and which survived longer into the 20th century than you may think)"

I contend with that on the grounds that there are many supposed laws, many supposed claims to authority, and if the idea is to limit crime, such as rape, then it may be a good idea to entertain the man made laws that actually worked toward that end, such as Trial by Jury based upon Sortition, and voluntary, competitive, free market government designs such as the example set with The Articles of Confederation in America between 1776 and 1788.

"I am sorry you spent hours writing yesterday only to have to erase it. I had looked forward to your reply. I realize you had a lot to do yesterday and I am sorry I caused your time to be spent in that way."

I did not "have to" do anything, not at that moment, not in my own mind, I had a choice, and there was no need to flip a coin for me to decide on the right choice. My tone was not kind, and there is no need for more of that from me, even if I am pretending to defend someone like Tucker from being misrepresented - as far as I could tell.

[There is also a link on that page to: john humphrey noyes on josiah warren, from the classic book "history of american socialisms"]

I have that link bookmarked. Maybe there is a path to find Stephen Andrews book on The History of Socialism.

"I was wondering if that perhaps was the work you were looking for, but it wasn’t written by Warren."

I don't remember where I read that Stephen Pearl Andrews wrote a History of Socialism, but I've been looking for that book, even if I am misdirected.

"If or when I pass on cost to you, please tell me so I can quit. I do not want to wear out my welcome or take advantage of your generousity."

That works both ways.