| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: Joe Kelley | Page:   ... 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 ...   |
|
|||||||||||||
| Final Editing | Rating: 
|
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Sat Aug 3rd, 2013 02:16 pm |
|
661st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
bear, That sounds very good.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Aug 6th, 2013 11:34 am |
|
662nd Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Hi Joe, I have a question (imagine that). Regarding this: 1. "If one is forced into a collective situation, as far as I can understand, they are no longer sovereign." Number 1 is my sentence. Number 2 is your modification to my sentence. This is my question: Are criminals the only people who will force other people into involuntary situations? I am asking this because when you say: “If one [victim] is [willfully] forced [by a criminal to make the victim less powerful, so as to make the criminal more powerful]..." It makes me wonder, Do you think people should be forced into situations for their own good in order to make them more powerful? I ask this question because number 2 leaves that option.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Aug 6th, 2013 01:39 pm |
|
663rd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
bear, I don't have the answers, since I don't know, but my thinking is that the answer in this case is yes. It makes me wonder, Do you think people should be forced into situations for their own good in order to make them more powerful? I ask this question because number 2 leaves that option. If a lie, threat, or even a relatively harmless act of violence is willfully perpetrated by an individual upon another individual or upon more than one other individual so as to save the target of the lie, threat, or violence from certain, torturous, and horrible death, then that can be exemplified precisely that way in reality or in theory. Now take that example of how a lie, or a threat, or violence, is used that way, and compare it to another example of the same thing. Now see all those examples of those lies, threats, and all those examples of relatively harmless violence as a competition to see, by some relative measure, which was the least harmful, and which example resulted in the actual reaching of the goal to save human beings from the most certain torturous and horrible death. Now take the one exemplary example of all those examples that stands out as the least harmful willfully employed example done by someone to cause the result of the greatest good, and there, then, is an example to be compared with the opposite, or the counterfeit, good use of tools. The lie does not do it. The threat does not do it. The violent act does not do it. A willful person commits a crime. What is the routine tools used by criminals? 1. Lies 2. Threats 3. Violence Are there any other tools used by criminals? Who blames the lie? Who blames the threat? Who blames the violence? How is any of those human actions among humans measured as being either good or bad for one at the hands (and mind) of the other, and is the measure accurate? A good person will tend to ask, honestly, if their thoughts and actions cause injury to another person, and a good person will tend to trust that the answer is true, and then a good person would, it seems to me, stop repeating the thoughts and actions that harm someone else, or my question is: Why ask that question if not to help the victims of injury avoid further injury? The other angle I immediately begin thinking about once I read your generous question had to do with the degree at which the transfers of power flow from one person to another person. That sets me off on the competitive scale building of examples of those degrees at which power flows from one person to another person. I do that, as a routine, so as to get a larger pictures of each example of interaction among people. A petty criminal who seeks to gain at the expense of someone else, by lying, by threatening, and by petty examples of violence, for example, can be compared to the examples provided by Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, Pol Pot, and the people who payed them to get started on their paths of crime made legal. When does crime cease to be of any significance in our human existence? I think a good way to find out is to stop paying the worst criminals the most power.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Aug 6th, 2013 02:37 pm |
|
664th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Joe, If I refuse to eat, I will loose power. Should someone then force me to eat? Should a group take over and force me to eat? Should I be declared not of sound mind so that someone, anyone who cares, could force me to eat? Is that act of force part of Liberty? I think on a small scale, but if the answer is yes, the scale of affect could become very large.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Aug 6th, 2013 04:35 pm |
|
665th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
bear, My answer is yes in some cases and no in other cases, to be determined by me, God willing, if such a thing is on my path through this life stuff. Could you refuse to act to save your lived ones in such a case as you describe? Do I understand the question?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Aug 6th, 2013 06:22 pm |
|
666th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Hmm, Joe, you boil it down to someone besides myself, my loved ones. No, I could not watch them starve themselves and not try to do something. I would want to intervene. I would want to help them. First, I would want to know why they didn't want to eat, and then I would proceed from that answer to try to get help. Yes and no. That is a good answer for me. It would depend. 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. 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. 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? 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?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Aug 7th, 2013 08:30 am |
