 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Above is curious to me for many reasons. My World Record submission pending is one reason here:
http://www.power-independence.com/view_topic.php?id=70&forum_id=6
For this reason:
My current 'page view' count is this:
7203 @ 5:06 Friday, May 19, 2006
This forum has 3 members. One may soon cancel membership.
The curious part, in my view, concerns a general lack of appreciation for teamwork. One might wish to discuss an issue, in real time, to gain the adantage of current interactive and mutual thinking; like linking one brain up to another brain to compare notes or like finding where one's own thought agree with another one's thoughts to see where both brains have common interests.
I call that equitable commerce. One exchanges value for value. One does not dictate that which is valuable according to one and reject all contradiction. Two must negotiate an agreeable measure of value. Is that not the principle of utility applied to intellectual economy i.e. reaching for and finding agreement?
How would one know if one must agree to disagree if one never tries to find agreement?
Much time and energy can be used up when people elect to issue statements, post them, and expect to be understood. That may certainly work when the audience already understands. What happens when one can recognize a possible flaw in the statement?
It seems to me that one then concludes that no flaw exists and therefore there can be no reason to entertain notions of error; a waste of time and energy.
So my curiosity is such:
Why join my forum?
I may never know. I'm making the best of this situation; going for a World record.
This is a long winded introduction to my latest challenge to be sent to an author professing knowledge. More than that; the author publishes this knowledge on a well traveled, world wide, web page for all to read and digest; welcome and voluntary association - one way.
But there is a link at the bottom. It opens the revolving door. Perhaps it opens into the room called Debate aka negotiated agreement. Time will tell.
Another curiosity:
I read this:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/ryan4.html
That agreed with me and how I see our world. So I thanked the author as no other comment came to mind.
I even linked the source; reporting the act to the source.
http://www.power-independence.com/view_topic.php?id=56&forum_id=4
Links link. That may be hard to grasp. Links do link. Somewhere somehow links link.
A link finds another link; pretty soon, perhaps inevitably, the world becomes borderless.
I'll leave that alone for now. This is the present statment I choose to focus upon:
Benign or Malignant?
by Daniel M. Ryan
My view is such:
Daniel indentifies a concern and then offers a prognosis.
It may help to get all these ducks in a row:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Prognosis
prog·no·sis ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr g-n s s)
n. pl. prog·no·ses (-s z)
- A prediction of the probable course and outcome of a disease.
- The likelihood of recovery from a disease.
- A forecast or prediction: a gloomy prognosis for economic recovery.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Benign
be·nign ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b -n n )
adj.
- Of a kind and gentle disposition.
- Showing gentleness and mildness. See Synonyms at kind.
- Tending to exert a beneficial influence; favorable: a policy with benign consequences for the economy. See Synonyms at favorable.
- Having little or no detrimental effect; harmless: a chemical additive that is environmentally benign.
- Medicine. Of no danger to health; not recurrent or progressive; not malignant: a benign tumor.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Malignant
ma·lig·nant ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m -l g n nt)
adj.
- Showing great malevolence; disposed to do evil.
- Highly injurious; pernicious.
- Pathology.
- Threatening to life; virulent: a malignant disease.
- Tending to metastasize; cancerous. Used of a tumor
Please read the orignal link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/ryan5.html
Benign or Malignant?
by Daniel M. Ryan
I must cut and paste. This must be done when the author does not speak in real time as a function of comparing viewpoints in the effort to find commonality or agreement. One must profess to know what another one thinks when one cannot ask and recieve real time answers to real time contentions.
Prognosis?
As far as their upper-middle-class analog, the modern liberal, is concerned: these people seriously believe that a mega-state can be constructed through appeals to fear, and upon the bedrock of Bismarckism, without the militarist getting in on the action too. They genuinely believe that "fascist," "Nazi," et al. are magic words which can prevent such a succession from ever taking place. If this confidence of theirs is ever shattered, as it might be under a more strident neo-con than President Bush is, then their scarred remains might very well form the nucleus of a new "Remnant."
May 19, 2006
Daniel M. Ryan
The Remnant:
http://www.aapsonline.org/brochures/isaiah.htm
What do we mean by the masses, and what by the Remnant?
As the word masses is commonly used, it suggests agglomerations of poor and underprivileged people, laboring people, proletarians. But it means nothing like that; it means simply the majority. The mass-man is one who has neither the force of intellect to apprehend the principles issuing in what we know as the humane life, nor the force of character to adhere to those principles steadily and strictly as laws of conduct; and because such people make up the great, the overwhelming majority of mankind, they are called collectively the masses. The line of differentiation between the masses and the Remnant is set invariably by quality, not by circumstance. The Remnant are those who by force of intellect are able to apprehend these principles, and by force of character are able, at least measurably, to cleave to them. The masses are those who are unable to do either.
Back to Daniel M. Ryan:
After noting that both laws are subtractive of utility as demonstrated by exchange, the economist has to pull a demur, leaving any attempt at quantification of their effects to the economic historian, or to the political one. This quantification can be precise or vague.
