Comment: Now I get it!

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Not my interest. (see in situ)

Now I get it!

Now I understand why you believe what you believe…it’s hard to understand why someone who actually gets the whole concept of Natural Law takes such a turn into the whole Socialist concept of Marx…..but I understand now….you are an environmentalist....it that whole “station in life” concept .....you are dependent of the system which you despise. Don't worry I despise the state too....I just don't make my living from them.

http://challenge.ecomagination.com/ct/ct_profile.bix?c=home&user_member_id={96F000A4-B3DF-44DF-9080-D19134A9BD47}

This is how you come up with this gem of “understanding”......Are Joe....Did you write this?

Joe’s Law
This is both a description and an example of Joe's Law.

Joe's Law is a multi part economic law based upon the cost principle and the power principle.

Joe's Law therefore has many parts.

Part I of Joe's Law dictates:

Power reproduces itself

Power invested in the creation of power produces more power out of less power.

Example:

One oil well, gold mine, farm, Solar Panel, or Federal Reserve Bank (Communist State Bank) produced and running will produce enough power to re-produce another example of the original. At the time when the second oil well, gold mine, farm, Solar Panel, or Communist State Bank begins producing more power the total amount of power being produced will double.

Part II of Joes Law dictates:

Power produced into a condition or state of oversupply will push the price of power lower and therefore power reaching for over-supply will push the cost of power to zero.

Example: How much does oxygen cost? Oxygen is power. Plants produce oxygen. How much do we, as human beings, pay the plants for oxygen? How much do the plants charge the humans for the consumption of oxygen? The opposite of Joe’s Law Part II can be seen as a General Strike conducted by the Union of Earth Plant life. How much will the plants on this planet charge the humans for oxygen if the plants of this earth go on strike and stop producing and re-producing oxygen? How much will you pay for your oxygen once the supply of oxygen reaches a state of scarcity, which is the opposite of a state of abundance? Oxygen is power.
( BTW…..you must have forgot that plants are dependent on human exhaling carbon dioxide of to maintain life…..this is a symbiotic relationship, just as government and central banks are today).

Part III of Joe’s Law dictates:

When power is produced into a state of over-supply and the price of power reaches for zero there will be an increase in pecuniary (money) purchasing power since power reduces the cost of production. This part of Joe’s Law may be the most difficult part to comprehend for the human life forms on the planet earth. The plant forms probably know this law better at this time in human history. That does not bode well for the chances of human life’s survival when plants are smarter than human beings.

The easiest way to understand how Joe’s Law works is to first view the opposite of Joe’s Law as the supply of Oil reaches a state of scarcity and therefore the cost of living rises in almost lock step or inverse proportion, where each increase in the price of oil corresponds with an increase in the price of everything. As the price of oil doubles the price of everything doubles. As the price of oil reduces the price of everything reduces. This relationship is a natural law (Joe’s Law) and this relationship does not require the understanding of the people who are affected by this natural economic law. Plants don’t care either. For all the plants care, like the amount that the humans care, life on earth will die off for lack of care concerning true economic laws.
(BTW if oil becomes that scarce, alternatives would be found by entrepreneurs in a free capitalist market….in your world people would just languish in poverty)

Joe’s Law in its complete form (to be perfected if possible) reads as follows (dictates):

Power produced into a state of oversupply reaches for zero cost as purchasing power increases because power lowers the cost of production.

Another part of Joe's Law has to do with the currency of language.
This thread intends to move Joe's Law to the first page in a Google Search for "Joe's Law".

At this time 5:02 am Thursday May 8, 2008 the Google Search Engine lists Joe's Law (as described here) in third place. Joe's Law also says that new language can be moved to the top spot on the Google Search Engine.
And here we have a glimpse into your character……you are asking other to help you game or cheat a system to advance yourself.
Following your links and reading other post there can be only one conclusion, and fear not I am not writing this to “think for you” or persuade you in any way, you are hopeless. You think you are a special snowflake and your life is wrapped in a delusion. My only reason is to offer people an alternative to the lunacy inside your head…..man I bet that is a scary place.

But with that being said it all leads to Norn Chomsky. Who was a linguist “Another part of Joe's Law has to do with the currency of language”.

From an article at von Mises Institute
http://mises.org/daily/1132

As Ayn Rand so eloquently argued, the ultimate means of production is the human mind. Chomsky of course doesn't want to abolish the private ownership of our minds (I hope.) What he means is hard capital: machines, buildings and so on. One would think that if private persons and business concerns cannot own these things, the state will do so. We call that state socialism. Chomsky apparently is against that too.

