 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
I find much use in returning my efforts to fit these competitive ideas into a frame or reference by using the frame of reference I call the Power Struggle and the form, in the form of a sentence, that reports how the Power Struggle works productively.
Power produced into oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces that cost of production.
If every living being where connected to each other living being with the same exact mind, same exact thoughts, same exact ideas, same exact inspiration to inspire action, then there would be no need for communication. There would be no demand, and therefore no supply, of mediums of exchange that serve the purpose of conveying messages, ideas, information, language, calculation, among the individual forms of life.
There would still be individual perceptions as a mediums of exchange CONVEY accurate (or inaccurate) identifications of physical matter as individual life forms perceive those THINGS that are necessary for survival.
Eyes see light. Ears hear sound. Mouths can taste; but to speak from one individual to another there would be no need for it, if all life forms share the same thoughts.
All life forms do not share the same thoughts.
Which thoughts are worthy of sharing, and which life forms have the power to share any thoughts, and which life forms have the power to reject any thoughts?
In accordance with these canons and the sacred Covenant Pactum De Singularis Caelum, each and every living man and woman have been duly appointed Executor in mind and Trustee in flesh of a unique True Trust through the conveyance of Divine Rights by Divine Personality.
Much of what I read in Positive Law is merely competitive, merely inventive, merely voluntary, merely adaptive, merely one way to look at things in a productive way, and therefore easy to accept, to share, to acknowledge, to consider, and to use in a productive, voluntary, peaceful, way.
Some of what I read is defensive as a power against the power of crime in general and of Legal Crime specifically.
Frank spells out in great detail the specifics of that which is an aggressive, criminal, power, and therefore the specific threat being defended against is in that way specified, and not at all general, or ambiguous.
When the criminals claim to own things that they call people, then Frank offers a counter-defensive-claim that says no, no, no, no such claim is valid, it is false, and in fact we are all members of the group that are not subject to any false claims.
Who can argue with such counter claims?
Not me.
I am not subject to any false claims, as false claims are only valid to those who agree to be subjects of false claims.
What is a true claim?
Here I find the words voluntary and involuntary to be very useful.
If I volunteer to avoid resort to deceit, as a means of gaining power from other people, then my connections to other people, by my will, will be voluntary associations. If someone claims to own me, and I don't agree, and I don't volunteer to join in on such claims, then that specific deceit is rendered powerless by me, by my power of will, by my power of knowing better than to agree to such nonsense.
If the person claiming to own me resorts then to threats, since deceit was not powerful enough, then the matter is still within my power to control, without violence, as threats without proven violence are precisely the same thing as deceit, and therefore my will is employed, and my capacity, my power to know better is employed, and I can merely reject the offer to be afraid of a false threat.
If, on the other hand, the person making the claim of owning me has demonstrated aggressive violence to be not only possible, but current, as the person making the claim may actually be currently "beating sense" into a person who questions the authority of the lying, threatening, aggressively violent criminal, then, in that specific case the POWER struggle is no longer peaceful, and my will, my power to know better, can still be employed, in such a way as to avoid that specific person, whereby I volunteer to sever any connection to that specific person, as may be within my power to do so, which still leaves open many possible consequences other than merely my own avoidance of injury by that specific criminal.
1.
The current victim being victimized by that current criminal is gaining power at the expense of that victim, and the next victim, and the next, so my power to avoid that criminal may be sufficient at the moment, while that criminal is relatively powerless to victimize me, at the moment, but that criminal is gaining power, and that is a measurable consequence of doing nothing to stop that criminal from further crimes perpetrated upon numerous victims.
2.
The affordability of expending my power in the work required to avoid being victimized by that specific criminal is power taken from my capacity to use the power I have in the creation of more power I will have as a result of effective use of my scarce power being invested for the purpose of making my power more abundant.
3.
It is morally wrong to abandon defenseless, innocent, victims as they are being consumed by very evil criminals, I know that, and doing nothing effective to avoid abandoning defenseless, powerless, innocent, victims destroys my own power of morality.
4.
I may be wrong, I may as yet be as misdirected as all the victims who fail to above being victims, and as wrong as all the evil people who consume their targeted victims for fun and profit, in torture chambers, and in killing fields.
5.
There may be no effective solutions and therefore any effort spent looking for effective solutions are wasted efforts that could have been invested in creating abundant power where this is scarce power currently available.