 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Thanks for the hard work.
I stopped reading at this point:
(And I would also like to say, I don't personally care for the government cap on profit. I would prefer a free market where the government keeps its fat nose out of things (I realize I am speaking of the government as a thing doing action, I am using the single word government to cover whatever list of people exists at whatever time who would manage such things.)
The actual force forcing a cap on the rate of profits is competition, which is the actual force in Free Markets, if we can share the same meanings of words, which is probably not the case. If you still think of government in terms of a group of people who act exactly like criminals, then I too have a problem with any crimes done by those criminals. If, on the other hand, there is a governing principle called competition, then the consumers will choose better instead of worse (more accurate, and more powerful money) and that includes lower cost (which is the true meaning of profit - from the smelly end of the profit stick), so I don't know if I can explain that better with the opportunity now before me in that part of the book.
That was, in fact, the idea behind the Play Acting offer of having a Free Market Government Contract Employee Selling Product 1 and Product 2 loans to a hypothetical consumer: to ask and answer these types of questions.
You decided not to play along in the Play Acting offered to you, which is fine, some ideas just don't gain currency.
The Product 1 and Product 2 idea has to do with a return to a Democratic Federated Republic by some means made available, offers, offers made from some people to some other people, to take it, or leave it, with no other force forcing the offer than those forces that work in Free Markets, whereby there is a demand (an obvious demand here is defensive government, or "legal," money), as people demand defense (legal) and people demand a way to pay for it (money), and so which is the Legal Money now?
Can the Legal Money be improved upon?
A. No
B. Yes
How, if yes?
Run a competition to see which Legal Money is the Free Market winner in competition with all the other Free Market offers?
If that sounds like positive directions, then how can that ball start rolling down that hill?
Product 1 and Product 2.
If it does not gain currency, does that mean that the victims love being victims, and the victims always demand the highest quality criminals at the lowest cost to the victims?
1.
Yes
2.
No
3.
Who cares
If the answer is no, the victims are only made into victims by way of lies that the victims end up believing, then what would the victims demand if they were not victims to the One Legal Money Fraud and Extortion Racket currently having cornered the Market, and effectively driving out any competition anywhere in the Free Market of Defensive Government and the Money required to pay for it?
Product 1 and Product 2 intends to get the ball built, and start it rolling down the hill, and as soon as a higher quality and lower cost option is produced, on the market, and available to anyone, then that proves the legitimacy of Free Markets.
When anyone claims that Product 1 and Product 2 means, as if I mean it to mean, another example of Legal Crime, then I've failed to communicate, and I've failed to sell the offer to that person.
That person, in the Play Acting Scenario, says no thanks, and walks off.
That person still uses Legal Fraud and Extortion Money?
Is that not a choice for Un-Free Markets in fact?
I think when government begins to set caps, they then need a band of enforcers to ensure the caps are met which then spirals out of control as criminals are instinctively drawn to that system and would begin to corrupt it. I think as Steven Pearl Andrews spoke that all things should be individual and as simple as possible, I think that was the jist of his words in Science of Society (if I even remember the correct name of his publication, but it is the one where he speaks of groups breaking down smaller and smaller and smaller and used Martin Luther as an example).
Again the word government is used.
Which one?
The one working now (criminal) or one such as the one that worked as a Free Market Government in between 1776 and 1788?
If both are confused as if there is only one then who benefits from that confusion since there are 2 not 1 and one is Free Markets defended, while the other is Crime that is enforced by destroying all competition?
As far as as simple as possible is concerned, again, the voluntary association works to keep things only as complicated as any defender (juror) can understand if the idea is to use government to defend so called property rights.
Whose concern is it if 100 people write up a very complicated contract that governs their association so long as their association isn't another version of organized crime?
If those 100 people over-complicate their voluntary agreement, who does it benefit?
Why would they willfully make it too complicated for their own purposes?
If they are willfully making it too complicated for the targeted victims, and it becomes too complicated for themselves, then how can there be any authority, anywhere, in any case of disagreement?
The fear you have here, it seems to me, is a fear of criminals who take over the concept of government and that is clearly another case of crime made legal or Legal Crime.
Why confuse Legal Crime with any alternative methods of defending against any crime?
But, I am getting off into a discussion that I wasn't trying to start. I am just saying that I want you to insert whatever words you want on page 133. I think everything else is done. However, I did not go back thru to check on combining words into single words and Jeff will be home today and I want to concentrate on on home things for awhile, so I am sending you the book.
I don't mean to suggest that you have to continue any discussion at all. I hope that all is well in your life, and I trust that you can find a way to make life better if a way exists.
If you want, I can still read the book and send you words that I think need to be joined if I come across any. But as for now....Joe Quotes is in your court!
I will work at getting this in print at this point. I may get 100 copies made, and fall back into the concept of having a prototype working as one. If there are demands for improvements, then that process can work that way.
I really think that you have gone above and beyond any call of duty produced by me, in any way, so thanks again. This has been a valuable experience to me so far, and who knows what may happen with an actual book on an actual market.
Just let me know if you still want me to read and send you changes to make as described above and also let me know that you know you need to look at page 133.
OK thanks again.