|
667th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
bear, 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
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Aug 7th, 2013 04:44 pm |
|
668th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Hi Joe, Thank you for your reply. You have given me much to think about and I expect to reply back tomorrow. I picked wild black berries this morning and spent most of the afternoon sleeping it off. It was so nice to be out and to feel good enough to be out but I still tire easily. I am on page 50 something of the first read of Joe Quotes, and that is where my questions regarding for the good of a person or collective good of a person came from. It is amazing as I go back thru the new eyes I read with as new questions form that had not occurred to me earlier. I appreciate your perspective and your willingness to take the time to answer bear questions. I have to take the boys to get free physicals this evening as they are now of that age in their sports endeavors. The free physicals come at an expense of inconvenience for me because they are 30 minutes up the road, start at 6 and Jeff would like me to be back at 7 for church, and I don't know how many people will be in line. Time will tell, and free saves us $40.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Aug 7th, 2013 08:53 pm |
|
669th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
bear, I am merely letting you know that I read your last, welcome, words.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Aug 7th, 2013 11:06 pm |
|
670th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Thanks Joe, Time told that I did make it back by 7 and that there was also a line. All went well and I was able to do some bookwork during the wait. I am on page 67 right now and have a blackberry pie in the oven. I am going to do book work till bed I am tired and then tomorrow I will make a reply. I have been thinking about a phrase that you used in the book: Authority of man upon man is a lie. What does that mean? Is there any valid authority? Should there be police, and in my mind I am not talking about criminals with badges. I am talking about regular people who have a job that includes a badge, a gun, and a car, and who use those tools in a way that keeps the peace. Didn't they used to be called Peace Officers before they were called Police Officers, before they were called Cops, before they were called Pigs? And I have no idea what they are called today. Is there such a thing as yielded authority where people who choose to live in a certain place abide by rules or laws and those given authority to enforce laws have a lawful and good job as long as they follow the rules and are not above the rules?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Aug 8th, 2013 10:30 am |
|
671st Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Joe, These words: Do they bring a piece of paper that claims that they are the only source of help available to anyone ever? that you provided give clarity to the powers at work in the situation of someone showing up in a white coat to "help." But these word: 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? cause me caution. I don't carry a lie of any sort as a tool. I think the habit of creating a small lie that may appear harmless for the greater good is rationale that can lead to big lies that may appear harmless for self good. I think that lying of any sort is something that can take on a life of its own as one small harmless lie grows as each new lie is used to cover that small lie as lie pile up one upon another. I think that creating lies creates a liar. I think that when a mind begins to form lies that it becomes easier and easier to lie and soon lies just spill out for the "benefit" of the moment. I think that perhaps the liar can begin to live in those lies as if they are truth causing reality to change for that individual while those around that individual live in a different reality resulting from the lies of the liar. I think a lie as a tool is a tool that should never find its way upon the tool belt. I think truth is the belt that holds tools: Ephesians 6:14 KJV Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; So, whether or not the person in need is rationale and sane, I do not believe that a lie should be used. 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? Maybe the person just wants to live on the land. Maybe that land had been passed down generation to generation. The person lives there and is not out of malice prohibiting a Dam project. The person just wants to live where they have lived all of their life and they have a farm and their children will work the farm after they die. It is family property. The person is happy to share the water with those who are thirsty, but does not want to leave the land. In that situation, even if compensation is given for the land, I do not believe the people who want to build a dam have the right to take the persons land if the land is not for sale. Is that right? OK, I asked you another bear question last night in the comment above this one  I am on page 75 now. I am hoping to get a lot of book work done today.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Aug 8th, 2013 11:26 am |
|
672nd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
