 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
I see the Author of that writing had a hard time understanding that people do work together without many problems, especially today.
thegreencity,
I do not attach that idea to the work of that author, and since I don't do that I am now at a loss as to why you do that, since you don't explain how you arrive at that idea. You do not support your idea with quotes from the author of the book from which you form that idea - an idea that appears to be baseless, and opposite my own viewpoint.
That's what people in our current society would say, "They are self reliant. They don't need anyone else." Right? Well, they are wrong.
Based upon what you have written, so far as I have read, I am going to guess that you are speaking for "everyone" so as to support an idea that you are going to propose. I don't know why the voice of "everyone" has to be speaking to help you do that, especially since "everyone" does not sound like anyone I know, as I know that people know that having access to each other, by some means, is a whole lot better than having no access to anyone ever.
What is the quality of the connection?
A. Equitable
B. Criminal
C. A mixture of equitable connection (no one gains at the expense of anyone else) and criminals (criminals are connected to their victims while innocent people are connected to innocent people equitalby)
I think that many people are living their lives while many people believe things that are opposite the truth, but I don't think that the one idea you are attaching to "everyone" is true - certainly not for everyone.
This one:
For instance, I don't know what you do for a living, but lets just say for kicks and giggles that you are a Futures Trader, one that makes a living doing so. Ok? You would think that this type of person is very independent, very self-sufficient because they don't work a 9-5 job or enslaved by a small business right? That's what people in our current society would say, "They are self reliant. They don't need anyone else." Right?
I don't think that people in our currency society would say that a Futures Trader is self-sufficient and very independent, since a few things must occur in order for a Futures Trader to be a Futures Trader (a successful one is one, and an unsuccessful one is pretending to be one - is not one).
A. Access to the people who know how the game works, so as to learn the game
B. Access to the inside information, so as to remove the odds of losing (access to the people who have the inside information)
D. Connection to all the buyers and sellers through various mediums of exchange (money, stock exchange, etc.)
E. Access and connection to all the people who actually produce the wealth, which would transfer to the winners of the game, since without them the speculators would have nothing to work to gain.
If the idea here is to suppose that "The People" are all, every last one of them, too stupid to realize that most, if not all, human work involves human interaction, then that idea, to me, fails to explain a few obvious facts.
A. Human beings are smart enough to create abundant wealth in spite of massive powers working to destroy human life, and destroy the power human beings have in the goal of creating abundant wealth.
B. Human beings are smart enough to survive and increase the number of human beings in spite of the massive powers working to destroy human life, and the power human beings have in the goal of creating abundant wealth.
If people are too stupid to realize that human beings must connect with each other to survive, as I think is your idea, then what explains the results of the power struggle to date, whereby honest productive people continue producing a surplus of wealth despite the massive power behind the criminals as the criminals, legal or otherwise, slaughter honest productive people by the millions on a regular basis, and torture them too?
A. Human beings are too stupid to see the nose in front of their faces (every one of them, except me)
B. Human beings are not too stupid to see the nose in front of their faces, despite what is claimed to be their entire level of intelligence.
I do not think that A is true, rather, I think that B is true, and I think the evidence proving B to be true is abundant, and I think that the evidence proving A is absent.
I appreciate your messages as your messages agree with my viewpoints, whereby people may do well as people choose to disconnect from destructive things and as people maintain productive connections, moving further away from thoughts and actions that result in human misery, and moving toward thoughts and actions that result in increases in the power human beings have to make the best of human life. I can most certainly agree with anyone who understands that goal, and anyone who has a competitive method of moving down that welcome path.
I do not agree with things that do not ring true to me, and unless there is supporting evidence to help me know better, I can't know better, without blind faith in something I do not know.
I'll read more of your reply, gladly, to see if there is anything more in your words that inspires me to use my time and energy to respond.
See, he depends upon others in order for him to produce the income that he does.
The concept of "income" is a focal point. If that concept can be less ambiguous, and therefore that concept can be more accurate, I think the path away from misery, and the path toward happiness (for lack of a more accurate and less ambiguous word) would be taken in a measurable way. If more people understood the need to make "income" more accurate, and less subject to unwelcome, negative, costs, then, it seems to me, there would be more income for less cost, logically, and measurably.
I think that my viewpoint is well covered in the .pdf file that you appear to misunderstand. I base my viewpoint, about you appearing to misunderstand the .pdf file because you wrote this:
I see the Author of that writing had a hard time understanding that people do work together without many problems, especially today.
I think the Author of that writing reported the opposite of your claim about the Author of that writing.
