| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: Joe Kelley | Page:   1 2 3 |
|
|||||||||||||
| Copy | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 12:59 pm |
|
41st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north758.html Anyone, All that above, and it is good stuff, concerns the monopoly issue of legal money. Take away the monopoly power, with any legal competition, and all those things turn right side up. If anyone anywhere is legally allowed to produce and sell money, what happens? Anyone?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 01:00 pm |
|
42nd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Anyone, I wonder how that logic followed through to find its way here in this thread. If the topic is diverted from what it was to that above, by some logical progression, I wonder too: what is the purpose of such a huge leap? Whose point is that quote targeting or referencing? Who is the intended audience? What is the targeted and exploited market expected to do with that form of currrency. Is that message, that currency accurate or not accurate? Example: There is my opportunity to lead back to the topic subject matter, and avoid falling victim to the obvious false currency quoted above. I read ahead from that quote in the lasted offering from the libeler and this libeler appears to have a battle going with his Straw Man; where the libeler, by all appearances, is winning that battle somehow - an amazing feat to be sure. Setting aside the "argument for the sake of argument" offered by the Libeler and his Straw-Man (ventriloquist act), I can employ that false statement to aid in the view of something called monetary interest. The false quote, the false currency, the inaccurate currency dictates a dictate with the following words (again): Crime is a market, and only the people who are criminals will be the people who monopolize, or cartelize, or create a cabal, in that market. Not being a criminal leaves the person out of that cabal. One criminal all alone, working his planned injury to his one victim, will not constitute a crime market monopoly, not in reality. There must be greater interest in this form of exploitation. The interest in injuring innocent victims for profit (crime) must spread to other people so that more than one person has an interest in profiting by this method of injuring innocent people. If two people are targeting the same victim and both criminals are interested in profiting at the expense of the one victim; the two criminals are then presented with a problem, and many possible solutions, here are two:
Now suppose that the above can be illustrated with historical facts and to do that there must be a criminal, or a number of criminals, a victim, or a number of victims, and a second criminal or a number of additional criminals. I'm going to pick a historical time period, present the facts as they were at that time, and then project a hypothetical situation that could occur from that historical point; the idea behind this hypothetical situation is nothing more than an illustration of a specific viewpoint that isn't intending to exploit anyone for any reason whatsoever. The English Monopoly Power over the global market was currently exploiting the American Colonial Power over the same global market; and the plan by which that crime was to be executed included a device called: monetary interest. In order for the English Monopoly Power to have the leverage required to execute the plan the English Monopoly Power had to link money with law by a device called: legal tender. The device requires that the victims pay taxes with legal tender. If the Monopoly Power dictates that "legal tender" is dog poop; then the subjects (the targeted victims being exploited in this global market, by monopoly power) must pay taxes with dog poop. Dog poop becomes Monopoly Power money. They don't, of course, because dog poop can be made at home by anyone with a dog; a female dog can reproduce and increase the creation of Legal Tender exponentially. The English (including the Royal governing power) had a measure (not absolute but a lesser evil, a lesser measure from an absolute) Monopoly Power had power, and that power was evaporating, lessening, dissolving, and growing less powerful as more of their targeted victims moved from England to America and in America the people there "created their own currency". American people who moved from England didn't, at first, import the same Monopoly Money or Legal Tender, rather the people who moved from England created "Colonial Script". Now, as often happens, the Monopoly Power divided into two money powers as such:
Here is where the interesting part comes in to play as the English Monopoly Power weakens and the American competitive power increases - in actual history. The English Monopoly Power was able to extort from their victims a rate of wealth charged to anyone within their power to extort and to that end they used a tool called: interest. If someone needed English Monopoly Money, they had to pay interest on that money. If they had to pay taxes; they had to pay the interest (an offer they could not refuse). The competition charged less interest (interestingly enough they even charged no interest or even negative interest); and that was the tool that brought down the English Monopoly Power - a notch or two. In absolute terms, perhaps, there isn't anything that can be called an absolute Monopoly, not so long as any competition exists too. In reality, the cartelization of separate