bear, Thanks for the update and I would like to know whose pies are better between you and your blackberry pie and my daughter's apple pie. I am not one to judge since I am not much on pies, but my daughter is often given much thanks for the good work she does with apples, flour, and a rolling pin. On the question of true authority, which is the context of my words, I think that we all know the answer instinctively, or naturally, or intuitively, so long as our genetic make-up is not injured, destroyed, or mutated, but words that describe that which works naturally are not easy, for reasons that may become obvious. The authority of man upon man is a lie. That means, in context, that the origin of law is not found inside a man, since the authority of law is found in the origin of what made man, and all that man encounters through life, or the almighty, or the creator, or whatever power is the source of power that is the origin of creation. I see that as being true. A man can claim to know true authority, and it is possible that the claim being made is true, but the fact that it is true makes it true authority, not the fact that one man, or woman, knows the true authority. What is an example of true authority? I can claim to know that voluntary agreements constitute true authority among those individuals of mankind that agree. My proof of the fact that this is true authority is such that anyone asked if they are forced by any man to agree proves, if the answer is no (I was not forced), and if the answer is true (the person was not forced into "agreement"), that the authority in question was not a man forcing authority upon a man. In other words, if someone disagrees with the concept of true authority being expressed as agreement, do they do so because they are not forced to do so by another man, and therefore it is an agreement, not a disagreement with the concept? I'm asking. In other words, you don't have to agree with true authority, because true authority does not require your agreement, nor does true authority require (human) enforcement. True authority is proven as human agreement each time people agree. The liars may claim that an agreement between two human beings to combine their power to injure another human being proves that agreement is NOT true authority, but that is another lie, since the victim, being a victim, by that definition, does not agree, so the liars are offering an example of counterfeit agreement as an example of an agreement, which is routine for criminals. I think your help is helping me find what I mean, right here, as true authority is Liberty, as it exists in peace, and if there is going to be any force applied to intervene in between a criminal and a victim, that is another subject. That is defense against crime. 1. True authority (criminals do not agree with it, proven by their willful crimes) 2. Humans agreeing to find ways to avoid crime. One is not the other thing, is it? My words: Authority of man upon man is a lie. Your response: "Is there any valid authority?" Ask everyone you know to find anyone who says no to the following example of how true authority works. Your loved ones, which is potentially everyone, but I am making this personal to bring it into our living rooms, or onto our kitchen tables like delicious pies... Your loved one is cornered and a criminal is about to end the life of your loved one, and someone else, who we can call Person A, arrives in time to shout the word "NO!" The criminal thinks better of ending the life of your loved one, and the criminal scampers off, back into the darkness, or who knows, that criminal may have been scared straight, and that criminal may run into the light. If you find someone claiming that person A is not an example of someone expressing true authority, then there may be reasons for such a claim being made by a person we can now call Person B. Person B may say something along the lines of your loved one deserving what they should have gotten (murdered), and therefore Person A was taking the law in his own hands, which is a crime, on and on. I say that there may be more than one Person B, and there may be more than one Person A, and there may be many people who would just watch as the criminal ends the life of your loved one in any case whatsoever. I know what I would do, since I've been in at least one similar situation. There is a power at work driving me to act lawfully, in my opinion, and the power is built into my being, given to me, thankfully. What horror exists in the depths of ignorance, apathy, or criminality? I think I can claim to know, since I've been in at least one situation where I've failed to act right, or lawfully, or in defense of innocence. I can claim that true law defends innocence, but who would agree with me? Should there be police, and in my mind I am not talking about criminals with badges. To me the question of individual people specializing in being in the right place at the right time to help innocent people avoid being victims to criminals is an obviously good investment in scarce power, since so much power is destroyed with each crime perpetrated by each criminal upon each innocent victim. Those who specialize in a free market scenario (Liberty) are those who are best at it, those who charge the least for it, and therefore the specialists who specialize in being in the right place at the right time to intervene, to stop, to say "NO!," to run off the criminals, to make crime pay less, in Liberty (free market competition), are best at it, rather than the case where the criminals take over, and the criminals make their crimes pay very well. So, yes, I agree, certainly, to anyone claiming of the need to invest in specialists who intervene in the middle of a crime in progress. The example, on a local, individual, single, crime in progress, between two people, one criminal, and one victim, is asked for, and offered, in the case of Person A. I asked for an example, and I offered one. That pales in comparison, competitively, to the concept of investing in a defensive power large enough to intervene in the unfortunate event of having a very large criminal army invading, destroying, raping, pillaging. and occupying a place where Liberty may be allowing people to live and let live otherwise. So I now offer a scale. One criminal, acting alone, one victim at a time