Comment: Not my interest.

(See in situ)


Not my interest.

"So to paraphrase and include in the conversation at hand, your experience of the way of the world is what you have read or heard of the conflict between good and evil. This is demonstrated by your suggested reading materials and links. Although you claim no association or declaration, your actions expose the truth of your thoughts."

An offer of your expert opinion of my thoughts is noted, not wanted, not needed, not asked for, as I am capable of speaking for myself without experts proving to me that my own understanding of my own thoughts are somehow less valid than an interpreter offering an interpretation of my own thoughts.

"Without an understanding of the philosophy there is no hope of understanding the people that don’t believe the same way you do and therefore no understanding of the problem and how to fix it."

Your offer of a mysterious problem having no direct measure, let alone an accurate measure, to convey in any way other than by inference is not wanted either. I have already stated the problem as I see it, the problem that interests me, so of what possible use can your mysterious, unnamed, unmeasured, fiat problem be to me, in your mind?

The problem is the flow of power flowing from the victims to the criminals as the criminals grow stronger and as the victims grow weaker, as the number of criminals grow larger, as the number of victims grow fewer in number, there will be, if the trend is not reversed, a point at which the Law of Diminishing Returns sets in and the criminals start consumer each other.

You can argue all you want with whoever you think you are arguing with, it is not me. I have no use for your arguments, so what is the point of your addressing me with this nebulous argument of your exclusive construction?

"...you discredit yourself with statist rhetoric..."

Empty words are routine, where is an example of the exception to the routine?

You can talk all you want to whoever you think you are talking to, I have no use for your pretentious expertize over my thinking.

To me the problem is very simple, and it can be illustrated mathematically as a function of cooperation versus antagonism or what has been called defection.

Here is an example:

http://prisonersdilemma.sergehelfrich.eu/

You can go on an on with your argument with whatever you construct as your antagonist. Your antagonist is not me. I have no use for your arguments. The problem I see is clear enough to me, I found it without your help. I know what it is, and I know the obvious solution to the problem.

Why are you claiming that your offers of your unique perspective is anything other than an offer? Why are you claiming that you, of all the possible ridiculous claims possible, know my thoughts better than I do?

I do not accept your non-competitive offers of my own thoughts, thanks, but no thanks, I am well able to think for myself. If I find anything you say worth anything to me, then I can thank you for the help.

"Where to began…..ok …..how about the Labor Theory of Value….Marx."

You can begin arguing with whoever you are arguing with at your own cost. I am not part of your argument. If you have a Labor Theory of Value in mind, you can keep it to yourself, or find someone who wants to know YOUR theory.

I don't.

Labor is valuable to me. Labor is valuable to other people. I know this, you may find someone to argue about it. What does your argument with some nebulous opponent have to do with me?

"But the labor dollar is so flawed I can’t believe you trot this out here."

Back into your verbal assaults?

http://www.power-independence.com/forum/view_topic.php?id=79...

I have no interest, at all, with you and whoever you are arguing with, concerning whatever fantasies you have in mind. Your argument has nothing to do with me.

"The writer goes on..."

I have read the link. I have no interest in hearing your twisted version of the link. Your capacity to twist into shape a series of words that you claim to be my thoughts proves to me, well enough, that your version of what is clearly written in English by someone else is not wanted, not needed, and out of place if you think your twisted version of the work done by the author is of any value to me.

"…..and you want to replace that with government control….."

I can speak for myself, without your unwelcome "help," so no thanks, I am not your person ventriloquist dummy if that is your idea in your mind with your offer of your twisted versions of my actual thoughts.

"So the market place chose the medium of exchange as species…"

Claims of monopoly power are often demonstrably false, so why do you think your claim is true?

Which market, which "specie," where was the source of said "specie" and how was the original claim of ownership facilitated and maintained?

The market, so called, is a thing, or a list of names in time and place?

"Are you starting to see a pattern with this whole government interference thing?"

Your use of words is meaningless to me without nailing down a definition for your use of words so as to remove the duplicity that can exist without those nailed down definitions, no longer duplicitous meanings of those words, such as "government" and "market" to name just two for a start.

