 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
You claim now that I am the problem, that it is difficult to keep me on task, as we are here at this fence. Who builds this fence?
So you should consider yourself as a workforce member who has avoided being targeted. Good for you, incidentally, that is not an easy thing to do.
Often I read your words and find you speaking about someone, and I try to figure out who you are speaking about, and there isn't anyone there when I look for this person you are speaking about, or the person you are speaking to, does not exist.
I am me. I know me. Whoever you are speaking to, at this fence, is not me.
I can exemplify this with each sentence I've read so far in your last reply.
This is exactly what drives me crazy with you. I read through the link you posted of an excerpt from Menger's book and the word capitalism doesn't appear even once in that excerpt. I even pasted the excerpt into my word processor and searched for it.
If the defining of capitalism is being done, who is doing it, and if you think someone is driving you crazy, with the information they offer to you concerning the definition of capitalism, then you can use your definition, and I can know it too, once I find it, which so far is not the case. I am not intending to drive anyone crazy, the information offered is offered for a specific reason, in case you care to know, I can report to you those reasons. Meanwhile you are being driven crazy by someone, and I'm wondering who is doing the driving. I look and find no one.
Absent a working definition of capitalism, there is not need for the word, or if there is a need for the word, without a working definition, the goal must be deception, or some secret goal kept from those who use the word that has no definition, at least the intent is hidden from me, or the intent is a secret as far as my perceptive power goes.
This is an analysis of human behavior not a definition of the economic system of capitalism.
Your perspective of the words published by Carl Menger and the words I offered to you as a definition of capitalism, is such that you do not perceive things the way I perceive things. So now your perception dominated my perception when my goal was to offer to you my understanding of the definition of capitalism according to one of the people who are one of the authorities on capitalism. So I'm looking for the person you are communicating your perspective to, as if your perspective dominates that persons perspective by your measure. That person is not me. I know what I perceive in those words where Carl Menger defines capitalism. If you don't know what I perceive in those words where Carl Menger defines capitalism, then you don't know, and that is fine with me, but what is the point of claiming, if what you are doing is making this claim, that your perception is in some measure better than my own?
If you don't want to use Carl Mengers words as the authoritative defining of capitalism, then you can define capitalism in any way that works for you and then whenever you use the word I can take out the work and place your definition in that sentence and then I can begin to understand your perspective concerning capitalism.
This is a definition of wealth (very much along the lines of Joe's law, I suspect) not capitalism.
That (Carl Menger's words) is opposite my understanding of economic power or "wealth" and here at this fence, where someone I can't even see is driving you crazy, you had questioned my employment of the word power, and so I was sent on this trip to define capitalism according to the authorities on capitalism. Now you suspect that Carl Menger's definition of wealth (your interpretation) is "very much along the lines of Joe's Law," which to me is nearly opposite, and that these words by Carl Menger are "not capitalism," meaning I have failed to offer an authoritative definition of capitalism according to the capitalism authorities.
So you are at the fence and you arrived here voluntarily, and so this is the point where I am inspired to ask you what is the point of you being at this fence?
It appears to me that you are at this fence to school me, to set me straight, and your words often repeat this theme, yet you care not to even entertain my viewpoints, in the least, and instead of entertaining my viewpoints you consistently invent a viewpoint of your own construction and you attach your fabricated viewpoint to me, and on at least one occasion so far you have apologized for doing so.
Here, where you are being driven crazy by someone, is an obvious, measurable, repeat of the same scenario, if my memory serves me, and I don't feel the need to go back an check, I don't feel that need strongly enough, because I trust that you can understand me, when you feel like doing so, and errors along the way are insignificant in a negative sense and they are only significant in a positive sense to the extent that they serve as known errors.
I could go into a long explanation as to how Carl Menger's words define capitalism as I see it, but you prefer not to see that, apparently, so we are back to you, as far as I can see, defining capitalism in a way that suits you.
It is difficult to keep you on task.
Here is where my former self would be enraged, and over many years of this type of personal attack upon me, I've grown to be able, capable, of deflecting the power of those words.
You set yourself up as my better, and you are commanding this task, and I am merely your subject, and when I am not following orders without question it is you who fixes accountability onto me for that error of mine.
