 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Thanks for the welcome response. You did not address me. I am here to discuss the topic. If you do not address me then I can assume that you do not want to address me, and therefore I cannot assume that your comments are meant to address my comments, and therefore it is not assumable, to me, that you are open to discussion, with me, on this topic.
I can ask:
Why did you not address me?
I can also ask:
Do you think that it is appropriate, within the boundaries of the forum rules, or within any boundary whatsoever, do you think it is tolerable, for me to address you, and for me to comment on your comments, as if I were discussing the topic with you?
I won't wait for an answer. I assume, despite the fact that you did not address me, that comments in this thread are fair game, open to discussion.
Example:
1) Jobs are created when free enterprise is left alone to create them; by asking for the government to create jobs, you're asking the government to manipulate the market and the natural law of supply and demand, and that's exactly what we have today (that is corporatism!)
Do you have an exclusive definition of the term government?
Please consider the question to be important enough to ask, and important enough to answer in any case whatsoever. Failure to define government is a measure of abdication, someone else will define it in no uncertain terms.
Do you mean:
A voluntary association.
Is government a voluntary association, according to how you define government?
If no, then please leave no uncertain terms, if the idea is to discuss the topic, please leave no uncertain terms during the process - please.
If you mean:
Government is an involuntary association.
If that is what you mean, then please tell me how your government, as you define it, is any different from any crime, in principle.
The answer will clue me in on your stand, where you are standing, and I'll know, in this case, more, I may know enough, depending upon your answer, to know friend from foe. I can ask for more details, but, frankly, if the answer is the criminal answer, I'll know enough to distrust any other answers you may offer.
Do you define your government as an involuntary association? Is this question not clear? Is your version of government, your government as you define it, an involuntary association according to your definition of government? The answer allows me to know that which you are, that which you intend, if you answer honestly.
I can, at least, know what you mean, when you publish your messages, that are here, in response to the topic.
You wrote this:
1) Jobs are created when free enterprise is left alone to create them; by asking for the government to create jobs, you're asking the government to manipulate the market and the natural law of supply and demand, and that's exactly what we have today (that is corporatism!)
If you dodge the question. I'll have the answer.
The question:
Do you define government as an involuntary association?
A Democratic Federated Republican form of government experiment was tried, in the form of The Articles of Confederation, and that was an example of a working voluntary association experiment. The subject of this topic is dealing with an involuntary association such as the legal fiction, or corporate entity, known as U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) which was formed by employing the enabling document called The Constitution.
So, my question directed at the author of the response, in this thread, is aiming at that specific clarification, to be clear about my intentions.
When referring to the thing knowable as government, to be clear: is the focus of attention meant to focus upon an involuntary association, or is there an intent to focus attention upon a voluntary association?
Examples of each:
A. The Nation State founded upon the fraudulent usurpation known as The Constitution, which is an involuntary association, or legal despotism.
B. A Democratic Federated Republican experimental form of government such as the historical example recorded as The Articles of Confederation, which was a voluntary association - relatively speaking.
Note, please, how the response to the topic can have completely opposite meanings when government is defined clearly, one way or the other opposite way, a voluntary association, or the opposite meaning, and please also note that the meaning of the response can be too ambiguous to convey meaning without clarification on that one duplicitous word: government.
Example A (use of the word government as a voluntary association, such as the historical example provided by The Articles of Confederation):
First the quoted message without clarification:
1) Jobs are created when free enterprise is left alone to create them; by asking for the government to create jobs, you're asking the government to manipulate the market and the natural law of supply and demand, and that's exactly what we have today (that is corporatism!)
Now an rewrite with clarification of the intended meaning of the word government.
Example A:
1) Jobs are created when free enterprise is left alone to create them; by asking for the voluntary government to create jobs, you're asking the voluntary government to manipulate the market and the natural law of supply and demand, and that's exactly what we have today (that is voluntary corporatism!)
If that is the intended meaning of the word government the obvious question is:
What does "free enterprise" mean?
The apparent message is such that there is this thing called free enterprise and then there is this thing called government, and one is mutually exclusive to the other, if not directly opposite the other, and therefore, apparently, the message is not going to make sense when the government is voluntary, since it would be a product of free enterprise; hence the need for clarification, if the idea is to communicate meaning and do so accurately.
Now rewriting the message with clarification concerning the intended definition of government as an involuntary association.
Example B:
1) Jobs are created when free enterprise is left alone to create them; by asking for the involuntary government to create jobs, you're asking the involuntary government to manipulate the market and the natural law of supply and demand, and that's exactly what we have today (that is involuntary corporatism!)
That makes even less sense to me, since there is no point in asking the involuntary government to do anything, what is the point, why not ask the government to alter the association from an involuntary association into a voluntary association and thereby eliminate the need to ask - altogether?
When the legal criminals hear the victims begging for mercy, what do you think they will do, give mercy, or turn the screws faster, deeper, and with renewed vim and vigor?
