Thank you for your generous reply. Here is the next contrast I do not understand:
“One wishes that there should be none but proletaires.
The other wishes that there should be no more proletaires”
- Ernest Lesigne From here: http://praxeology.net/BT-SSA.htm
State Socialism and Anarchism:
HOW FAR THEY AGREE, AND WHEREIN THEY DIFFER (1888)
by Benjamin R. Tucker (1854-1939)
So I find that proletaires is the French word for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletariat : “proletariat” (pron.: /ˌproʊlɪˈtɛəriːət/ from Latin proletarius, a citizen of the lowest class) is a term used to identify a lower social class, usually the working class; a member of such a class is proletarian. Originally it was identified as those people who had no wealth other than their children.
So I read the statement as State Socialism wants everyone to be working class and anarchism wants no working class. Or perhaps Anarchism wants no classes whatsoever.
I have never worried about class. What difference does it make to me if some people have wealth and I don’t. Why should that trouble or bother me? Maybe they and theirs have paid costs that me and mine have not. Or maybe they were born with a silver spoon. So what?
Romans 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 What if *God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
In my way of thinking, I am what I am and as long as I am what God has made me, what concern is it of mine what he has made someone else to be?
Matthew 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast , and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. 22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. 23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. 25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? 26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
Someone’s wealth may be their very eternal downfall if they cannot overcome the deception and temptation it holds.
“One wishes that there should be none but proletaires.
The other wishes that there should be no more proletaires”
What is it your Battan friend said?
“The friend I had who was one of the survivors of the Bataan Death March cautioned against the wastes of wishing things into being.”
Would wishing about proletariats fall into that category?
Matthew 6: 32(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. 33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. 34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
• Luke 3:…11He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise...14 And the soldiers likewise demanded of him [John the Baptist], saying , And what shall we do ? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely ; and be content with your wages.
The Bible teaches to do what is good and right to others, to share, and to be content.
"So is the first like the Bolshevik revolution where a worse tyranny is taking over thru revolution?"
You: “Why do you ask the question in that way? I've broadcast the links to Anthony Sutton's work on Wall Street financing all sides, including the Bolshevik "side" so as to cause World War II. Why was Stephen Pearl Andrews and Mikhail Bakunin thrown out of The First Internationale? Where did Lenin get his start up money?”
It seems to me that that is an OK example because what happened was criminal and was funded by criminals and it doesn’t matter if it is called fried chicken or whether the revolution causing the evolution takes place on the planet mars.
I understand at this point that the Bolshevik revolution was funded by wallstreet and it seems to me, that that compare and contrast could also be added to the list of State socialism vs. anarchy; i.e.
State Socialism is financed by criminals wearing a false front supposedly helping the people while anarchy is the people helping themselves without involving that false front of legal crime.
Or in other words State Socialism is nothing both one criminal power trying to eject another criminal power in the name of helping the people whereby in your words: “The big lie perpetrated upon the victims is always a transfer of power from the victims who create that power, that power that is worth stealing, and then that power is used to steal more power from the victims.”
I think you take it too personal when I point out that the Bolshevik revolution is an example of State Socialism. I don’t know why. I could also have used Hitler as an example of State Socialism. I could use the current affairs of the United States as an example of State Socialism. But I chose a point in history that had the word “revolution” attached to it. As a matter of fact, I would like to know where a voluntary situation exists at all. Can you point one out? A real place where everything is voluntary? It seems to me that Thomas Paine’s words bear out that there is not voluntary situation once the group of people become to large to self-govern:
"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil…” http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm
So, I have come up with some thoughts. Hopefully I am not misrepresenting Thomas Paine or perhaps my thoughts are not logical, but I am tossing them out for you to look at.
What makes government a necessary evil? Is it not that a voluntary situation does not exist in the shadow of government? And there are degrees to which government is evil? If, then, society in every state is a blessing, how can one maintain that blessing under a necessary, but evil, thing? Is there not always a tension between the blessing of society and the necessary evil of government?
Is it truth that governments are instilled among men for a good purpose:
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Does a tension exist because evil men would like to overthrow any government in order to steal the power from the people? So then, agents of the government begin to form protection of the government to keep evil people from taking over in order to protect the people’s government and those same protections begin to infringe upon the consent of the people? And then the agents of the government become that which they are trying to protect the people against?
