 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
I miss having my cousin Mike, and my distant friend Sergey offer their viewpoints to me, but I appreciate yours by that relative absence.
Your viewpoint is very valuable to me, it stays with me.
Between the time of reading, replying, and now, concerning your recent question I had a qualification realized in my mind concerning my reply to your recent question.
I can get to that qualification after awhile.
"But what I was thinking more of is whether someone in a white coat should show up uninvited and take matters out of the individual's hands as well as that of the family."
That is the trigger to me, or the litmus test, the autonomous, healthy, trustworthy, productive, exchanges are either voluntary or involuntary.
Your question, and my answer, deals with someone who is no longer autonomous, healthy, productive, and the exchange with someone who is, presumably you, or I, or whoever needs an answer, and needs an answer in time, and the two are not connected equitably by that definition.
Person A is going to die without help.
Person B is powerful enough to help, with one qualification, and the qualification is that the person who is almost powerful enough to help the helpless is ignorant concerning the least destructive path, which is the most beneficial path, required to reach the goal of helping.
The power that is absent is the power of knowledge, understanding, wisdom, or whatever words work to connect the person needing the information to the information needed.
So the words you now offer here:
"But what I was thinking more of is whether someone in a white coat should show up uninvited and take matters out of the individual's hands as well as that of the family."
Those words introduce another individual into the exchange, and my mind here is connecting to information I was offered in a First Responder Class, or First Aid Class, and the warning offered that may be relevant to your words is the warning that says look before you leap in a situation where there is someone injured, obviously, and your first reaction is to rush in (where "fools" fear to tread) and by doing so you become the next victim. Perhaps there is an open electric circuit and the first person down is followed by the next person down, the next, and the next, until the electric power is all used up in injuring people, so the next person arriving on the scene is safe.
So the connection I make here is the introduction to another person is not always going to be helpful.
What do they offer?
If they offer the final solution when there is time to consider other possibilities, such as your insistence upon knowing better, compared to knowing worse, then their offer is not help, is it?
Do they bring a piece of paper that claims that they are the only source of help available to anyone ever?
Do they bring a badge that claims that it is either their help or no help, ever, and if you dare question the offer you will be the next one needing help?
Does this all sound familiar by now, as if a routine, or business cycle is working the way it works when people are led down the wrong path?
The qualification that I had, hit me, in my thinking, in between the time you offer the question and now, was a qualification that you reinforce with your latest response, and the qualification is such that my admission of seeing good use in lies, and good use in threats, and good use in violence, to save someone in need, is not automatically a choice to go and get those tools first.
The first thing to do is to look at the situation from at least one more competitive angel of view to compare that extra viewpoint to the one viewpoint that may first appear into view. If time runs out, and there are no other options, there is only time for a small, almost harmless, lie, which will reasonably save the helpless person, then why not use that lie for that purpose in that dire situation? Would a reasonable person, under those specific conditions only, only those specific conditions, take the lie solution off the shelf, taking that tool off the tool belt, and if so, for what reason?
A. Small lie and the helpless person lives and recuperates and becomes healthy again.
B. Helpless person can't be helped in that specific situation because a lie is not going to be used by the person in that position where only that lie is left as the last resort to help that person in need.
Words I write can be claims of ideas that are not mine, and I think that experience proves to me that there is a need to be specific concerning what I do mean with the words I choose.
In regards to collectivism, I want to know if people can be collected even if they don't want to be collected. Even if it is done so with out lies and threats or violence.
With your help I can try on the shoes of other people. I can say to myself, do I really understand what is meant by the person who chooses those words?
I have to say, at this point, no.
No, I do not really know what is meant, but I can ask for clarification.
If you can give me a specific example of what goes on in the mind that drives the action that is then called "collectivism," then I can see what you mean by that example.
Describe to me, please, what happens when "people can be collected if they don't want to be collected, even if it is done so with out lies and threats or violence."
The word slaves comes to my mind.
A criminal gives himself, or herself, the authority to create slaves out of other people, and I can call that Legal Crime.
The criminal then looks for and finds a slave, another one, and then 10 slaves, or 100, or 3 billion.
No lies.
No threats.
No violence.