Precise is better than vague if the idea is to know. Please read "The disadvantages of being Educated" by Albert J. Nock.
Knowing is a process. One cannot 'know' what one is thinking, rather, one simply thinks. The proof is in the pudding.
The process is current; not static. The process has value as a utility. The brain is more than a tool, more than a computer on a desk, more than a hammer in the tool box. The brain is a processor like an electric generator; the stuff that comes out is used or lost. The stuff that comes out can injure or benefit and that calculation requires more processing. Errors in calculation result in injury, which is not so bad, inevitable, and, with a simple calculation, a benefit itself.
Edison, for example, invented many injuries before inventing a light bulb. One can eliminate all the injuries and eventually find the benefit.
One cannot move an inch if one mistakes an injury as a benefit; in fact, one will compound injury with injury, and worse still - one embraces injury as benefit. One may even convince mass man to follow.
That remnant, the professors of economy, or whomever, are quite a different animal compared to God's several thousand.
For all the faults of the common man or woman there can be one obvious fact common to all - we are born innocent. When garbage goes in, then, garbage will come out and that garbage has one name - falsehood.
Question:
If our species is immoral, then, how can our species create Equity?
My answer is: Our species cannot create Equity if our species is immoral.
Next question:
Can mankind increase Equity?
My answer: Only if our species decreases falsehood.
Question:
How can mankind decrease falsehood?
My answer: Apply the process of knowledge individually and refine that process through equitable communication i.e. Welcome, open, voluntary, and honest debate in real time.
Question: Is there any evidence to reinforce a belief in the validity of moral, welcome, open, voluntary, and honest debate?
Answer: Yes
http://www.lysanderspooner.org/bib_new.htm
Above is another example of "The Remnant" describing the efforts of mass man on the road to apply knowledge individually and communicate that knowledge in the effort to maintain a peaceful coexistence.
The record describes how it has been done and what went wrong.
The free administration of justice was a principle of the common law; and it must necessarily be a part of every system of government which is not designed to be an engine in the hands of the rich for the oppression of the poor.
Common law is a function of the common practice of communicating equity. To realize how vital equity is for mankind one need only to take a poll among modern mankind to measure how common the knowledge of equity is currently known to us.
That effort merely measures common knowledge; it does not measure common practice. When mankind continues to act morally despite ignorance concerning moral acts, then, the validity of the act is confirmed since people obviously act morally instinctively.
Common law, when known by common people, despite common economic hardship adds additional evidence confirming mankinds predisposition toward equity.
So, the reader may wonder, what did go wrong?
The first invasion which I find made, by the English statutes, upon this common law principle, was made in I285, seventy years after Magna Carta. It was then enacted as follows:
"Nor shall, any be put in assizes or juries, though they ought to be taken in their own shire, that hold a tenement of less than the value of twenty shillings yearly. And if such assizes and juries be taken out of the shire, no one shall be placed in them who holds a tenement of less value than forty shillings yearly at the least, except such as be witnesses in deeds or other writings, whose presence is necessary, so that they be able to travel." — St. 13. Edward I., ch. 38. (1285.)
Mass man was deprived of equity. Man unmade equity. Blaming mass man for the actions of a few is false.
Is it not obvous that such accusations are made by the few intentionally?
From these statutes it will be seen that, since 1285, seventy years after Magna Carta, the common law right of all free British subjects to eligibility as jurors has been abolished, and the qualifications of jurors have been made a subject of arbitrary legislation. In other words, the government has usurped the authority of selecting the jurors that were to sit in judgment upon its own acts. This is destroying the vital principle of the trial by jury itself, which is that the legislation of the government shall be subjected to the judgment of a tribunal, taken indiscriminately from the whole people, without any choice by the government, and over which the government can exercise no control. If the government can select the jurors, it will, of course, select those whom it supposes will be favorable to its enactments. And an exclusion of any of the freemen from eligibility is a selection of those not excluded.
Freemen were made un-free and the means to that end was and continues to be falsehood. It is false, unprincipled, immoral, exclusionary, and criminal to base any question of law or right upon possession of economic power.
To suppose that the continuing cycle of human prosperity to human misery is a function of any other cause besides the perversion of common moral principle, falsely, by the destructive exclusionary abuse of economic power by the few upon the many is a supposition lacking evidence of any kind beyond mere fancy based upon ignorance or simple and willful deception designed to maintain the power to abuse; to perpetuate crime.
Mass man is moral, if crude, if vulgar, if dirty, if rude, if base, and even if ignorant. Mass man is not however predisposed to crime. That is a function of intelligent design; fraud and evil.
I’ve spent my day writing crap in response to crap. It stinks. Leave mankind free and mankind will be equitable someway and somehow; the Remnant merely accounts the exchange – one for one as accurately as humanly possible.
If the future is to be won for liberty, prosperity, for posterity, then, it will be won equitably. Otherwise it will be falsified into a miserable oblivion.
One might read before jumping to conclusions. If that is not economically possible, then, one might ask for help; an equitable person will give as much as taken – no more and no less.