What if instead of being in a tall building on the phones pushing papers around the people were instead growing organic food, recycling products from nearby communities and producing art work such as glass art, traditional art, quilts, metal, clay, pottery, etc. and using money they obtained from the monetary systems surrounding them but did not use any monetary means amongst themselves?
I am going to guess that you are one of the number of people who think that a social connection can work without money. If that is what you think then you are going to have a very difficult time finding anyone to agree with you if you do not accurately communicate exactly what you think that money is, and exactly what you think that money is not, failing to do so will result in miscommunication, since your concept of money appears to be an exclusive concept, something only you know, and therefore something that you will die knowing alone, unless you find one other person to agree with your concept of it.
In other words: you have a negative measure of money, if I understand that much about what you are reporting, and few, or no one, else shares that negative measure of money, exactly the same way as you do. I don't. Money takes on various forms, many of which are easy to know, and easy to compare competitively.
1. The Dollar form of money
2. The Labor note (in history, such as the .pdf file version that was used during the 1800s)
3. The California town version of town shares (possibly stamp script or negative interest money)
4. Gold or precious metals, as money
5. No forms of money at all.
So there are 5 forms of social connection, 4 of which are social connections that use money as a tool, and one social connection that doesn't use money as a tool. The obvious question that arises from comparing how each social connection works, is by what means, what methods, do people in the social network without money, inform each other as to what is needed, when something is needed, and how much of what is needed, when it is needed, and who pays the cost of producing it?
If money is understood to be a tool that is used to as enable each person to inform each other person the measure of needs, wants, demands, then that is what money is understood to be, and money can be that, and money can be nothing more than that, so long as that is the form of money produced and used, chosen, by the people within that social network.
If there is only one money used and no other money is used there could be a reason for such a situation, and the same applies to a social network that has no money, where money is not used, there could be a reason why no money is used. Just ask someone, and a reason can be known. Ask enough people and a common reason may become obvious, when comparing all the many reasons.
In the case of a social network where money is used there are people who can report their reasons for using the money they use, according to each person.
"I use dollars because everyone else is using dollars, and Uncle Sam says that taxes are due in dollars."
In the case of a social network where money is not used there are people who can report their reasons for not using any money?
"I stopped using dollars, and a bunch of us stopped using dollars, now we barter, to avoid paying taxes."
If there are cases of using one money, or no money, or a bunch of different forms of money, then something can be known about those cases, as questions are answered by the people within such a social network where one money is used, or money is not used, or many different moneys compete to see which monies are chosen to be used.
Now, when we (you and I) being immersed in a monetary system like we are think of a corporation we think of a tall building with shiny glass windows and lots of offices where people are on the phones and pushing papers around magically making money, right?
I can only speak for myself, in answer to that question, and my answer is no, that is not right. I know the difference between a monetary system based upon enforced crime, and a monetary system that is based upon enforced competition - so I don't confuse the two, since I know that confusing the two is very dangerous, as the criminals gain power by that confusion, and the victims of the criminals grow weaker as a result of such confusion - therefore I don't confuse the two.
Confusing the two may result in something that happens whereby some people may want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Some people may want to get rid of the useful and productive advantages of money in the effort to get rid of the destructive advantages of money that are exclusive advantages that money affords to criminals, as a result of the criminal enforcement of money.
I don't see any reason to throw the baby out with the bath water, since money can be a useful and productive advantage for honest productive people as they work toward moving life toward better life, at the expense of no innocent victims. I may be wrong, but I have yet to see any evidence that supports a competitive viewpoint.
See the irony and the genius behind these thoughts?
I saw the genius in the thoughts and experiments recorded in that .pdf file I linked, the same file that you misunderstand, as far as I know at this point. As far as I know at this point, having read up to that question above, your thoughts misunderstand what I think, and your thoughts appear to suggest that a social network can work without a means by which people communicate the vital information needed in accessing division of labor, specialization, and economies of scale, a medium of exchange, a connection of some kind, by which information flows between each person in the social network. I see no genius in that, at this point.
Let me put it another way, go back to the corporation that is housed in a tall glass building, lets say the corporation (being made up of the people in the building) own a pool of vehicles, say 20 of them, they own a spa, a bakery, a work-out place, a subway sandwich shop. Now, everyone that does not work at the corporation must pay the prices that are posted, but the people that work at the corporation do not (this happens in real life), so what do you think about that?