I can't help but be inspired to respond in the manner before me, from a common sense point of view, rather than from a fashionable one, whereby the response is akin to reading from a script.
On to number 2:
2) Education has been totally co-opted by evil forces BECAUSE of government meddling: think of the cost and college debt, the tax exempt foundations, the dumbing down, the political correctness, propaganda and so much more (that too is corporatism at work)
Again the use of the word government as if there is only one, and everyone supposedly knows this one thing, as if no one can ever invent a competitive version, so as to have two obvious forms of government ready for appraisal by anyone, as to which is of a much higher quality, and which is of a much lower quality, and which is much higher in cost, and which is measurable in ways that can account for negative costs, or production instead of costs, whereby the form of government actually manages to help people increase the standard of living while simultaneously lowering the cost of living. One is used to destroy, compared to the other. One is used to produce destructive deceit, targeting victims, and it is used to threaten aggressive violence, targeting innocent victims, and it is used to produce ever increasing levels of horrible, terrifying, destructive violence, targeting the very people who would otherwise have expending their time, and energy, improving the standard of living, and lowering the cost of living, had they not been subjected to the employment of that destructive, non-competitive, form of government.
Why is there no reference whatsoever mentioned as to the existence of a competitive form of government, as if there can only be one?
I can ask, and I do ask, and this time the question may not be dodged. I may have a real answer, instead of a lack of an answer, which is an answer in fact. No answer is an answer, as much of an answer, as meaningful as any other ambiguity - it is measurable as nothing, as space, as void, as vacuum, as meaninglessness, direction-less-ness, powerlessness, etc.
Why refer to government as if there is only one, there can be no competitive version, there is only one, always, and forever, and never can there be a competitor?
To me, from my vacuum, from my ignorance, I imagine someone reading from a script, and the script does not mention a competitive form of government, therefore there is no such thing, according to the script.
Number 3:
3) Environmental protection is a buzzword for the UN's Agenda 21 - and they even say in the video that they want "Sustainable Development": they've already fallen for the very thing they don't even realize comes with more catches than they could ever imagine (more corporatism, aka fascism/communism/collectivism)
Now there are more words that appear to be subsets of the one word, as if there is, according to the script, a singularity, a monopoly, a whole, and then with closer inspection there are components of the one thing.
I. Government
A. Corporatism
B. Fascism
C. Collectivism
There is, however, according to the script, an anti-singularity, apparently, and this anti-monopoly, this anti-government entity, floating around in the same universe, occupying, living, breathing, thinking, and acting, within the same space, and the name on this anti-government entity is, as far as I can tell so far, a thing called free enterprise.
Can this script be illustrated as follows?
I. Government II. free enterprise
A. Corporatism A. Non-Corpratism
B. Fascism vs. B. Non-Fascism
C. Collectivism C. Non-Collectivism
Having a general understanding of the purpose of words, as a tool to either transfer accurate meaning, or as a tool used to deceive targeted consumers of lies, it stands to reason that a word is needed to convey the existence of a voluntary association whereby many people collect their power into one collective power so as to have more power to accomplish a goal that cannot be accomplished without the combination, and the same word could be used to convey a voluntary association. Is that word a term, and is that term: free enterprise? What happens if an involuntary association employs the same word? There is a serous problem when two opposite things are using the same word to focus attention on both opposite things at once, since one thing could then be easily confused with the other, opposite, thing.
Who benefits when the bad version is confused with the good version?
Suppose, for example, there were many people seeking to form a voluntary association whereby all their separate powers are combined into one greater power, a power that is even greater than the sum of all the parts, whereby the reason, and purpose, of the combination, is to defend against people who enforce involuntary associations?
Supposing that such a group of people did exit, what would happen if said group confused the good thing with the bad thing, and all those Honest Productive Americans failed to join the good thing, and all those Honest Productive Americans joined the bad thing instead?
Could that be a result of confusion when the two opposite things are sharing the same word?
Suppose, on the other hand, that there does exist another group of people who desire to exploit weaknesses, such a morality, embodied in a targeted group of innocent people, weakened by their morality, and this group were also confused by the use of one word used for two opposite things, and as a result of that confusion the legal criminals joined the honest productive voluntary association by mistake?
In whose interest is it to confuse the word government with the ongoing practice of using the concept of law in the work required to perpetuate crime?
It is not my interest to do so. I have an interest in the opposite.
Jeepers, they even demand that U.S. law should adhere to international law.
Yes, jeepers, more ambiguity.
Which law?
If the law is such that people are allowed to volunteer to join, or combine, their separate powers, into a single power, a collective, and then use that power to avoid being either criminals or victims, then whose going to crush so fatal a spirit, and why would they choose to do so? Do you see a need to crush out anyone working toward a voluntary association whereby each volunteer sends a portion of their earnings to a central collective and then that collective is then used to avoid the undesirable move toward involuntary associations? What would you call such a thing, if one existed, ever?