• “A quick look (by me, not a quick look by other people) finds this:
Have you done much hunting around on that link?
“That appears to be apples and oranges to me. God murders babies? That is a question. You tell me the accurate answer, please.”
You turn the righteous command of God into murder, in my opinion. Just like I turned Tucker’s words into my understanding of his words.
You do not believe the Bible to be the Word of God. I do. When the Bible says the Angel of the Lord commanded Joshua to kill everything, then I accept those words as truth. You do not. I do not berate you because you do not accept them as truth, as the very word of God.
If God orders the destruction of everything who am I a mere mortal to question God, who is righteous and merciful and holy and just. God knows the beginning and the end and sees both the past, present and future at one time. If God says everything within some walls must die, then God knows best because God is all-knowing and merciful and would not command or do something against what is righteous or just or merciful. The Bible records that the Angel of the Lord commanded Joshua to kill everything within the walls of Jericho. It was not murder. God is not a murderer. God is a just and righteous judge and if he deems that those within the wall need to be destroyed, then that is what God has said.
I see the utopian side of marriage, a man loving a woman and cleaving to her so much so that he would lay down his life for her, I weigh those words against Tucker’s words and find Tucker’s words not measuring up to what a man is supposed to be and do for his wife. And I failed to see that Tucker was attacking the man-made laws that ALLOWED a man NOT to be that for his wife and FORCED her to put up with it.
The people of Jericho were a people bent upon human ritualistic sexual sacrifice to evil. They conceived their children in that practice and also burned their children alive in that practice. Who am I to say why God cannot end a civilization that is built on a foundation of evil? God knew what each person in that civilization would be and become if they were to live out their lives. Maybe they were all demon possessed. I do not know. Who am I to question what God knows? If God ordered Joshua to do that, who am I to say I know better than God? Who am I to call the Righteous Creator and Judge of the Universe a murderer?
I understand the Bible to be the 100% accurate Word of God accounting of history and eternity. You do not. I do not berate you for that. I accept that you do not and you will not unless God opens your eyes to be able to do that.
“You made the claim that Tucker was advocating adultery.”
The Bible says that if a man divorces his wife for any other reason than adultery he commits adultery when he marries a new wife. So what I was reading in Tucker’s words was that a man could love as short of time as he wanted and then go and find someone else to love regardless of why he no longer loved the first wife. In the terms of the Bible I understand that to be adultery. i.e. unless the other partner commits adultery, there is no reason to divorce and IF one does divorce on non-Biblical grounds and THEN remarries someone else, they commit adultery in that remarriage. If people separate for grounds other than adultery they are to remain unmarried. Why would God set forth such a rule?
“One guy attacks Andrews, misrepresents Andrews, in almost the same way that you misrepresent Tucker, and you think that Andrews, in defense, is guilty of a cheap shot.”
Does not a cheap shot constitute becoming that which one abhors?
“More evidence proving the point, the personal nature of the letter, Andrews overstepping the boundaries of good conduct in divulging private, not public, information, etc., could open my eyes to this alleged cheap shot perpetrated by Andrews”.
I have reread what I thought I did not like and it seems that James sent the letter to Mr. R. and Mr. R. is the one that printed the letter. Mr. R, then sent the letter to Andrews and then Andrews replied…at least that is what I got out of all of it. I have decided to shut my mouth about it. I can’t even understand half the sentences I read any more. I guess I am tired or just stupid. Please, just know when I bring up something that I disagree with, I do not have any malice in my heart toward the person and I am not trying to discredit them or hang them or misrepresent them. I am just trying to talk about what I think I understand which is obviously not even in the ball park when compared to your understanding. So I suppose it is Mr. R. that I should have a contention with…
“If that is cause for loss of respect then there are so many things about me that you aught to consider before you credit me with any respect whatsoever.”
Well, as far as I can tell, anytime I have asked you to back off (whether it be in language or letting me out of a discussion that I can’t support myself in, or saying that my feelings have been hurt) you have been respectful of my request. Only one time did you surprise me by publishing my name and when I asked you not to do that you immediately fixed it. So as far as I can tell we all do things that are disrespectful, but when it is called out by the one feeling the disrespect, and then respect is given in turn, I think that earns respect. I respect your opinions. I respect your ability to reason. I respect your ability to write. I respect your generosity in helping me learn. I respect the fact that early in our discussion you told me you were happily married. I respect that you cook and do chores. The only thing I don’t like is when people attack each other. If you purposely hurt people, I would not respect that.