I think that your way of putting things "another way" is the same ambiguous way that is way too ambiguous to convey accurate meaning. A corporation can be a legal fiction, and as such it can be a tool used by criminals to commit crimes, and in so doing the force of defense against becoming a victim of those crimes are wasted in the effort to hold the corporation accountable, while the criminals just raid the corporate bank account, and then move to another corporation. Your words do not mention that fact at all. Your words confuse the concept of ownership too. How can many people all own one thing? If more than one person owns something, according to one concept of ownership, there is then collective ownership, which is very confusing to me - because it is too ambiguous. I do not understand the concept of collective ownership, unless an example is thoroughly inspected.
You employ an example that makes no sense to me, so I can employ an example that makes sense to me.
A. 20 people own a pool of vehicles
B. Everyone owns air, and sunlight.
Your concept of ownership appears to suggest that 20 people own a pool of cars as an exclusive group of people and no one else owns those cars, just those 20 people. I do not think that such a thing works well, not to me, such a thing sounds like a false arrangement, since someone, not everyone, will be driving the better car, and someone, not everyone, will be driving the worse car, and someone, not everyone, will abuse a car, and someone, not everyone, will take very good care of a good car, and who will be accurately held accountable for anything, when all 20 own each car in the pool? Who pays? Who benefits?
My concept of collective ownership is such that no one owns the air since everyone owns the air, without exception. Each person is unable to exclude anyone else from owning the air, according to how I understand collective ownership to be in reality. If someone pollutes the air, they exclude the ownership of the air of the people who have to then breath polluted air, and therefore it is the polluter who volunteers to become a criminal, to injure innocent victims, by taking away the victims ownership of the air. If ownership means something, it means something specific. If ownership is unspecific, and if ownership is ambiguous, then ownership can mean one thing today, and something different tomorrow, and if ownership is ambiguous, then it can mean one thing for one person, and ambiguous ownership can mean the opposite thing for someone else.
That is in response to this:
Let me put it another way, go back to the corporation that is housed in a tall glass building, lets say the corporation (being made up of the people in the building) own a pool of vehicles, say 20 of them, they own a spa, a bakery, a work-out place, a subway sandwich shop. Now, everyone that does not work at the corporation must pay the prices that are posted, but the people that work at the corporation do not (this happens in real life), so what do you think about that?
That is way to ambiguous to be of much value to me. I don't get the point. I can comment on some of the information in the words quoted, but the bridge between your viewpoint and my viewpoint is measured to be vast, as I read those words. What is the method by which price is calculated in the reference to price above? How is "must pay" enforced in any case whereby "this happens in real life"?
When I see tall buildings I see economy of space, many cubic feet of human living area, climate controlled, in one geographical spot on earth. I do not necessarily see a legal fiction in operation. I am more inclined to witness a legal fiction in operation when I see an American Flag, because I understand the function of it, and I am more inclined to see a legal fiction in operation when I see trade mark logos on advertisements. Tall buildings can be very interesting, even beautiful, expressions of architectural genius - to me.
That is in effect a cash-less system in a micro community setting.
You are now suggesting that a corporate (legal fiction) social network, where 20 people collectively own a pool of cars, is a cash-less system in a micro community setting? I've worked within a corporate (legal fiction) and I understand how that one worked, and it worked to the benefit of the owners (those with the legal power to spend the legal corporate monetary account) and it worked at the expense of everyone else. I saw that first hand. I can explain how that worked in great detail. I know for a fact that my experience of that was nothing even close to a cash-less system, as I understand the term cash, and as I understand the term system. I can confirm that the legal fiction I experienced was a case of micro economics in as much as its internal system was independent from the external system, but only in that measure of it, since the connection between the internal system and the external system was vast and was dominant, not submissive to the internal system. The dominant system, in the case I experienced, was the external system, or the "State" system, and then again submissive to the "National" system, the submissive system, the lower system, was the internal legal fiction, or the micro community setting was certainly the submissive, not the dominant system.
Now, lets take this step further, lets say this corporation owns a farm and they grow their own food that they provide to the subway and bakery, now they've driven their cost down even further to just the fuel for the tractors, seeds, and manpower. Lets go even further now. Let's say the corporation owns a complex of housing, enough to house everyone that works for the corporation and they all get to live there rent/mortgage free, why? Because all the material to build this housing was completely paid for (no mortgage payments) now what do you think. These people, live in mortgage free housing, eat free, drive free, and any and all money coming in from their subway sandwich shop, or bakery and spa all goes into their bank accounts without much overhead for themselves. See, this is the way to true retirement, true living.
