The Daily Paul has been archived.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: Which brain can see?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Trying to do better (see in situ)

Which brain can see?

"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."

If I write something similar I try a few competitive angles from which point of view the message will originate, so which brain can see the truth?

State Socialism cannot see anything, it has no brain, no eyes, no judgement, so it is ignorant, blind, and amoral, it has no power whatsoever, but it has the authority to punish individual people?

Institutionalized blind obedience to ignorance, falsehood, threats, violence, and immorality, without question? If someone is selling a thing being accountable to someone else, is that a case of charity, equity, or crime?

How is it measured in any case?

How is it accurately measured in any case?

Which brain does the measuring?

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

Where is this one person who wishes to make everyone all that same, and all powerless, poor, ignorant, worthless, and helpless?

Does that sound like a crime in progress?

Where is this one author, writing this poem, where this one author may be wishing that there should be no more individuals wishing to make everyone the same, all powerless, all poor, all ignorant, all blind, all amoral, all worthless, all powerless, and all helpless against the actual criminals who know better?

"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."

State Socialism has no brain and you put one on it?

"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?"

Legal Criminals remove the power of their victims so that each victim will be at each other victim's throat to get the last kilowatt/hour of power left in arms reach, or, even better, the victims will beg, and do anything asked of them, to get the power from the ONE source of power left with any POWER at all.

Why should you care? The Legal Criminals have half (and more) of all your earnings, all your wealth, each kilowatt/hour you produce, half, and more, goes to them.

"What difference does it make to me if some people have wealth and I don’t."

These some people are not just anyone, they are the ones who lie the best, the ones who threaten the best, and the most violent, the least moral, those few who are evil incarnate, and if sending them your earnings isn't a method of worshiping them, in their minds, then what is it?

Why should I care too.

"Or maybe they were born with a silver spoon. So what?"

Who exactly are you speaking about, and if I may interpret the poem, in context, the ideas is to know the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me anyone who can. It isn't about someone having the power to earn a lot of power and then that someone keeps that power.

What does the word "earn" mean?

The context has to do with a form or "earning" that is institutionalized crime, crime made legal, whereby a few are stealing the power of the many, and using that stolen power to steal everything that can be stolen, because there is only one way that scenario works, and the few MUST destroy all competition, and the few MUST render all their victims powerless, or it won't work for those few anymore.

How is it working right now? What are, for example, things now called derivatives? What, right now, are the few most powerful human beings buying with all the power they have stolen legally?

China supposedly earned the money they are loaning to the Neocons, so that China can have those same Neocons attack China and make China defend it's "National Interests"?

What is the context of the message offered? Your neighbor just landed a government contract job to build computer parts for drones so he now has a new Cadillac with a huge fuel tank? Why should you care about his bank account being bigger than yours?

In the face of World War III, that neighbor, in that scenario, is handing the Legal Criminals the hardware to eventually turn those Drones on you, or your kids, to collect the World War III War Debt.

Should you care a tad bit more then? Is it too late then?

"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?"

Mother's offer up their children for the mad dogs to chew on so as to save their own hides?

If you don't see it, I can't see it for you. I have my own brain, it is what God gave me. I don't see it as a Liability. I see my viewpoint in this light:

"From the day on which an accommodation takes place between England and America, on any other terms than as independent States, I shall date the ruin of this country. a politic minister will study to lull us into security by granting us the full extent of our petitions. The warm sunshine of influence would melt down the virtue which the violence of the storm rendered more firm and unyielding. In a state of tranquillity, wealth, and luxury, our descendants would forget the arts of war and the noble activity and zeal which made their ancestors invincible. Every art of corruption would be employed to loosen the bond of union which renders our resistance formidable. When the spirit of liberty, which now animates our hearts and gives success to our arms, is extinct, our numbers will accelerate our ruin and render us easier victims to tyranny. Ye abandoned minions of an infatuated ministry, if peradventure any should yet remain among us, remember that a Warren and Montgomery are numbered among the dead. Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices? Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plow, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom--go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!"

You appear to make the context out as being a vice called jealousy whereby a powerless person is jealous of a powerful person, or envious, whatever.

That is not the context as I see it.

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

Masters and slaves will do what they will, and they can do what they can, and they may do what they may to each other in those types of connections.

May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!

You see envy instead?

I don't, so that is where our viewpoints fail to agree.

"What is it your Battan friend said?"

According to my brother, who more often had business dealings with Hank, the statement had to do with which hand fills up first if you wish in one and you crap (expletive) in the other one.

"Would wishing about proletariats fall into that category?"

It is not my poem, it isn't even Tucker's poem, but I have my interpretation of the message, I wish those proletarians well, the big liars, and the small ones just as well, wishing them well, but I will have none of it myself, thank you very much.

You see envy?

I don't know why you don't see what I see, it is as clear as sunlight on a warm desert spring day, when the persistent vapor trails have not be stitching up an aluminum overcast.

"The Bible teaches to do what is good and right to others, to share, and to be content."

Mad dogs roam too, at times they run amok in packs.

What about the masters and the slaves, with their Routine?

Feed the kids to them, so as to have another day under what used to be a blue sky?

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.

Anarchy is a word. When people help themselves, individuals helping themselves, they have ways of dealing with other people in any case, unless we are speaking about one individual person left on Earth and there are no other people anywhere ever.

So what does that one person, helping themselves, do in any case when dealing with other people?

Alone, the last human being alive, there is an anarchist?

Not alone, an individual existing here and now, is what, and how does his, or her, actions define what they are precisely, when dealing with other people?

I find the word play to be over done, reverting back to beating the dead horse.

"I think you take it too personal when I point out that the Bolshevik revolution is an example of State Socialism."

My grandfather, his family, in those days, were probably paying their taxes, and what did they buy? You think I am taking things too personally, so be it.

Now what?

"I would like to know where a voluntary situation exists at all."

Where ever the victims figure out how better to reduce their victimization, and some competitive examples exist.

1. Holland at the time of The American Revolution (so called)
2. Switzerland at the time of The American Revolution
3. America between 1776 and 1788
4. The Icelandic Commonwealth
5. England during the Magna Carte era with Trial by Jury

There is 5 possible answers to what I think your question seeks.

All or nothing? Is there utopia on earth? If that is what you are asking, then why ask me? Is an absolutely voluntary situation possible, is that what you are asking me, or have I read something into your words that is not intended?

"Can you point one out?"

I live in a house with the same wife, same son, same daughter, for many years. I can leave at my pleasure, and my cost, so far.

Now you offer up a phrase offered by Thomas Paine concerning the lesser of two evils, and to me that is worth knowing better.

To me Thomas Paine was not, in 1776, speaking about how well a Democratic Federated Republic works as a Free Market Government Shopping Center, for if he was, understanding how that works, why it works, as it did work, in the example of Shays's Rebellion, which didn't even happen yet, not in 1776, but had that been the topic, then he could report how there are choices that are not the lesser of two evils, where in fact there are choices that are the better of two Constitutionally Limited State Government Jurisdictions, one being evil, one not, and so the former slaves can vote with their feet to the NON-EVIL place in such cases.

You tell me.


"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."

I am reading while writing, so at this point I am on the edge of my seat, looking for another competitive viewpoint. Thanks in advance.

"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?"

Well, so far those are questions, but before I read on I see an opportunity to report the idea that your questions here are the vital questions, but in other words.

What does any honest productive person, innocent of crime, do in the face of criminals?

Is that not the question asked?

What does two honest productive people, innocent of crime, do in the face of criminals?

Is that not the question asked?

What does a group of honest productive people, innocent of crime, do in the face of criminals?

Is that not the question asked?

What do all the human beings do, in so far as they can, will, and may be innocent of crime, do in the face of criminals perpetrating crimes upon the innocent?

Is that not the question asked?

Is the answer not easy to see as: don't be a criminal yourself?

The time period exemplifying the better (not lesser evil, but better as in a good choice) choice was to volunteer to defend Liberty against the criminals who released the Dogs of War and were rioting in the blood of their targets here in America.

The volunteer military forces were the volunteer military forces and then there were the counterfeit versions right here in good ole U.S.A., as told by Murray Rothbard here:

Generalissimo Washington: How He Crushed the Spirit of Liberty

Founding Father of what?

Hamilton's National Debt?

The lesser of two evils, to me, is a choice dictated to the victims by the dictators, and it is a false choice, like a Trojan Horse, so it may be a good idea to keep looking for better choices - to me.

You then quote from The Declaration of Independence. Warren, Andrews, Tucker, and Spooner each, as far as I remember, reference the same VOLUNTARY association document.

Who dictated any evil choices in that historical case, other than those people, those few, who were working to gain National Debt POWER or The British Money Monopoly Power, same thing, different false front.


Who, which few, were working their Routine, making evil choices available to the targets?

"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?"

I see a need to take that apart, as I don't see the idea, if there is an idea, being communicated.

"Does a tension exist because evil men would like to overthrow any government in order to steal the power from the people?"

In George Washington's own words, source first, then the quote:


Writing to John Hancock earlier, Washington had offered a candid appraisal of Sullivan as "spirited and zealously attached to the Cause," but also a man touched with a "tincture of vanity" and too great a "desire of being popular." Then, generously and realistically, Washington conceded that everyone in command of the army suffered from a greater, more serious failing, himself included. "His wants," Washington said of Sullivan, "are common to us all; the want of experience to move upon a large scale."

You, bear, spoke of envy perhaps?

"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?"

Why did the Ancient Greeks begin using random selection (sortition) as a means of electing the peace keepers?

They actually wanted peace?

Why did the Barons in England again offer peace keeping power to randomly selected officers of the law, to fight crime, to keep the peace, in Trial by Jury, with that Voluntary Agreement called Magna Carte?

What destroyed either attempts to move from involuntary (legal crime) to voluntary (Liberty) as time went by, and the answers are well recorded events.

Greece was corrupted from within and from external powers. From within each individual, and external to each individual. The Essay on Trial by Jury, by Lysander Spooner, for example, reports how Jurors were bought off, they decided to pay their way out of Jury Duty, internally, abdicating, and who offered, externally, to allow such negligence, who, and why, were people offering to let Jurors buy their way out of Jury Duty?

If there is a demand for Liberty, a demand that includes a duty to avoid abandoning the victims, and a need to avoid becoming criminals, then there are methods that work to fill that demand, so why act as if no such thing existed, or can exist?

"And then the agents of the government become that which they are trying to protect the people against?"

If they are agents of government then why do they lie to cover up their actual intentions?

Why does Hamilton and his group of Nationalists hide behind closed doors, issue gag orders, and call themselves Federalists?

Why do these so called "agents of government" create a fear of the mob that they target with their false Federalist Papers run out of their monopoly power of The Press, such as it was at the time, despite much greater competition that they would care to have without their coveted absolute POWER, soon to be manifested in The Whiskey Rebellion Proclamation, and The Alien and Sedition Acts, while that same MOB they say is fearful, is the same MOB that they use to get their baby enacted despite the sound advice of the representatives hired to actually be representatives?

Case in point:

"Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers that it is a national government, and no longer a Confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the general government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes does, of itself, entirely change the confederation of the states into one consolidated government. This power, being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of control, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly a confederation to a consolidated government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the state governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: the general government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than the state governments, the latter must give way to the former. Is it to be supposed that one national government will suit so extensive a country, embracing so many climates, and containing inhabitants so very different in manners, habits, and customs? It is ascertained, by history, that there never was a government over a very extensive country without destroying the liberties of the people: history also, supported by the opinions of the best writers, shows us that monarchy may suit a large territory, and despotic governments ever so extensive a country, but that popular governments can only exist in small territories. Is there a single example, on the face of the earth, to support a contrary opinion? Where is there one exception to this general rule? Was there ever an instance of a general national government extending over so extensive a country, abounding in such a variety of climates, &c., where the people retained their liberty? I solemnly declare that no man is a greater friend to a firm union of the American states than I am; but, sir, if this great end can be obtained without hazarding the rights of the people, why should we recur to such dangerous principles?"

Bla,bla,bla,I want my lesser of two evils?

I must have those guys collect my involuntary taxes, or anarchy will be unstoppable?

"Have you done much hunting around on that link?"

I have seen many people, including Alex Jones, report on the connections between those who I call Legal Criminals and the false religion of Satanism. The same type of people who did Waco, The Franklin Case, financed World War II, and are financing World War III, and someone, somewhere, may be skeptical about that type of person worshiping the devil?