You say you don't mean to misrepresent people, sure, I get that, but you keep doing it.
"I remember you didn’t like me questioning Pilger either."
That is a misrepresentation.
You did it.
Well then I am pretty stupid then because I am very poor at interpreting what I think people are saying. I am sorry I misrepresented you as well. I will have to learn to do better.
"It never crossed my mind that the government was punishing people for making mistakes."
That sentence confesses a lot of trouble in thinking, to me. A thing cannot "punish" and that is what Tucker was all about, the message offered, is that individuals punish, and individuals make up these lies where the liars are not held to account for the actions of the liars, instead there is a thing that is held to account for those actions.
Well, I should have said it did not occur to me that individual people in government were creating and using laws that ended up punishing people for making mistakes.
We can do the work.
Take any case that can, will, or may happen, and we can try a few angles of view, competitive angles of views, as to which ways can work to solve that crime problem, and which ways work less well.”
How about one of the Baptist persecution cases I listed below? Or we could do the 16 year daughter of Moses Harmon who was not lawfully married and was put in jail with her husband after their wedding night. Or we could do something contemporary if you like. What do you think would work best?
“The Constitution made slavery legal, so people in Rhode Island, by law, had to return runaway slaves running to Rhode Island. Does it matter that the Masters call Slavery with names that sound religious?”
Was slavery already “legal” in certain states before the constitution?
“If The Articles of Confederation stood longer as a working Free Market of Government, is it possible that Mormons could have settled Utah, became a State, without the order to Kill all Mormons issued by the Union Man who ended up taking over the POWER of that State in the Monopoly Nation State where evil is the religion?”
That long link I pasted a couple of replies ago with the same guy that interviewed Gatto said something about criminals, I think free-masons, migrating into the Mormon religion because the Free Masons’ became known for their criminal globalist deeds. But that was several days ago so I cannot remember exactly what was said, but my ears perked up when I heard it. It was a 2 hour talk so I don’t know if I will listen to it again. Maybe I will since I can’t remember what I heard. That is my problem. Can’t remember anything. I don’t think I can even discuss well any more.
“If all those Mormons are merely another counterfeit version of religion, and I don't know, I have my guesses, then what about a competitive Amish State in the Voluntary Union to set a better example?”
Do states have to be a certain size? Would the Amish State have Amish laws, like no cars? No electricity, etc.? What happens when someone moves to their state and wants electricity?
“Rhode Island was made better once the National Government Power began to enforce free speech?”
“Were those Baptists working to get the first amendment attached into their State Constitutions? Were they working with the all powerful Nation State Constitution proponents? In other words, were they working for a Nation State along side of the Federalists (Nationalists, Slave Traders, and Central Bankers) or were they, like the true federalists (called Anti-Federalists), working to take the evil out of the National Power Grab, and doing so by adding, at least, a Bill of Rights to the Usurpation where the Central Bankers like Hamilton, the Monarchists, where allowing the British Legal Criminals to retake control over the productive capacity of the people in America?”
From what I understand they had been under religious persecution in England, and then again in American. Then they fought the revolution war hoping that they could also achieve religious freedom. I think they would not sign the constitution until the freedom of religion amendment was added. They already had to flee to Rhode Island because the other states enforced state religions.
In the years prior to the American Revolution, Baptists endured severe religious persecution -- particularly in Virginia. When the Continental Congress declared independence from England, Baptists swelled the ranks of the revolutionary army. In their mind, the fight for independence and the struggle for religious liberty were one and the same. That is why, after the war, Baptists refused to approve the Constitution until the first amendment was added to separate church and state and guarantee religious liberty for all persons.
Soon Backus and others began to realize that the Baptist search for religious liberty could be tied to the colonial search for political liberty. In 1774 Backus, Chileab Smith and James Manning went to the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia to try to win support from the other colonies for their fight for religious liberty in New England. They were not well received. John Adams, Sam Adams and Robert Treat Paine accused them of trying to use a minor issue to divide the colonies as they were preparing a defense for political liberty.
When the revolution began Baptists joined the cause for political liberty still hoping that it would lead to religious liberty. In 1776, James Manning read the declaration of Independence from the steps of his church, Backus preached a sermon encouraging active resistance to the king on the Sunday following the Battle of Lexington, and Baptists readily enlisted in the revolutionary army.”