A corporation cannot own anything, do anything, think anything, or be responsible for anything. A corporation can be held accountable for things that are done by people. The people are not held accountable. The corporation is held accountable. How does that work for the victims, in cases where the people running the corporation have injured innocent people? The corporation is held accountable. The people who commit crimes are not held accountable. How does that work for the people who commit crimes? Who benefits? Who pays the bill?
These are your words:
Let's say the corporation owns a complex of housing, enough to house everyone that works for the corporation and they all get to live there rent/mortgage free, why?
My answer to your question is: The reason why a corporation is thought of as a responsible being is so that criminals can avoid accountability, so as to perpetuate crime, as the criminals are never held accountable for the crimes they commit.
I see many other ways to address your question; but that way, to me, gets right down to the core of it.
Criminals invent legal fictions, or Gods, or isms, or nations, to hide their crimes, so as to allow the criminals to escape accountability, as the victims are fooled into holding the legal fictions to account, for the perpetuating crimes committed by the criminals. That is how that works, it is working that way right now, and it will continue to work that way until such time as the victims understand how that works, not before.
Because all the material to build this housing was completely paid for (no mortgage payments) now what do you think. These people, live in mortgage free housing, eat free, drive free, and any and all money coming in from their subway sandwich shop, or bakery and spa all goes into their bank accounts without much overhead for themselves. See, this is the way to true retirement, true living.
If there is nothing but human labor and raw materials, no wealth, no human action yet, no human thought yet, just naked, cold, dirty, or hot and dirty, people standing around, breathing air, and experiencing what life has to offer, then that is how things start.
Someone decides to improve life on earth, thinking, then acting, and then raw material is forced into becoming wealth, a chair, a hammer, a pencil, a wedge, an apple is found, picked up, and eaten, by someone, somewhere, and then two apples are picked up, then three, and arms are made into a basket, and surplus wealth is created with a basket of apples, from a time, and a place, where no surplus wealth existed. Then one person, with the basket of apples encounters another person with a basket made of hide, after an animal was eaten, then they may agree to cooperate, to divide labor, to specialize, and begin economies of scale, using power to make more power, creating and increasing the supply of surplus wealth from a time when there was none.
Those are the actions of specialization, and division of labor, evolving into being a part of human interaction. Those things have happen before the invention of legal fictions, and the people who support legal fictions may want their victims to forget such things, and the supporters of legal fictions may include the victims of criminals who support legal fictions, because that is the way things are, and again, the core of the problem is the fact that criminals use legal fictions to perpetuate crimes, including the crimes by which radioactive material is now flowing to a legal fiction near you, and threatening to cause human extinction.
Money didn't do it.
The gun didn't to it.
The corporation didn't to it.
People are responsible. People have the power to respond. People are able to respond - response-able. If the response is to resort to crime, that is the response.
If the response is to reject crime as a response, that is the response.
If the response is to offer something better than crime, the response will be equity, or universality, or liberty, or any word that is defined by human action that incorporates division of labor, specialization, and economies of scale, without enforcement by deceit, threats of violence, or acts of violence used to accomplish the goal of gaining at the expense of innocent victims (crime).
How those non-criminal methods compare competitively, one compared competitively to the other, is the stuff of liberty, as competition is a natural force, seen in nature, whereby the higher quality stuff, and the lower cost stuff, wins, and the lower quality stuff, and the higher cost stuff does not win the competition, and losers either find things to do where their stuff is higher in quality, and lower in cost, or they depend upon charity, or they perish, or they resort to crime.
A. Crime (competition is destroyed on purpose - for profit)
B. Competition (non-criminal methods compete to gain welcome acceptance and use)
If a new version of "collective ownership of the means of production" or "socialism" works, without resort to crime (deceit, threats of violence, and acts of violence produced and inflected so as to gain at the expense of the targeted, innocent, victims), then that is what happens. If the new version of "collective ownership of the means of production", or, "socialism" resorts to crime, then it is crime, by any other name, it is crime.
If a new version of "collective ownership of the means of production" or "capitalism" works, without resort to crime (deceit, threats of violence, and acts of violence produced and inflected so as to gain at the expense of the targeted, innocent, victims), then that is what happens. If the new version of "collective ownership of the means of production", or, "socialism" resorts to crime, then it is crime, by any other name, it is crime.
Stock shares, the military, or any collection of individual power flowing to one expense of power, to gain anything, is either socialism or capitalism, or any word that describes the same thing.