victimized by the one lone gunman, the lone serial killer, and the obvious, agreeable, need to invest in such a specialization as having someone powerful enough to make that type of crime pay less. Currently there is a case here where a mom with a history of thinking problems has gone missing. The family is seeking donations since the "police" are worse than having no "police," as the "police" will work to make money from the family, by accusing, arresting, and punishing a member of the family, if the "police" can't find easier prey. That is the sorry truth, in real time. I am not up on the whole story, as to any reasons, or lack of reason, for the mom to walk away, if that is what she did, willfully. I am only offering that scenario as a case of "how to pay for" defense against crime. The family is gaining the funds needed to hire a private investigator, at this point. That is the fine, local, door to door, individual, detail of power being invested into things that can be called crime prevention, or law, or authority. The true authority is missing? The dad has to stop working long enough to start acting in a truly authoritative way, driven to do so by forces that I can only imagine. I can go on and on with this local stuff. But that is only local stuff. The Declaration of Independence is a man made declaration declared by the victims in response to crimes perpetrated by organized criminals whose power was, at the time, immense. Is the Declaration of Independence an expression of true authority? I can claim that it is, but who agrees with me? How many Person B types, who claim that the Declaration of Independence is not an expression of true authority, as they may claim that Might makes Right, or some other claim meaning the same thing? I am not saying that my claim is true authority, but it is a competitive, high quality, and low cost claim compared to the opposition offered by Person B. I prefer those who agree with the idea that it is our duty, as human beings, to intervene in between criminals and victims so as to make crime pay less, even when the criminals are very well organized and very powerful. I am talking about regular people who have a job that includes a badge, a gun, and a car, and who use those tools in a way that keeps the peace. Didn't they used to be called Peace Officers before they were called Police Officers, before they were called Cops, before they were called Pigs? And I have no idea what they are called today. Even now, even after the criminals have taken over for over 200 years, here in America, there are still more good, true authorities, among us compared to those who are not, if the measure of dead corpses floating down rivers is a rough way to measure such things. The Civil War (lie) comes to mind. How do you tell the good one's from the bad ones? How do you tell the genuine specialists in true authority from the counterfeit versions who specialize in crime made legal? Ask one if they think that any person who can say NO to crime aught to say NO when saying NO can end a crime in progress. Can I, merely me, deputize myself, or do I need permission sir? Can I take the law into my own hands or not, sir? Ask one if The Declaration of Independence is true authority, whereby it is the duty of those under criminal governments to disconnect from such crimes in progress, and while you are at it, ask that person if they know that The Constitution makes rebellion against the law, and is therefore a criminal government in fact. If the answer to the question about The Declaration of Independence is affirmative concerning the duty of the people to disconnect from criminals governments, then The Constitution has to be, by that reasoning, a criminal government, since The Constitution outlaws "insurrection," which is rebellion, which is exactly what the criminals call those who refuse to be victim to criminal governments. Is there such a thing as yielded authority where people who choose to live in a certain place abide by rules or laws and those given authority to enforce laws have a lawful and good job as long as they follow the rules and are not above the rules? Here is the test of a person's understanding of true authority in my view. If someone claims that a rule is true authority and their claim is then made by them that the rule only applies to other people, but the rule does not apply to themselves, then, in that case, to me, you have accurately identified a criminal. The criminals do not often make such claims in the open. Not on the local level. Not personally face to face. A criminal is not going to accost you and say that it is the rule that you have to obey this law while I do not have to obey this law, because no such requirement of camouflage is needed while both of you know, precisely, that the criminal is busy making you a victim right there on the spot. However, the campaign, the promises, of ever better things, if only you sign on the bottom line, if only you agree, if only you buy, this or that, the bounty you will know, the paradise you will realize, will be, if only you agree, are legion, and it is called false advertizement. The rule of might makes right is the same rule as Caveat Emptor, is it not? Do onto others before they have a chance to do onto you? It is the rule shared by all the criminals? It is the one rule that everyone uses universally? Kill or be killed? If you do not agree, then what? Failing to agree results in what? Friendship? I can't claim to be an authority over anything unspecified. But I can claim, offer, and ask for, friendship. If I am rejected, there is no crime in my mind, I can merely work at a more competitive offer, but if the form of rejection arrives as being my injury, a broken leg, broken knee caps, a steady draining of my earnings, then I think I know that I have found criminals. I can offer. Do you at least know what is not authority, beyond a reasonable doubt?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Aug 8th, 2013 12:12 pm |