The criminal figures out how to enslave billions without lies, threats, or violence.
Is it possible?
I think it is possible. Take away free will, physically, with poison for one example, and what will happen to those living beings that have no power to choose?
What is fluoride doing in the water?
What is mercury doing in the supposed inoculations?
How long would it take in years, or revolutions around the sun, for the plan to work, if the plan was to remove free will from the targeted victims?
What if one of the victims chooses not to be a victim?
Is that, then, the inspiration to pick up the tool of falsehood, or threats, or violence?
Is it the fact that a victim may choose not to be a victim the cause that causes the criminal to reach for standardized, routine, tools used by criminals?
1.
Lies
2.
Threats
3.
Violence
4.
Other things useful when seeking the goal of gaining power from the innocent victims.
Are we speaking about willful criminals?
Are we speaking about people who are led down a path of crime despite their desire to help people?
Are we speaking about innocent people who are not willful criminals?
Like what if someone decides that everyone should live in cities, because that is what is "best" for people and for the environment and for commerce etc. Should people be forced to live where they do not want to live?
There is a phenomenon that can be called political economy. There is a genuine version of it. There is also a counterfeit version of political economy.
It may be a good idea to know the difference.
The genuine article is such that honest, productive, independent, careful, human beings can produce much more when those people harmonize, and cooperate, and access division of labor, specialization, and economies of scale.
If transportation is costly then close proximity reduces that costly expense.
What are cities?
If the Legal Criminals can move the slaves closer together, then the Legal Criminals have less transporting expenses while the power is being sucked out of the slaves.
Since our human condition is now such that a small group of people can survive almost anywhere, having abundant power from the sun converted to useable electric power, and easy to store surpluses of abundant power, in hydrogen, or many other storage mediums, there is no longer as much utility in close proximity, or cities, as once there was in human history.
If the genuine utility of a city (close proximity) no longer exists, or is of much less value (political economy) then why are there so many people still fenced into cities?
Which powers are at work, if not genuine ones, that are working to keep people caged into cages?
What if someone lives on flood land, and they do not want to move, but they are forced to move because "the government" (a list of people) has decided that they will buy up all the flood land that surrounds rivers and then put in a damn so the water can be controlled for the collective good. What about the people who are forced off of their land for the collective good?
I want the answer, do you?
Are you willing to do the work?
Boil the situation down to the best, honest, productive, moral, voluntary, live preserving situation that you can imagine, or borrow my viewpoint.
A bunch of people voluntarily assemble to reach the goal of producing a man-made lake, dam, and power generator, whereby the goal is to then have electric power run like water, to then be used to reduce the costs of making food, clothing, and shelter, and other life sustaining things.
One person is already found on an almost ideal spot for the project in mind.
Is it one mind?
No, you have already offered an important qualification in your question, as there are many people on a list who are volunteering to work together to reach the shared goal in mind.
Dam
Dam
Dam
If not for that one person.
Does that one person refuse to make best use the land, despite careful efforts to inform the person of all the benefits that can be realized that far exceeds the current use of that land by that one person?
I don't know. Your question is lacking specifics.
The Dam project could move to another location?
The Dam project could be delayed until the one hold-out is no longer holding out by natural causes, or by some other, peaceful, means?
If the project is truly a productive venture of vast proportions, huge savings in power costs, and each voluntary member of the collective mind set on that Dam project will reap powerful rewards, then why does the one person hold-out?
I'd ask the one hold-out, perhaps I was wrong, perhaps the one hold-out is actually using the land better than anyone else could.
The exercise in building a hypothetical example here can be expanded upon, as the GANG with the collective mind set, set to build a Dam, may be starving to death and the cost of traveling to a possible better location could be measured in human deaths.
The exercise in building a hypothetical example here could involve a single well of water in the desert and the one hold-out refuses to give up any water despite having abundant water in this hypothetical case imagined by me, and offered to you.
An example where one person has only as much as needed for one person, and then other people claiming ownership of that scarce supply of only enough power for that one person, is not the same question.
If that becomes the question, then my answer to that "what to do when there is an abundance of scarcity" is answered by a real world example in the form of a few people on a boat:
Men against the Sea