If people what to go out in the wilderness and give socialism a try, then they may want to read the .pdf I linked, and I will link it again, and I will link yet another expose' on what happens when people go out in the wilderness and give socialism a try. Lessons have been learned, it pays to avoid repeating the same mistakes over and over again, unless that is the goal.
A. Let's repeat the same mistakes over and over again, because I am confident, "we" are confident, that a different result will occur this unique time.
B. Let's work away from crime and toward liberty by avoiding the same old mistakes, and this time lets use something that has proven to work in the past.
Which is it?
http://tmh.floonet.net/pdf/jwarren.pdf
http://www.anarchism.net/scienceofsociety.htm
And, lets say everyone in this corporation were friends, family, neighbors, now they spend time with each other, building upon their artistic and creative side of their brains instead of being enslaved like most people. Are you getting the picture without the complexity of what this Author wrote about.
The links above were written by people who used English language as a tool to accomplish the goal of accurately transferring information. The tool is commonly used today to accomplish the goal of deceit. It may help the reader, if the reader wants to know something, to read carefully, in a word: peruse, the works links.
Speed reading has a purpose, it seems to me, and the purpose is for the speed reader to know what the reader wants to know, and the goal can be accomplished by not reading, as well as reading.
A speed reader can say, to himself, I read that, and the goal is accomplished - according to the speed reader.
The proof of knowledge is not so easy.
He is to complex, makes it seem to hard to live debt free and self-sufficient.
Too many words are chosen by some to intentionally confuse the targeted readership. Not enough words are chosen by some to hide the true meaning from the targeted readership. Too many words can weaken the power of the idea that is offered to the readership for consideration. Not enough words can fail to convey essential information required in explaining the idea that is offered to the readership. Choosing too many words, or too few words, can be a mistake when the intention is to convey accurate meaning to the readership. Few of us are blessed with perfect knowledge, I know of no one, certainly not me.
The author in question put his money where his mouth was, and tested the validity of equitable commerce, and the results are recorded for anyone wanting to know the results. If there was an easier way to move toward liberty, and away from crime, then, there would be a case of it happening - or absent the case, since there was an easier way, there are few explanations as to why the move was not made - ignorance, apathy, indifference, etc.
As people do move toward liberty and away from crime, those people provide competitive examples of what works, and I've already linked one example. Here it is again:
http://utopianist.com/2011/01/stimulus-writ-small-tiny-california-town-prints-its-own-currency/
Here is another:
http://www.umungu.com/scrip.htm
If I can re-find one more, I will, and this current example involves a group of people who began working toward liberty, and away from crime, in Alaska, and they use gold as money, and I had links to them, but I lost those links, I want to find those links again, since they are a current examples of people moving toward liberty and away from crime, and doing so effectively, competitively, setting an example, and setting an example that can be emulated, and setting an example that can be improved upon.
I will try to find the links to that group that began in Alaska. They used a form of public declaration of independence, if my memory serves me.
The bottom line is, we are all connected in one way or another. The only question is: How do you want to live? You can make your choice at anytime in your life. As a slave or as a free person? The choice is really yours and mine. I choose freedom in all forms. Thanks for your time and your kindness in sending me the information you did. I am working on building a corporation exactly like I stated above and if you are willing to join me you will be very happy, as well as your family, friends and anyone else that understands the essence of really living, instead of just subsisting.
We, my family, are fighting our fights as we can, within our limited power, I am connected to my wife, my son, my daughter, my brothers who live close-by, my aging mother, I am aging, and my efforts to disconnect from the criminals must include my efforts to disconnect the criminals from my family, I can't just leave them, and it takes a lot of effort on my part to help my family members realize what is at stake, while they struggle to make ends meet, so an idea of picking everything up and moving somewhere else as a group, if that is the idea you are offering, is unworkable.
I was just told by my Electrician friend that the laws for producing excess electric power, at home, have changed from a lawful exclusion of profits earned by the home owner to a lawful inclusion of profits earned by a home owner. To be clear: Before the change of the law a home producer of excess electric power could not demand payment from the electric company for surplus electricity, now the home owner, by law, will receive a check from the Electric Company for excess electricity produced at the home and sent to The Grid.
That is a huge change in the way the law works. Instead of the law working for some, at the expense of the many, which is the default method, the law has been changed to be equitable instead.
Things like this measure the power struggle significantly.
If you can accomplish whatever it is you are setting out to do, and you can record your progress to set an example of what works, and what does not work, then that would be very helpful to anyone wanting to know what does work, and what does not work, for you, as your reach toward your goal.
That is what was done in the link I offered, you can heed the warning or ignore it, as you wish.