Here is an example of U.S. Law:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html
AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
When do the volunteers decide to avoid being both criminals and victims, and how do they go about reaching that goal?
Discuss the question, and refuse to settle for ambiguous answers?
http://october2011.org/issues
5. Government – all processes of the three branches of government should be accountable to international law, transparent and follow the rule of law, people have the right to participate in decisions which affect them.
That is ambiguous, therefore it can mean anything, it can be constructively interpreted, which is the one major flaw with The Constitution, among many flaws, that the Founding Fathers warned their followers as a serious concern.
If by "international law" the meaning is such that millions of victims of legal criminals using The Constitution to torture, and mass murder, have, the victims have, the least bit of legal power to hold those legal criminals to account, if nothing else is legally their power under that verison of International Law, just hold the guilty torturing mass murderers to account, to have their crimes, at least, officially recorded, in some legal manner, as in, hey, did you know, officially, in a legal sense, the criminal Clinton, the criminal Bush, and the criminal Obama, have tortured these people on this list, and those same criminals, as you may want to know, have serially murdered all these people on this, official, legal, list of victims. According to this version of International Law, the victims have the power to know the truth, at least, and it is now official, those criminals are now officially guilty of those crimes upon those innocent victims. Victims do not often manage to secure the power to hold the criminals to account, with few exceptions, but what if that is the constructive interpretation of that International Law, that one in question, there, by those people, right there, in that group?
Heaven forbid!
Before anyone begins bantering around the false demonization of me, for being less than expected, less than supportive, or less than compassionate, or less than understanding, whatever, know what you mean, before you do so, please. This is not my first rodeo, and I have done my homework. If you jerk your knee, in writing, on this forum, you can't go back and edit it out, as far as I know, so, be forewarned.
Look in the mirror, know what you support, and if you can stand scrutiny, do so, and if you resort to deceit, you will do that, and if you resort to threats of violence, that is what you will do, and if you can find me, you can resort to acts of violence, or you can hire someone to do that work for you, I suppose, and then that is what you define to be you, even if you don't see that when you look in the mirror.
I am being nice; nice enough to care - and not settle for less than a more accurate perspective.
If those people choose to fight the fight they see worth fighting in their way, something can be learned from that effort, not the least of which, to me, is having a date on the calender, so as to call attention to that specific time, a time when all who have an interest in that fight will honorably agree to combine their separate powers into one well focused power on that date, and they are good enough to warn their targets concerning their intentions.
They are targeting very powerful people, people I call legal criminals, people who torture, and people who mass murder, and people who get paid very well for doing so, not based upon volume, not based upon the number of screams, their pay is based upon the limit that their victims tolerated the costs they accrue, for doing the jobs they are hired to do, which is to deceive, they are hired to deceive, and they are hired to threaten violence, and they are hired to commit violence.
Those volunteers are volunteering to take on the worst criminals the human species has had the misfortune of bearing, and they do so peacefully. That is worth something. The simple fact that they may, or may not as individuals, validate the legitimacy of their government is as worth knowing, in my view.
A.
Honor, self sacrifice, willful disobedience in the face of potential serous injury, and refusal to resort to violence.
B.
Tragic misunderstanding of the principles required for the invention and maintenance of peaceful coexistence.
A lesson learned is a lesson learned well enough to do any good.
What do you think might be the true cost of a situation whereby enough people show up to demonstrate in the manner planned in the October 2012 event, that the legal criminals can get away with actions perpetrated by mercenary agent provocateurs who then cause an excuse used by the legal criminals to rapidly increase the torture and body count on those days?
Following the script is almost certainly going to support the authors of the script, at the expense of those who fail to recognize just how false the script has become since the first legal criminal began writing that narrative, or so, to me, commons sense dictates.
What will it take to realize the full measure of the problem? What is the true limit that the victims can endure? Know that, it seems to me, and you know the bar that the legal criminals aim to lower.
What is the alternative, what is the free enterprise script, in the face of all that destructive power? Can all the friends of liberty manage to avoid all that misery, destruction, torture, and mass murder, by remaining disconnected from each other, or connected with a link that also allows the connection to both the criminal group and the ready, willing, and able victims?
I think so, and I think a date on the calender is a fine idea, a very good goal post, and having a goal post can be a device by which the problem is communicated, in no uncertain terms, and therefore as many volunteers as possible can work at offering the highest quality, and lowest cost, solutions, and one possible offering can be to say that, hey, on that day, we should try to narrow down the field to a workable few solutions, so as to be in a position to implement at least one.
How about, or example, picking July 4th 2012, as a competitive day, and on that day, I can offer, as a competitive solution, that those who agree will agree to stop using the criminal fraud money, and start using competitive money, all at once, on that find summer day, in the not too distant future.