|
673rd Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Joe, I left a reply above your last reply. I am hoping you see it. This: I can offer. Do you at least know what is not authority, beyond a reasonable doubt? It seems to me that anyone with a gun who says, "Come out with your hands up, or I will shoot," has a reasonable amount of self imposed authority being imposed upon the person who is supposed to come out with the hands up. Authority can be good or evil? Authority is a tool? It depends on whether the black hat or the white hat is using authority? So, what is not authority? My guess is it is someone who does not have the power to back up their authority. Now the black hat may be a false authority, but still, the black hat has the might to force in an authoritarian way without regard of the person being forced. So I am wondering, perhaps the question needs to be asked whether one should submit to the might of a false authority in order to preserve one's own life and that of their loved ones.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Aug 8th, 2013 03:13 pm |
|
674th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
bear, I have been invited for lunch, so I'm out for awhile. I did not see your post before my last one (timing?), and I have a few things to think about in reference to your offers of ideas. I can nail things down to a more exact wording to remove more ambiguities that tend to work against the concept of accurate transfers of my viewpoints. We can't agree on which page we are on when we are on two different pages.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Aug 8th, 2013 03:35 pm |
|
675th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Joe, I am on page 84 out of 174...I know that is not what you are talking about, I am just trying to be funny. I also sent you and email forwarding some information I received from Ron Paul regarding his Ron Paul Channel. He promises to provide news without the lies on is channel.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Aug 8th, 2013 04:25 pm |
|
676th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Joe,Sorry to bother you again, but I am struck by this:It is a form of insurance or bonding, but the idea isn't to nurture competition. The idea is to create an insurance policy against competition. The words: nurture competition are beautiful words when viewing political economy. Nurturing competition goes hand in hand with Joe's Law? Oh, and on the pie. I have to say, this is the best pie I have made in the last 2 weeks, and I have made 3. I am not so good with crust, but I think I found one that I really, really like and that I will stick with for now on. It is called oil pastry (made with cooking oil instead of solids like crisco or butter) and it is as easy as pie to make! Jeff left me a smiley face and thank you on the sticky note attached to the foil. I bet your daughter's apple pie is always good! My last peach pie was not in the oven long enough so the crust was a little gummy.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Aug 8th, 2013 04:39 pm |
|
677th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Joe, I am leaving you all kinds of notes. I am sorry if I am being a pest. But I want to know what this means:Afghanistan was on the list of places to destroy with aggressive war because of the opium that is grown in Afghanistan and because of the need to use the place to transport petroleum products (oil and natural gas) through it. a. Do they need to destroy Afghanistan because the poppy fields are in the way of transporting petroleum products? or b. Are the poppy fields a problem because of poppy field competition between the criminals? I am not very smart about these things. I am on page 90 now!
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Aug 8th, 2013 07:12 pm |
|
678th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
bear, a. Do they need to destroy Afghanistan because the poppy fields are in the way of transporting petroleum products? or b. Are the poppy fields a problem because of poppy field competition between the criminals? The most powerful people had crops in Afghanistan grown for their exclusive profit. The crop was Opium. Then Russia invaded Afghanistan. Then the U.S. part of the most powerful people financed "The Taliban" (you know the guy named Osama Bin Laden?) and once "The Taliban" drove out the Russians those same people destroyed the Opium Crops. In other words the "Strong Man" employee named Osama Bin Laden was no longer following orders and so the employers (the most powerful among us or The New World Order, or The Dollar Hegemony, or whatever label you want to use to label the most powerful among us), so, the employers of "The Taliban" had in their hands a bad apple in their eyes, so they had to get rid of "The Taliban" so as to regrow their cash crop of Opium in Afghanistan. The pipeline angle is well reported by Pepe Escobar who can be found easily. One example Pepe Escobar also appears on The Alex Jones Show. Nurturing competition goes hand in hand with Joe's Law? That is somewhat incomplete, so the reader has to assume the unsaid, which is to say that competition is not to be confused with criminal competition. Competition to see who can produce higher value at lower cost is the competition that is meant in those words. Competition to see who can destroy whom, first, is not the competition that is meant in those words. You are no longer confusing one with the other, so the words are making sense now? My last peach pie was not in the oven long enough so the crust was a little gummy. Competition can be you competing with your past self, when it is understood that the idea is not to destroy your past self? I also sent you and email forwarding some information I received from Ron Paul regarding his Ron Paul Channel. He promises to provide news without the lies on is channel. I