So, if the state isn't going to own income-producing property, and private concerns are not going to own it, who is going to own it? Apparently, and this all very fuzzy, the means of production will somehow be collectively owned by the workers themselves, wherein we arrive at the silly concept of anarcho-syndicalism. Instead of greedy capitalists owning the corporation, the workers themselves will own it. But it will not be ownership in the form of individual shares that can be sold. That's capitalism.

No, he favors a vague and ill-defined form of collective ownership that the workers will figure out as they bumble and stumble along towards bankruptcy. As Mises writes in Socialism, "as an aim, Syndicalism is so absurd, that speaking generally, it has not found any advocates who dared to write openly and clearly in its favor."
Chomsky follows Marx in opposing the private ownership of the means of production, which he believes permits "elite groups" to :"command resources, based ultimately on their control of the private economy," and ends up excluding the public from "basic decisions concerning production and work."

Chomsky apparently holds to the labor theory of value, another Marxist concept. According to this theory, all the value of a business is contributed by the "workers". That worker we call the owner, apparently contributes nothing. Only someone who never owned a business could believe this preposterous theory. Since the owner contributed nothing to the business, why did the workers show up there in the first place?

According to the labor theory of value, the workers could have gone to a vacant lot, and produced the same amount of wealth by replicating the same physical actions they undertook working for the greedy capitalist, this time without a building and without any equipment, management, customers or business plan. If we take away the greedy capitalist, these little details must go as well. Just think of Marcel Marceau pretending to work. That's right. You syndicalists pretend to work and we capitalists will pretend to pay you.

Thus, based on all the evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that Chomsky and the gang are not satisfied with the opportunity to practice syndicalism. No, what they really want is to prevent others who disagree with them from engaging in forms of production based on private property. And, though they rarely say as much, they apparently intend to put their rivals out of business by brute force, deadly if necessary.

That is why, Chomsky's protests notwithstanding, the syndicalists are like their state socialist and Bolshevik cousins after all. Both believe that a worker-run utopia can and must be brought to fruition, by violence if necessary, against the bourgeoisie and anyone else who stands in their way.

Syndicalists are under the delusion that workers' lives will be idyllic once they get rid of their bosses. However, as Mises informs us, the real bosses of the workers, the ones who ultimately determine wages, working conditions and whether the workers are employed at all, are the cold-hearted, greedy and merciless consumers who purchase the workers' output, or choose not to. Thus, the new workers' co-ops will soon experience what any Maalox-chewing business owner already knows—the absolute tyranny that customers in a free market exercise over business firms and their owners.
Silly syndicalism has never gotten far enough to experience that dilemma. Yet, we can well imagine that, faced with this new and harsh reality—inefficient syndicalist firms producing shoddy and over-priced goods that the employees of other such firms do not want—there will be a demand for our old friend, the state, to be brought back into the equation to make sure all these syndicalist products are sold—at gunpoint. These left-wing "libertarians" may call themselves "anarchists" to shock bourgeois society and their parents, but it's all a fraud.

Anarcho-Syndicalism, as seen in action during the Spanish Civil War, is yet another dangerous leftist utopian fantasy. There, the syndicalists tried to abolish money, but ended up using "coupons" (money) instead. They promised to abolish the state, but instead created a bunch of mini-states—"committees." They promised that a new individual freedom would blossom, but what emerged was a frightening new totalitarian control by the committee, over every aspect of life.

All in all, an inmate at a maximum security prison in New York State today has somewhat more personal freedom than those who lived in Chomsky's "libertarian" paradise.

One of Noam Chomsky's favorite journals when he was young was called Living Marxism. Marxism is dead but Chomsky is still living Marxism. Noam said once, "There are supposed to be laws of economics. I can't understand them." You are correct, Sir! I have an offer that Noam should not refuse. If you stay away from economics and political theory, I will stay away from linguistics.
None of this is to take away from Chomsky's contribution to understanding US foreign policy. Chomsky is right to insist that the US be held to strict standards of morality in the conduct of foreign policy, and ought not to be permitted to get away with a double standard.

But standards of morality are no substitute for economic logic. Economics requires study and systematic thinking about the implications of action, choice, and ownership in a world of scarcity. It is a science that delineates the limits of how far the human mind can wander when thinking about what society can and should be. This is one reason that intellectuals, even great ones, take such pains to avoid studying economics, and instead latch on to fantasies like socialism and syndicalism.

Chomsky has said the social scientist has two main tasks: "imagine a future society that conforms to the exigencies of human nature, as best we understand them. The other, to analyze the nature of power and oppression in our present societies." We might add a third: to be open to the possibility that the results of one's investigations could contradict deeply held ideological biases.