Comment: Contrast and Comparisons?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Liberty (see in situ)

Contrast and Comparisons?

“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.”

That is a wonderful gift to be able to take things easy even when they are mind boggling. You are blazing a trail for book writing! Joe, let’s not kid ourselves. You are doing the job of a publisher! I am really looking forward to holding a hard copy of Joe Quotes!

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

I don’t think it is a refusal on my part. You can always ask me if I am refusing to understand and then I can tell you yes or no. If I never understand, then I never understand. Maybe I am unable to understand. That does not mean that I refuse to understand. I think refusing to understand is a game. I am not playing a game here…even if it is sort of chess :) It just means I don’t have the ability to understand. I think not understanding is different than refusing to understand.

You are not the student raising his and being ignored here. I WANT to hear what you have to say. I find it interesting and I have learned lots. Josf I teach 5th and 6th grade Sunday School. I only have between 5 and 10 students each week. I try on purpose to make sure that everyone is included. It is a goal of mine. I do however purposefully not call on students that always know the answers when other people have their hands raised. I do that because a lot of times those other people don’t raise their hands because they don’t know an answer. And even if an answer isn’t exactly what I am looking for we usually talk about it unless I am in a time crunch or something.

It kinda hurts my feelings when you say I am publicly hanging someone. That is not my goal. I am not calling them names. I don’t even call them names in my mind. It is not my goal to hang anyone. I realize those people are not here to answer. But they were public figures with public writings who spoke in public to achieve public goals. So I think that they have opened their work up to be discussed.

I had a thought this morning. People say the same thing about Ron Paul wanting to end the War on Drugs. I can imagine myself 100 years from now if I had never heard of Ron Paul and asking some serious questions. Ron Paul says he does not advocate people using drugs, but he advocates the liberty of the people to make the choice. And I suppose that the choice is sent back to the states to work out. I know there are people who follow Ron Paul because he advocates that freedom from Federal Drug laws.

That is not why I support him. I support him because of his complete message, and personally, I would prefer that people not use drugs. I have been there and done that and did not end up in a good spot. I look at drug use in our community and see ruined lives: Children whose parents are meth addicts. Children who are trying, but don’t have support at home. And it is not because their parents don’t love them, it is because a drug has taken charge of their lives.

There is a saying that goes something like this: “Sin takes you farther than you plan on going and doesn’t let you go when you want to leave.”

I was so messed up I couldn’t find my way out until God opened a door to a room full of light. It was a door that had always been there, but I could not see it. I look back and figure if I had not walked thru that door, I would have ended up in a ditch somewhere or in a girl’s home because my parents were at the point of committing me. I will be 50 next month and I have not outlived the regret of poor decisions. There is a verse:

• Romans 8:1 KJV
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

So I know that the condemnation is self-imposed. I am forgiven and as far as God is concerned that time is is cast into the deepest sea and is as far from me as the east is from the west. So I don’t wallow in my failure. But it is failure that is part of my life, so I still remember it. I have paid the cost and I still pay cost and now I know better. The problem is, as far as I can tell, and I don’t know the answer, but somehow I got sucked into that life. Yes, the decisions were my own deliberate determination to proceed down that path. But what if that path had not been so accessible? What if others had not of blazed that trail for me to follow?

“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?”

Are laws made for the purpose of helping a society and protecting individuals, but then things go wrong with the laws or the law enforcers? I have never given laws much thought. So this topic of moral man-made law is new for me.

I suppose you just figured out what you wanted to without dragging someone else thru the obstacle course with you? Well, I guess I am dragging you along my journey of trying to reason these things out. You have been at this much longer than I have.

“I thought about your confusing what Tucker says with your own experiences.”

Yes, I see thru my own eyes. I read this yesterday. It is Josiah Warren on Free Love:
Q: You have intimated that the odious doctrine of "free love" was fastened upon the village in order to set the public against the movement. Your assertion of the right of self-sovereignty certainly gives free scope to free love, or any ism or crotchet, however ridiculous or dangerous.