I can get so very angry about this, in the past, extremely angry, completely beside myself, because there is much power on those words, as I see it, and those days are in my past.
What is the point? What is the task, according to you, at this fence?
Who is creating this fence?
The above quote is your words from another post, so when I say America is a corporation I assume you agree. And this corporation operates in an economic system known as capitalism.
I do no such thing, so your assumptions here are more examples of me wondering who you are writing to while we meet at this fence.
I can go on and on as to how my viewpoint is unrecognizable from the viewpoint you apparently assume my viewpoint to be, but I thought that there was a problem, according to you, with me using the word power, and then I went to the authorities on capitalism to begin defining capitalism, so as to have a working definition of capitalism, and if you have one, then use yours, and I have one, and I offered mine.
Stepping slightly further back, it is, at this fence, your contention, as I understand it to be, that human beings are simply being human beings and my contention is that some are inhuman by their thoughts and actions as they target innocent people and do very inhuman things to innocent people numbering in the millions (as experienced by Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn) or by a number less than 100 people in Waco Texas, or by a number of people in other places right here in this place that could be called a corporation if that is what you want to call it.
So you should consider yourself as a workforce member who has avoided being targeted. Good for you, incidentally, that is not an easy thing to do.
What I should do according to you and what I do are measurably two entirely different things, and again I am inspired to inform you that whoever you are speaking to, it is not me. I'm looking for this person who is requesting your moral help in deciding for me what I should or should not do in light of the information I know, as if you are telling me to go ahead and keep staring at the sun, and I'm not that person. I'm not asking you for your moral help in deciding for me what I should or should not do in light of the information I know; concerning Legal Criminals currently perpetrating very serious crimes affecting me and my loved ones.
Thanks, but no thanks.
an economic system characterized by free market in which means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportional to increasing accumulation and reinvestment of profits.
Works for me, so long as you understand that to me that is not the definition of capitalism, and if Carl Menger was here I'd be asking different questions than the questions you may ask of him.
Your working definition of capitalism can be know now, and whenever you use the word capitalism I can take out the word capitalism and I can plug in that sentence to help me understand what you are offering to me as your competitive perspective.
At this time I want to tell you something that keeps returning to the surface of my memory every time I unwrap a new stick of butter. Each time, currently in memory, where I unwrap a new stick of butter I am reminded of the time you were unwrapping a new stick of butter, in your typically exemplary way, during a feeding of your children, while living at your fathers house in Barstow. That is a good memory to me and it is current, a powerful memory to me.
America is a corporation. The United states government is the executive offices of the corporation. We, the people are the laborers.
Here is where you are schooling me or you are offering to me your viewpoint on those things that you perceive?
You say that "The United States government IS..."
Are you claiming that your measure of what is or is not The United States government overpowers my measure of it?
I can see your viewpoint and I can measure your viewpoint relative to my viewpoint, and they are not the same viewpoint, far from it, and therefore what am I supposed to be doing with your viewpoint according to you?
I reject your viewpoint immediately, since it is lacking in any power to me, it has no substance, it is meaningless, it is hogwash, and it is deceptive, misleading, and powerless to me.
So you are on your side of this fence with your viewpoint of what The United States government IS..., and I am on my side of this fence and I have not been idle in finding out what is The United States government, so what, again, are you claiming to be, what is: what should I do with your viewpoint?
Accept it, as your viewpoint?
Make your viewpoint my own?
You continue to give me your viewpoint of me, generously, I know, you are busy, and life is precious, or not, I'm not sure, but I guess that life is precious to you, so you offer your description of me in this perception you offer concerning The United States government, and I am as you say, one of the laborers.
If I get what you are offering to me correctly: I am on of the laborers laboring under The United States government.
So now I know where I belong according to you?
and by the way, calling --- "Capitalism: A pricing scheme" --- a working definition of capitalism is like calling--- football: a game ----a working definition of football. I understand that you can elaborate, in other words, analyze how capitalism functions, but how would you summarize it in, say, 30 words or less.
Capitalism functions as a method of transferring power from the targets to those who do the targeting.
17 words.