 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
I thought competition was in place in the form of dollars per hour that the student is worth based upon the type of education the student completed. At least that was the way it used to be...when my dad went to school and was able to pay his way thru school by sacking groceries. That was before a college education cost $50K a year give or take.
The above words inspire me to respond with the idea of many competitive forms of competition compete with one monopoly of money form of competition. My point is that managed scarcity is in competition with abundance, and when there is managed scarcity there is, all around, evidence of managed scarcity being the condition of human life imposed upon the victims by the Legal Criminals who use the power created by the victims, power stolen by the Legal Criminals, to make power scarce for the victims, as that scarce power is abundant only for the Legal Criminals, and in such a world, where scarcity RULES, the concept of education mimics the concept of money, as the Legal Criminals make accurate information scarce, and the Legal Criminals make FALSEHOOD abundant, as the victims are set one against the other, divided, and conquered perpetually.
The competitive alternative to Legal Crime, Monopoly, falsehood, threats, and violence upon the innocent, by law, is what? What would the competitive alternative to Legal Crime be, how would the alternative to Legal Crime be manifested, measured, known, seen, as power was then used to make more power, and power was then abundant, including the power of accurate knowledge?
So I wrote:
Suffice to say that a potentially valuable student could be connected to a potentially valuable education more regularly, more abundantly, if a mechanism was in use (competition) by which investors were fighting over each other to pay the student the most money to get the students inspired to learn by that reward for that effort.
Example of investors paying the student the most money to learn something valuable to the investor include the concept of internship, apprenticeship, and in other words investing in passing on knowledge and skills to those who are then empowered to use scarce power to good use, starting out with less power in the morning, and ending up with more power at the end of the day, instead of training people to kill the targeted innocent victims before the trainee is targeted and killed by the targets.
I've been currently thinking about the concept of SECRETS and it is as if there is another dragon lurking in another dark room, and on occasion I see the whole thing, in clear view, but only for a moment, and then smoke and mirrors cover it up again.
I don't know if my words accomplish the goal intended.
But isn't the competition supposed to be in the hand of the student, not in the hand of the employer? Isn't that what supposedly made us a free society. Everyone was able to rise to the top based upon their own hard work and labor and not being dependent or beholden to an employer to provide that opportunity?
Equitable Commerce was read by me at a moment in my life when the information answered many of the questions I was currently working on at that time, as if I was playing three way chess and Mike, my cousin who is too busy these days to write here, hands me a Queen to place on the board in front of me.
When social connections are equitable, instead of social connections enforced by Fraud, Threats, and Violence upon the innocent, the word competition takes on a new meaning, a meaning that is no longer fraudulent, threatening, and violent upon the innocent, for fun and profit of the few "winners", at the expense of the many "losers".
Which competition are you viewing when you view competition?
Are you viewing Legal Crime competition?
Are you viewing Equitable Competition?
Are you viewing competition as if there is no clear discrimination between Legal Crime Competition and Equitable Competition and therefore much confusion is the result of having no clear demarcation understood as to which Competition is in view by you at any given moment in time and place?
Competition can be anyone, anytime, seeking to find the thoughts and actions unique to that individual, where their unique, individual, thoughts, and their unique, individual, actions are better thoughts, and better actions, compared to anyone else on the planet, because no one else thinks that way, as well, or acts that way, as well, in that time, and that place.
In other words, competition can be any person finding, more efficiently, the best place they can be, at the best time they can be in that best place, because in that best place at that best time that individual is better at doing what they do best in that place at that time.
In other words it is spelled out well enough in Equitable Commerce, if the reader can see what is being spelled out in Equitable Commerce, in my opinion.
Since my words fall so easily on deaf ears, I am thinking that I am probably seeing nothing of value, just an old man's incapacity to know better, and a false perspective of something better.
Since Stephen Pearl Andrews, and then Benjamin Tucker saw what I saw too, in Equitable Commerce, I can claim to be less alone, less misdirected, and in good company, knowing what I know to be true, but only slightly less doubtful as before finding their symbols arranged in the way they arranged their symbols, their signs on the road, offering a competitive viewpoint.
I may not have answered your questions at all.
Those were the days before 60% in taxes and regulations skimmed from the pockets of Americans...and before the debt clock that explifies holes in the pockets of the wage earner which will never be patched as their hard work and labor fall thru thoughs holes and into the coffers of...the slave owners.
So, knowing that, how can you see any manifestations of power independence, or power abundance, in any connection between any number of people anywhere on the planet Earth, where the Legal Crime Competition has not infected that connection to a point of almost total Absolute Abject Belief in Falsehood Without Question?
I have no idea if my thinking is competitive at this point, other than the aforementioned arrangements of symbols arranged by those people mentioned in that order.
Josiah Warren, Stephen Pearl Andrews, and Benjamin R. Tucker.
I can add such arrangers of symbols as Lysander Spooner with the qualification of having in those symbols arranged by that person no references to Equitable Commerce as I understand Equitable Commerce to be what it is when it works the way it works in human interactions.
Life can be lonely, scarcity of agreement?