thought that I was on that e-mail list from that source already, perhaps not, I can check junk mail, and I can thank you for the connection as it looks good so far. So I am wondering, perhaps the question needs to be asked whether one should submit to the might of a false authority in order to preserve one's own life and that of their loved ones. Earlier you had claimed (offered) your reasoning for rejecting the use of lies, on principle, despite my effort to show specific cases where there may be good reasons for going against good principles. Now you do that same thing? Maybe the person just wants to live on the land. That answer was anticipated, so I already ratcheted up the situation to a higher threat level, a clearer, and a more present, danger. The owner (so called) has the only source of water, in a desert, and many people, a billion or 10, does the number really matter? A billion, or 10, people arrive at the guarded fence and propose a deal of some kind. The owner has a better use for the water. The billion, or 10, people die for lack of water. Highest and best use, as I understand it, is reasonable. I may not be able to convey my viewpoint in English. Please have fun as you can, it is contagious.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Aug 9th, 2013 01:57 pm |
|
679th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Joe I have listened to Pepe about 4 times now. Just about the time I understand what he is talking about it seems like he moves to a new subject. I understand the summary is that the US wants full spectrum dominance. Why did Russia invade Afghanistan in the first place? I remember listening to a radio program back in the late 70's/early 80's. There was a man from Afghanistan speaking. He said there was a meeting between Afghanistan leaders and Russian leaders and the Russians opened fire and killed the Afghanistan people they were meeting with. Have you ever heard anything about that? I was probably still in high school are just out so I wasn't really paying that much attention. But the fact that the people were shot during a meeting stuck with me because it bothered me. Do you know about that? From Pepe's report I understood that the US lured Russia into Afghanistan during the Carter years. But I still don't understand why. Then Russia invaded Afghanistan. Listening to Pepe made my head hurt. It was almost like reading Joe a year ago when I had read and re-read to understand. This world dominance stuff is like a shell game. Do you know why Russia went to Afghanistan in the first place? It seems ironic that we are speaking of Highest and best use, as I understand it, is reasonable. Maybe both Russia and the US think they have the highest and best use rationale for the lands that surround them and each other? Joe, you may be entirely too busy to mess with my thoughts below. And they really don't matter, but I wrote them anyway and have gone back and added this note before you start answering. I am on page 140 out of 174 of the book. I am going to try to finish today. he owner (so called) has the only source of water, in a desert, and many people, a billion or 10, does the number really matter? Honestly, I was not thinking in those terms. I was thinking of the people who were bought out to move them off of their land so the Truman Dam could be built and flooding could be controlled. Our area which used to be the "resort area" ended up being the water table control land so the marinas and business that were supported by tourism went belly up while the other side of the dam properties were elevated in value. Our county seat got a federal prison "to make up" for the economic lost. There was an old lady in a nursing home who said they were forced off of their farm land that their family had established. It seems that all the land around the rivers now is state/public land. I am sure there is more to it. If 10 people show up outside my gate when I have been the only person around for years and miles around, is it my fault that they want to move where I already am? Sure, I'd give them some water, then I would encourage them to move on and find a place to live that would support their needs. But I would not make them die of thirst. But neither should they run me off of my property because they have now shown up with a greater use theory. If we go with the greater use theory, then we can say that we, the white man, had a greater use for this land between sea to shining sea and therefore the Indians who were here first have no right to block railroads and settlements. Who and What determines greater use? Sometimes it seems like Johnny come lately is the determiner...as long as Johnny has the might to make it right. But certainly things should be equitable. Like maybe the 10 people who show up could move next door and did their own well. I could be neighborly and help them. What happens if they drain all the water to build a dam? Is that a good neighbor relation?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Aug 9th, 2013 03:15 pm |
|
680th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Book Question (page 147): America is almost bled dry. The parasites on the “top” of that pyramid scheme are moving to China when the measuring device is "The Dollar," and that dollar is produced by those Legal Criminals. Joe, does it make sense to change the word when to while? (This bothered me last time around, but I couldn't put my finger on it. Today the word change seems to make it easier to read.) Let me know what you think. America is almost bled dry. The parasites on the “top” of that pyramid scheme are moving to China while the measuring device is "The Dollar," and that dollar is produced by those Legal Criminals. I like contagious 's
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 10:22 am | Page: ... 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 ... |
| Power Independence > Book > Book Resources > Final Editing | Top |
