 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Private is everything used by an individual from the entire number of things that can be used (Public) whereby the use of the thing is not outside the concept of government by consent (Golden Rule, no one above the law, no exceptions to no on being above the law, rule by agreement, rule by consent, so on and so fort) in particular cases where there is willful use of a thing so as to cause injury to someone (obviously outside the Golden Rule because the person initiating the use of something so as to willfully cause injury to someone else can save themselves time and energy by causing injury to him or her self instead of spreading around the "joy" if that injury to other people is what the aggressor wants done to him or her self, then why do to others when doing to self is in agreement with him or her self, and doing onto other people who DON'T want to be injured is disagreement).
Public is EVERYTHING not currently being used by someone whereby the use of the thing is not outside Universal Law, Natural Law, God's Law, common law, Golden Rule, government by consent.
Also:
Government by consent is Natural in many ways.
Things that are in agreement are things that produce things that are in agreement.
Things that are in disagreement are things that produce things that are in disagreement.
Possible illustration may be genetics.
However a very easy to understand illustration has to do with deception and aggressive violence.
2 people meet
1 is, or both are, intending to willfully lie so as to cover up a will act of violence upon the other person.
1 is, or both are, intending to willfully speak No lies, so as NOT to cover up any willful acts of violence upon the other person, and 1 is, or both are, NOT intending to harm one another.
That is not counting a world of possible intentions in between willful intent to harm and willful intent to do no harm to each other.
If both people intent to harm each other meet, then those two are in agreement to harm each other, but the agreement is destruction, the agreement is controversy, so the concept of agreement is itself a form of deception. Look internally for deception.
If both people intend to do no harm, then that defines agreement because the result of such an agreement plays out in time.
If both people (or any number of people) are willfully choosing argument, disagreement, controversy, antagonism, lies, threats, aggressive violence, then that proves to be the case, in each case.
If one agrees to be enslaved, on the other hand, there are complications.
So...
Two people meet.
Both are Criminals (each at each other's throat willfully intending to "do unto other's as you would NOT have them do unto you)
Both are willfully NOT Criminals (each intends to do unto each other as they would have the other do unto them = no lies, and no aggressive violence)
One is Criminal and one is Not Criminal
There are other ways to illustrate the complications, however the obvious measure of which "game plan" produces and which "game plan" destroys becomes obvious in time.
Prisoner's Dilemma Applet
The spatial variant of the iterated prisoner's dilemma is a simple yet powerful model for the problem of cooperation versus conflict in groups. The applet below demonstrates the spread of 'altruism' and 'exploitation for personal gain' in an interacting population of individuals learning from each other by experience. Initially the population consists of cooperators and a certain amount of defectors (a fraction represented by p). The advantage of defection is determined by the the value of b in the 'payoff matrix' (see below) which is used to calculate the payoff after each round for each 'player' on the basis of its strategy. For the next round a player determines its new strategy by selecting the most favourable strategy from itself and its direct neighbours.
Blowing the Whistle on the Defectors
Time 19:00
...very accurate Stakeholder Analysis...predicting...rule of law...if...
Stakeholder Analysis?
The model developed by Jacek Kugler is 90 to 95% accurate. (7) There are actually two models that I am relying upon. The published version is: “The War Presidency: Options Taken and Lost.” (8) This analysis holds that what the United States did in the Iraq war may have made some sense in the context of the regional problems, but it was absolutely suicide for the US to fly in the face of its major allies. If the corruption in the United States continues to jeopardize the US’ relationship with the NATO countries, (which we are now seeing in the refusal of the United States to comply with Germany’s request for repatriation of its gold), China would come way up very, very fast, but via a currency war that will force trade back to a barter system and disrupt the world economy on a scale that will make the great depression of the 1930′s and the recent world depression in 2008 pale by comparison.
Note: One man's "suicide" is another man's "paradise" = World Wars are not accidents, they are tools used by those who use those tools to maintain their POWER (their measures of "profit").
The War Presidency: Structural and Strategic Consequences of US Foreign Policy
Utah, Virginia, North Dakota, alternative currencies backed by Gold.
This is not news.
Point: Government by consent is "public" (for everyone to use so long as the use of it does not go beyond rule of law, universal agreement, by the user) not "private" (exclusive use of a thing, so long as the use of it does not go beyond rule of law, universal agreement, by the user).
Who can use the government (public)?
Everyone
Consent of the government means government by universal agreement.
Why?
Lies are only "agreements" when a liar can convince a victim that the lie is believable. The liar knows the lie is a lie, and if two liars are in "agreement" to use a lie upon a victim, there is then someone, a target, that is coerced by lies, or coerced by threats, or coerced by aggressive violence, to be made to "believe" the lie; therefore it is demonstrated to be outside Universal Law because the Criminals "agree" to create disagreement UPON the targeted victim.