Why you may say?
I have listed a few. There are more on the link.
“John Clarke (1609-1676) was the most influential Baptist in the early colonial period. He started a town at Newport, Rhode Island and by 1644 had founded a Baptist church there. In the summer of 1651, Clarke, John Crandall, and Obadiah Holmes -- all members of the Baptist Church at Newport-- were arrested and imprisoned for holding an unauthorized worship service in the home of a blind Baptist named William Witter who lived at Lynn, Massachusetts outside Boston. They were sentenced to be fined or whipped. Fines for Clarke and Crandall were paid by friends. Holmes refused to let friends pay his fine and was publicly whipped on the streets of Boston on September 6, 1651.”
“In 1653, Henry Dunster, the first president of Harvard University, refused to have his fourth child baptized as an infant and proclaimed that only believers should be baptized. He was forced to resign from his position and banished from Cambridge, Massachusetts.”
“In 1663, John Myles moved an entire Baptist congregation from Wales to escape the religious persecutions authorized by the 1662 Act of Uniformity. They first settled in Massachusetts, but by 1667 the authorities forced the congregation to move to the frontier in Rhode Island.”
“An elderly widow who lived in Raynham and belonged to the Baptist church in Middleborough, Massachusetts. She refused to pay a tax to support the minister of the established Congregational church in Raynham on the grounds that she was a dissenter from that church and had become a Baptist. The town of Raynham refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of her church and put her in jail. After visiting her is prison, her pastor, Isaac Backus, said "She told me that the first night she was in there she lay on the naked floor and she said she never imagined that the floor was so easy to lie upon before" and that "she was easy to stay there as long God saw best she should." Though she could have paid the tax and been released at any time, she remained in jail for thirteen months. City leaders finally became so embarrassed that they released her from the charge.”
“Baptists founded a church in Ashfield, Massachusetts (then known as Huntstown) in 1761. 1763 the town's Congregationalists hired a minister, built a meeting house, and taxed the Baptists to help pay for it. Pastor Ebenezer Smith and his congregation refused to pay the religious tax. The town then seized the Baptists' land -- some of the best in the town, complete with cemetary, apple orchard and houses. The land was auctioned for a pittance of its value to their Congregationalist neighbors. A total of 398 acres was seized, including ten acres from Ebenezer Smith and twenty acres from his father, Chileab Smith.”
You may be interested in knowing that our Friend in Liberty, Patrick Henry, wanted a religious tax added to the state of Virginia to pay for the teaching of morals to the people http://www.history.org/media/podcasts_transcripts/PatrickHen... : It seems he had quite a go around with Thomas Jefferson over it.
Henry:… that a republic such as that which we have created cannot survive, let alone to flourish, unless the people which comprise it are virtuous and moral and adhere to the mild and benevolent precepts of the gospel of Jesus, for if they do not, that republic will certainly face the same barbarous and dreadful fate as did the republic of Rome, which to remind you crashed most terribly in rivers of blood, the countryside all ablaze, and owing to rampant immorality and depravity…
Jefferson: (sounding disgusted) Henry!
Henry: …we began as a Christian nation, and so we must remain, for in my view, Christianity softens the human heart, it cherishes and improves its finer feelings, it restrains men from their vices, it promotes good order and adherence to civil law. Is this not something which should be encouraged? My assessment bill does encourage virtue and morality. Mr. Jefferson’s scheme, I fear, does not. Now, sir, in the interest of fairness, I shall turn the floor to you.
The neocon that stayed with us last summer sent a book to Jeff called “A Free People’s Suicide – Sustainable Freedom and the American Future” by Os Guinness http://www.amazon.com/Free-Peoples-Suicide-Sustainable-Ameri...
Jeff read about Patrick Henry last night. He thought it had to do with the Federal Government. From what I could tell it had to do with the state of Virginia. There are many unknowns in this Quest for Liberty.
It seems those Baptists were willing to suffer and part with land for the principle of not paying taxes for other religious denominations. It seems to me that the free love folks were willing to spend time in jail to prove a point.
1) End the Fed
2) End the IRS
3) Bring the Troops Home
4) Do so by July 4, 2013
5) It seems to me that it might be time to ask What Cost am I (me, not you) willing to pay?
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: