The Daily Paul has been archived.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: Competitive ideas

(See in situ)

Competitive ideas

When backed into a corner a group of rats will feed upon each other.

If one of the rats asks another rat for a competitive idea conerning defense against rats eating rats, is it a good idea to respond by eating the rat asking the question, or eating the rat offering an answer?

Is it a good idea to respond by asking the rats who are forcing the rats into the corner for answers concerning defense against rats eating rats?

The reason I answer the question offered in this introductory way has to do with the cause of most of the trouble in our human time.

Enforced scarcity causes most of the trouble in our time.

As those who have abundant power force all the rest of us to have power scarcity, the trouble accelerates.

People are backed into corners due to the scarcity of power including the power of self defense.

So, the reader may be inspired to stop reading at this point, since the reader may consider the answer being offered as a sub-par answer, or non-competitive, or as an irrelevant answer.

What do you think is keeping the universal use of a strictly defensive weapon from becoming available to all those who demand it?

There is no need to Stand Your Ground with lethal force when there is a strictly defensive weapon available whereby any criminal attacker is nullified on the spot, with a simple press of a button, by the defender, and the attacker is merely made to take a 1 hour time out, without any other residual damage or side effect suffered by the attacker.

You are now placed into a position to answer your questions concerning any potential argument thrown at you as the person throwing the argument at you is intending to attack you with that argument concerning the demand for LETHAL force, whereby you are made to pay for the costs of supplying that LETHAL force because some people, somewhere, say so, and you must obey, and you must not question the order to pay for that supply of that LETHAL force.

In other words, the power that is made scarce, the power that forces the rats into a corner, whereby the rats eat each other, is the power of knowledge concerning how the criminals become criminals, and then having that knowledge removed from the victims, the criminals create that scarcity of power, the wisdom of using the knowledge is gone, since the knowledge is gone, concerning how to avoid those criminals before any of those criminals can gain the power to back anyone into a corner.

Skeptics are often resorting to name calling, baiting, libel, personal attacks, upon me, since my offer of an answer is unwelcome to them.


If you are reading this and you don't understand the answer, then that proves the point.

If you are reading this and you seek to understand the answer, then simple questions can be asked, and answers can be offered in reply.

Such as:

Joe, what do you mean, can you show by example what you mean, and in that way the answer offered can be less confusing to anyone who may want to know the answer that you are offering to this question about Standing Your Ground?

Certainly, examples provide information that aids in understanding knowledge, and understanding wisdom, concerning the best ways to avoid ever having to deal with any criminal, ever, let alone having to Stand Your Ground with Lethal Force when backed into a corner by a Criminal.

Here is one self-defense weapon offered to anyone who cares to know better:

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."

In other words, the idea is to avoid paying the criminals to be better criminals whereby those transfers of payments make the criminals more powerful and the victims are made less powerful.

When the criminals take over they make sure that the power needed for anything, for life, for liberty (defense or standing your ground), is made scarce for the targeted victims, and power is made plentiful for the criminals. In that way the victims are made to beg for power from those who are the only source of power.

Monopoly Banking.

That situation causes the power to produce anything worth stealing to grow exponentially less powerful to a point that there is nothing left to drink, eat, or wear as clothing, and each rat is eating each other rat down to the last two rats who are desperate in the necessary work required to eat each other.

You don't think that this is the root of the argument?

How about a hypothetical example rather than an actual example of the power of non-lethal defense against any aggressive criminal attacker offered to you by Thomas Paine back in 1776?

How about a hypothetical example of a hypothetical defensive weapon instead of the power of knowledge such as the power to know better than to pay the criminals everything that they demand so as to make the criminals more powerful each day while those who honestly produce anything worth stealing are made less powerful each day?

How about a Stand Your Ground Strictly Defensive Weapon the size of a cell phone?

This hypothetical device is not demanded?

Anyone, anywhere, when an attacker is known to be attacking can point the device, or even turn it on automatic, and the attacker is targeted, shot, and rendered immobile for one hour. The device is a GPS locator, the device records the whole event on digital video, the whole event is uploaded to the World Wide Web on Youtube, and other nodes on the World Wide Web, and the user of the device has an option of purchasing a small competitive fee for insurance in cases where the immobile attacker wakes up after an hour of time out and then the attacker demands a Trial by Jury to punish the user of the device for resisting the attack by the attacker.

If you ask for an answer to the question, and you are offered an answer to the question, will you even know that the answer is a competitive answer?