Example:
When you use the word government do you mean a Voluntary Association involving an agreement to avoid resort to deception, threat, and violence as a means of one gaining at another one's expense?

My definition of government is that one, just defined that way, above.

If your definition of government is the same definition as my definition of crime, then we have a problem, whenever you say government, I think you are speaking about Voluntary Association, and if you mean crime, instead of government, then why not use the word crime instead of using the word government?

Can we speak English, or do we need to invent a new language?

"Beside….if you have a Labor Dollar….how would you check the control of over issuance…"

Labor Dollars work when they work where they work because the issuer is held accountable for over issues. I don't use Labor Dollars because I live within a network of people who are currently led to believe that Federal Reserve Notes are required to pay National Income Taxes, and the problems compound from those 2 false ideas to a point whereby there is no effective (domestic) competition working to force the producers of Federal Reserve Notes to increase the quality and lower the costs of their money products (costs paid by the consumers of that money), as the Monopoly Fraud Money continues to be financed by the victims of it, it will continue to be a Monopoly in force, by deceit, by threat of violence, and by actual violence. There may be enough force being applied in other constitutionally limited States such as Utah, and combined with foreign Countries combined into trading partnerships, such as BRIC, to effect competitive improvements in the product known as Federal Reserve Notes, however the producers of that product are probably going to continue with the plan of destroying all trust in that money, leaving the opportunity to replace it with either many competitive money supplies, or there may be an effective effort to replace the Federal Reserve Note Fraud money monopoly with something worse, such as a new World Reserve Currency product produced by those same BRIC countries, enforced by those countries, as those countries are run by the same group of criminals running this one.

"This brings me to your lack of knowledge..."

Whatever drives your pretend authority over what I think is of no interest to me, it is false.

"Society established..."

Do you use that word to mean a thing unto itself or are you claiming that there is a list of names of people who constitute "society" so called?

I have less interest in the offers you offer of your thoughts as you continue to pretend to know what I think.

"... it gave to a certain class of men..."

What is it?

"Here is the great objection to the present currency."

Again, your offers of your thoughts on the subject of money are not wanted, not needed, not even competitive.

The Federal Reserve Note is a unit of evidence of a crime in progress. The crime is fraud, and all the victims need to do to find the culprits of that crime of fraud is to follow those Federal Reserve Notes back to the source of those Federal Reserve Notes, and there will be the criminals who are perpetrating that fraud.

"Here is an opposing view from Rothbard."

I have as much interest in Rothbards non-competitive ideas on money as I have in your non-competitive ideas on money. Rothbard wrote some very good reports on Washington, and the other criminals involved in the Federal Reserve Note fraud.

"So Rothbard completely demolishes Greene fear of price of money and therefore refutes this point of his thesis."

If you did not understand Greene, then my opinion is that you don't understand the fallacies of Rothbard. No argument, no need for an argument, you offer your viewpoints (unsolicited) and I offer mine. What you do with my offer is obviously similar to what I do with your offer: rejection.

No need to beat a dead horse?

"from each according to their ability; to each according to their need"

Perhaps Marx said that, perhaps not, I was not present.

I like these words (because I see a use for these words):

"For Marx, capital and labor were not merely two economic categories. Capital for him was the manifestation of the past, of labor transformed and amassed into things; labor was the manifestation of life, of human energy applied to nature in the process of transforming it. The choice between capitalism and socialism (as he understood it) amounted to this: Who (what) was to rule over what (whom)? What is dead over what is alive, or what is alive over what is dead?" (Cf. E. Fromm, 1961, 1968)

"Which once again points out the confusion of your positions…..you can’t be both. So which are a Locke Natural Rights or a Marx’s Statist?"

I don't accept dictatorial, monopolistic, orders when there are obvious, measurable, demonstrably competitive, alternates. No thanks on the lesser of two falsehoods (evils).

My understanding of political economy can be condensed down into once sentence. I don't need Locke or Marx interference.

Power produced into oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production.

"So what do you think of my painting now?"

Abstract "art"?

Joe