What is unbelievable?

If something is true, then is it, by that definition, beyond belief?

"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."

I think you are again misrepresenting me in a very serious way. If I ask you questions about those babies that you tell me are dead, in The Bible, and if it looks to me like murder, babies being murdered, then that is what it looks like to me, because babies are innocent, so if they are now dead, once alive, now dead, then the one who willfully caused the death of those innocent babies is a murderer.

Who caused the deaths of those babies?

You provide the situation in question from The Bible.

You are asked a specific question.

You can answer the question.

Who caused the deaths of those babies?

You tell me. Then you claim that I "turn the righteous command of God into murder", as if what, I'm happy to do so, here I am minding my own business,and suddenly, out of the blue, I take it upon myself to pick up this Bible book, find a passage in it, on my own, and for fun and profit I start turning the righteous command of God into murder?

That is me alright. There I am, that guy, you know, that Joe guy, there he goes again, and who knows why he feels the need, but there he goes, turning the righteous command of God into murder, and you know what happens to folks who do such things.

"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."

I know of no babies having been murdered. I did not such thing as you claim. You took words written by Tucker and you twisted them, then you attached those words you wrote to Tucker, as if Tucker wrote your words, and he did not write your words, Tucker wrote the words Tucker wrote, not your words.

If Tucker advocated adultery, as you claim he did, then Tucker's words would have been published as: I, Benjamin Tucker, hereby advocate adultery, just as bear says I do, a century or so from now.

Who caused the death of any babies anywhere?

You tell me, and then blame me for what you offer to me again.

See how that works for you if you do it again.

Keep on with these misrepresentations, on and on, what do you get for your trouble?

Are you reaching for a specific goal with these misrepresentations?

I don't know, so I ask. Just like I ask questions about The Bible.

Either you produce the answers or you don't, and how is that my invention of some nebulous religious crime I commit?

"You turn the righteous command of God into murder."

"You turn the righteous command of God into murder."

Now I have something to put on my grave? How about my business card instead, while I am still alive?

What is the title of your welcome rely?

"Trying to do better."

At what?

I am guilty of not wanting you to question Pilger, which is completely opposite of the me that I think I know.

Not good enough, now I turn the righteous command of God into murder, while, as far as I can tell, the God I know does not kill innocent babies.

What are you trying to do better?

I am guilty of not wanting you to question Pilger.

I turn the righteous command of God into murder.

Is that better?

All better now?

"You do not believe the Bible to be the Word of God."

Which bible? Are you propping yourself up as the one person on Earth who knows me better than I know myself?

I believe that God informs everyone that which is right and that which is wrong, and in between God and individual people are mediums of exchange, like books, and often is the case that people make mistakes.

Translation may include error.

I believe, here again, that you are making a serious error in speaking for me, and again I am being seriously misrepresented by you.

I am guilty of not wanting you to question Pilger.

I turn the righteous command of God into murder.

I do not believe the Bible to be the Word of God.

Does it get any better?

"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 it sounds like baby murder, then to me there may be an error in translation. I can report such things to you, and what you do with my reports is what you do with my reports.

"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."

Which words are Tucker's words?

Which words are your versions of Tucker's words?

Why confuse the two?

Cui Bono?

"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 original reference to Tucker, for my part, had to do with Tucker's explanation of Monopolies.

If the cost of misrepresentation can be measured then consider doing so, and if you will, may, can, or if it pleases you, please let me know the measure you find.

"If you purposely hurt people, I would not respect that."

Moving onto less contentious misrepresentations may be a good idea?

"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."

The point here, to me, is vital.

The lie that works to lead people to invest in their own torturous demise is worthy of note - in my opinion.

"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 best case would be one where we can gain access to accurate information concerning the case that we want as an example of how best to avoid crime.

I think Waco is the best case. That is my vote.

"Was slavery already “legal” in certain states before the constitution?"

The case I know about is the case of Daniel Shays. Before The Constitution the Legal Criminals running Massachusetts tried to make Daniel Shays into an Involuntary Tax Slave using Direct Taxes on Whiskey, and using a Fraudulent Legal Money Monopoly Power. So the answer is yes, in that demonstrable sense, that Slavery was Legal in Massachusetts, before The Constitution.