powers into one power is a monopoly power that can be measured by its ability to eliminate competition by any means imaginable and unspeakable. Example: War Example 2: Libel The English Monopoly Power planned for war, executed war, and the result was not as profitable as expected. The competition for Monopoly Money Power in the colonies remained competitive, interest rates continued to be forced down to cost, as the global market of criminal exploitation by interest from Legal Money Powers had to contend with competition. A legal money power where the money issued from that legal money power didn't include large military budget costs, large budget costs run up by internal wars to suppress rebellions, etc. are examples of legal money powers where the charge for use of legal money can be competitively lower than the competition where legal money charges (the cost of using the money), or interest, includes the costs of large military budgets where wars of aggression are unsuccessful (not as profitable as expected), and where costs of suppressing internal rebellions run up huge costs, prison costs, legal costs, etc. (not to mention all the costs spent on propagating falsehood, institutionalizing things like "nationalism", etc.) - so the competition in this particular market can be measured as "the interest rate". If the interest rate is high, simple enough to know, the monopoly power is high, and that concludes this effort at this time. In the future I can elaborate or expand on that hypothetical example whereby the English Monopoly Power Traitors (Hamilton and his puppet Washington) cartelized the legal money power; however - in the hypothetical example their battle wasn't won, a "Nation State" wasn't formed, and the hypothetical example will illustrate what could have happened instead. What could have happened instead was a number of separate and sovereign States, held together by a Federated voluntary agreement (modeled after the Swiss Republic), and instead of a Fictitious Legal Entity called: U.S.A. the federation of states existed, where the separate and sovereign states competed against each other for market share in Monopoly Money Markets (legal tender). Such a hypothetical competitive from of government could have replicated the events previous to the English war of aggression (to eliminate competition in legal tender Monopoly money markets), where people opted out of the usury and went elsewhere, where interest rates were interestingly much lower. I don't have time to comment further on the battle going on between the libeler and his Straw-Man - not directly.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Oct 5th, 2009 09:17 am |
|
43rd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Anyone, Please note how the dictating libeler responds when the dictating libeler isn't presently producing libel in this market where data is offered for consumption on a public forum. Please note how the dictating libeler defines what he or she is and see how the false fronts do not accurately reflect what he or she is - not the whole truth. In this forum, in this thread, on this topic, the word crime is employed in context, by me, and the word crime has a very specific meaning that is specifically meant to mean what it means by the person employing that word - me. Example: A crime is a act by which a person injures an innocent victim and such a crime is willful, or pre-meditated, where the criminal plans on injuring the innocent victim and then the criminal follows through with that plan to injure the innocent victim. The criminal defines what he or she is by what the criminal does, in fact. That is the context by which the word crime is used in this forum, on this topic, by me. The word "innocent" used before the word "victim" is employed here in this forum, on this topic, for a specific reason and that specific reason is to accurately discriminate between a victim who is innocent of any crimes and a victim who is also a criminal (someone who is also planning on and following through with plans to injure innocent victims on purpose, or for profit).
Next up, in the effort to be more precise, more accurate, and less specious, less ambiguous, is the employment of the term "market" in context with this forum and this topic on this forum. Here is one competitive version of the term "market": Here is another competitive version: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/market To that definition I find a need to qualify the definition so as to aid in the effort to communicate accurately. I can explain the reasoning for doing so: the word "sale" is replaced with the word "exchange" so as to eliminate some of the confusion associated with markets. The grand total of markets can be all markets; specific markets can be specified precisely as needed. An example of a free market is "The market of ideas"; except those ideas that are enforced by copyright laws.
A person may have an idea, and another person isn't "buying it" and therefore that free market "sale" isn't a sale. Someone else may buy the idea and the exchange occurs without any transfer of money, no "sale" by that exclusive definition, but none the less an exchange from the producer of the idea to the consumer of the idea occurs in that market of ideas, that free market. In context of this topic on this forum the word "market" does not exclude any exchanges whatsoever for any reason, not for profit, not for any reason whatsoever: market means, in this context, all exchanges anywhere.