A: Yes, certainly it gives perfect freedom for anyone to do any thing that he can do at his own cost.

Every one is now free to wear a crown of thorns upon his head all the time, but no one does it. Whoever tries what is vulgarly called "free love" (if I understand what the words mean), will find it more troublesome than a crown of thorns. And there is not much danger of its becoming contagious where the results of experiments are made known. But forbid it and keep people ignorant of the effects of it, and there is danger of trouble of inexpressible. Among about thirty persons in and near New York who tried the experiment, two men shot themselves, one hung himself, one died in the insane asylum, and another told me that he would sooner commit suicide than to live as he had (in that way) the last nine years, and although decidedly against the common marriage system, he went back under it, as the least of present evils.

In what I have said, I have not mentioned the worst effects of promiscuity. These are best made known by a visit to Dr. Jourdain's gallery of anatomical specimens at number 397 Washington St., Boston.

For thirty three years spent in the midst of controversies and experiments on the subject, I remained in doubt as to what form that relationship would assume in the reign of equitable freedom. But about thirteen years ago, with the help of an English publication I did come to conclusions that have, ever since, remained undisturbed. One of these conclusions was, that this great subject is involved in the labor question, that justice to all labor of men, women, and children will settle it, as probably nothing else can, and without justice to labor, there is no escape from a return to barbarism.

In studying individuality as the great principle of order, and of security of confusion, you will see that it sanctions the most essential features of the common marriage systems, which are, one man to one woman for definite, specified length of time, renewable by consent of both parties.
That last sentence containing the words: “renewable by consent of both parties.” I suppose would keep people on their best behavior during the marriage contract? So that the contract might be renewed? Sort of like secession of the states was supposed to keep the Federal Government from abusing the states.
“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?”

Those words about a moral people and the constitution were said about the Federal Constitution:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”.- John Adams

That moral and religious author of the aliens and sedition acts?

Funny tho, then I read that even though the “Federalists” authored them, the “Democratic-Republicans” opposed the act but then proceded to use it on the “Federalists.”

“Democratic-Republicans denounced them, though they did use them after the 1800 election against Federalists.[3] They became a major political issue in the elections of 1798 and 1800. They were very controversial in their own day, as they remain to the present day. Opposition to them resulted in the highly controversial Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, authored by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.”

Oh well. I digress. I am being way to long winded. I am sorry.
“Maybe there is a path to find Stephen Andrews book on The History of Socialism.”

Note taken. Andrews wrote that, not Warren.
These were the other issues I was having a hard time with. They are not written by Tucker, but were added to the bottom of Tuckers writing so I believe he endorsed the sentiment. I don’t have an issue with all of the contrasts and comparison statements. But there are a few that I do and I have copied them below. I think I am having a hard time with the absolute statements of the Either/Or. As if there is not a 3rd option available. So perhaps we can put these on the table to discuss?

From here:
State Socialism and Anarchism:

by Benjamin R. Tucker (1854-1939)

SSA.34 I should not undertake to summarize this altogether too summary exposition of Socialism from the standpoint of Anarchism, did I not find the task already accomplished for me by a brilliant French journalist and historian, Ernest Lesigne, in the form of a series of crisp antithesis; by reading which to you as a conclusion of this lecture I hope to deepen the impression which it has been my endeavor to make.

The first considers revolutions as the indispensable agent of evolutions; the second teaches that repression alone turns evolutions into revolution.

One wishes that there should be none but proletaires.
The other wishes that there should be no more proletaires

One sees equality under a common yoke.
The other will secure equality in complete liberty. (Jesus said the poor will always be and this is also self evident in allowing people to reap what they sow as already discussed. There are fools and fools will choose foolishness.)

There are only these two Socialisms.
One is the infancy of Socialism; the other is its manhood.
One is already the past; the other is the future.
One will give place to the other.

SSA.36 Today each of us must choose for the one or the other of these two Socialisms, or else confess that he is not a Socialist.”
Or if you do not want to, say so and I won’t proceed. Thanks, Joe. Have a nice weekend. I didn't proof. I have to get going!