Daniel Shays protested in the Revolutionary way, by fighting back against the Criminals in office.

Daniel Shays, and the other Rebels,lost.

The legal Criminals in Massachusetts won.

Daniel Shays then ran, as a runaway slave, to Vermont.

Daniel Shays was not enslaved by the Masters of Slavery in Massachusetts, since Daniel Shays ran away to Vermont.

Your question:

"Was slavery already “legal” in certain states before the constitution?"

Here is an answer:

I think the answer was demonstrated to be yes, that slavery was already legal in Massachusetts before The Constitution Usurpation.

"I don’t think I can even discuss well any more."

The bear ups and downs of discussing well. If it was easy, everyone would be very good at it all the time?

Is it worth doing well?

"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?"

Here is the point missed, perhaps, and the point worth remembering: Voluntary Free Market, Not Lesser of two Evils, Government requirements to be in, or out of, the Voluntary Union exemplified by The Articles of Confederation ANSWER.

Which answer are you looking to find?

"Do states have to be a certain size?"

Under The Articles of Confederation.

Under The Constitution Usurpation.

I think one is opposite the other answer.

"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."

There are people who refused to agree to The Constitution on specific grounds that they enumerated.

In here:

"It has been contended that the 5th article of the confederation cannot be repealed under the powers to new modify the confederation by the 13th article. This surely is false reasoning, since the whole of the confederation upon revision is subject to amendment and alteration; besides our business consists in recommending a system of government, not to make it. There are great seasons when persons with limited powers are justified in exceeding them, and a person would be contemptible not to risk it. Originally our confederation was founded on the weakness of each State to repel a foreign enemy; and we have found that the powers granted to congress are insufficient. The body of congress is ineffectual to carry the great objects of safety and protection into execution. What would their powers be over the commander of the military, but for the virtue of the commander? As the State assemblies are constantly encroaching on the powers of congress, the Jersey plan would rather encourage such encroachments than be a check to it; and from the nature of the institution, congress would ever be governed by cabal and intrigue-They are besides too numerous for an executive, nor can any additional powers be sufficient to enable them to protect us against foreign invasion. Amongst other things congress was intended to be a body to preserve peace among the States, and in the rebellion of Massachusetts it was found they were not authorized to use the troops of the confederation to quell it. Every one is impressed with the idea of a general regulation of trade and commerce. Can congress do this? when from the nature of their institution they are subject to cabal and intrigue? And would it not be dangerous to entrust such a body with the power, when they are dreaded on these grounds? I am certain that a national government must be established, and this is the only moment when it can be done-And let me conclude by observing, that the best exercise of power is to exert it for the public good."

I went looking for other things, and found that instead.

You may see the point, you may not be up to it at this moment.

I appreciate your help. Please don't make up things about me that are just not true. I appreciate your help. Is that not demonstrated?

"It seems he had quite a go around with Thomas Jefferson over it."

Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. What is the best way to defend Liberty?

Who claims to know better? What demonstrably does work, and what demonstrably does not work to defend Liberty?

A. Abject Belief in Falsehood without Question

B. Options, competitive options, to choose from, other than A above.

If I did not want to be Thomas Jefferson's slave, or pay Patrick Henry's Tax under The Articles of Confederation, I could move to a better State in that Voluntary Union. Under The Constitution Usurpation the Masters legally kidnap me and return me to Slavery.

A. Abject Belief in Falsehood without Question

B. Options, competitive options, to choose from, other than A above.

Is that worth remembering or not?

"5) It seems to me that it might be time to ask What Cost am I (me, not you) willing to pay?"

The bill collectors are already here, like an Elephant in the room, and the rate of pay is accelerating in a direction. Knowing this is different from not knowing this, obviously, so I know that we will pay, the question has to do with inventing, producing, and maintaining other options.

Yes, the lesser of two evils is to find ways to avoid being victims because criminals effectively persist in perpetrating crime, with badges, with licenses, and within the color of law, but there is also, to be invented, produced, and maintained, the greater of two goods, all at once.

When things get worse, if criminals may, if criminals will, if criminals can, make things worse, the victims can still make things better, if they can, if they will, if they may.

Why not?

No power?