I do not see any need to exclude any transfers from the market being seen by me. I intend to see all exchanges within the market being perceived; therefore I do not intend to employ the word market to mean "only" exchanges involving monetary transfers, or "only" this or that according to some dogmatic school of obsolete economic theory based upon scarcity. Not this: Not here, not now, not by me, no way, no reason, no purpose in my mind, no cause to exclude generous exchanges, no cause to exclude equitable exchanges, no cause to exclude the free market of ideas, no intent on my part to exclude any exchanges occurring within the actual market that actually occurs in reality. This (with one qualified adjustment toward more accuracy): More like this: Market: Any exchange between human beings anywhere at any time in the past, in the present, or in the future. If the exchange in the market is equitable, then the exchange is equitable. If the exchange cost one person more than another person the exchange is inequitable. If the exchange is inequitable because one person is generous and the other person can accept generosity without any strings attached; then that is a part of the economic exchange in that part of that market. If the exchange is criminal, where one person plans on and then carries out the plan to injure the other person or other people, then the exchange is criminal in that part of that market. That is the context in which the term market is being used in this part of this forum, by me. That is another case of dictatorial dictates handed down from the dictatorial libeler, who is presently refraining from publishing libel, thanks for that, I'm much less injured compared to the libelous exchnages offered and consumed. If I don't use the words "innocent" and "victim" as redundant words, then I don't. If I do, then I do. I don't. I've explained the reasoning for distinguishing, separating, divorcing, discriminating between, and isolating the innocent victims from the other victims and I can elaborate on that idea - the consumer can buy this idea, or not. All the consumers can buy the idea offered by the dictatorial libeler, or not. I'm offering the idea, and it makes no difference to me what the consumer does, my offering isn't for personal gain, certainly not personal gain at the expense of someone else. The criminal victim, rather than the innocent victim, may actually earn victimization; and to illustrate that possible scenario I can offer an old saying: Live by the sword, die by the sword. How about some research on the World Wide Web concerning that saying? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_by_the_sword,_die_by_the_sword In context of this thread, this topic, the employment of the word "innocent" in conjunction with the word "victim" is expressly and accurately not redundant. Not this: Again: I do not see any reason to combine the victims who are also criminals with the victims who are not criminals themselves.
In context of this thread, in this forum, I have not volunteered to be libeled by the libeler, yet it does happen, the libeler does libel me, the libeler does publish words that misrepresent me, and the libeler does publish words that misrepresent what I think, in this part of the market of ideas. I'm not buying the libel, because I know it is libel. I think that I am defending myself well enough so as not to be victimized (not to the point of suffering excruciating pain) too much by such a criminal act, in this market of ideas, right here. Often is the case, it seems to me, that the criminals conveniently wish away the whole concept of crime, and that tends to lead, it seems to me, to the often made rationalization where the victim is blamed for their innocence, their vulnerability, their ability to be victimized by the criminal, as the criminal plans on and as the criminal executes the plan to victimize the innocent targeted and exploited victim in that part of that market. The victim made me do it; because I can - perhaps. Something like this: Caveat Emptor Market: Any exchange between human beings anywhere at any time in the past, in the present, or in the future. Just because the criminal has no interest in perceiving the victim as a victim, and no interest in perceiving himself or herself as a criminal, just because they do that, doesn't change the facts. The tortured victims tend to have a more accurate perception concerning the measure of pain, what it is exactly, the missing finger nail, the cold, the electricity flowing through the genitals, etc. whereas the criminal is more likely to see this part of this market as fun, something worth doing, something profitable perhaps.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Oct 5th, 2009 09:17 am |
|
44th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Before moving on to empower the ideas concerning accurate currency (from a Joe's Law perspective), I see a need, or an opportunity, to clarify a possible misunderstanding. I do not wish to argue. I do not wish to cause conflict. I see contention, and that is cause, or an opportunity, to find agreement, to resolve the contention, to see the contention, to measure it, and to resolve it, to find the truth that is exposed by the contentions. The dictatorial libeler, assumingly, is here to parrot an obsolete economic dogma, based upon scarcity, and he or she may be intimately associated with specific other dogmas. Example: Perhaps the dictatorial libeler is intimately association with the people who have been labeled Gold Bugs. Bug isn't a kind word in context, some of the people associated with the label have accepted it - other's not. The idea here and now is to show why the whole Gold Bug or Gold Standard or Gold "legal tender" support is a measurably misspent investment. The support for it is measurably less profitable than support elsewhere if the idea is the measure total profit, total production of wealth, and if the idea isn't to measure wealth flowing from specific targeted and exploited markets to specific individuals who manage to gain by that manipulation, that methodology, that "support". To see this viewpoint clearly I now link to a previous "giant wall of text" from which an idea, or a way of seeing things, is taken. Here is the link: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=labadie;cc=labadie;idno=2916966.0001 .001;size=l;frm=frameset;seq=2;view=image;page=root Here is the TinyURL version: http://tinyurl.com/lqrpjx The title is: "Of Interest to Goldbugs" Here is the relevant quote: I can explain how that may be of interest to gold bugs; because I can, if someone is "buying" the idea. If not, I can move on at liberty, and my next post may be another response to offerings from the dictatorial libeler or my next post may be something more in line with the purpose of the thread: Accurate currency (from a Joe's law perspective) Legal monetary currency isn't well fenced in within the three sided fence, the fences are high, for sure, and the fences are strong too, here in this country, and other fences do exist in other countries, where high and strong fences do what they do there too - if you know what I mean. If not, then blame me?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Oct 7th, 2009 11:43 am |
|
45th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Hash3m, Your advice is misplaced, please stop suggesting that your viewpoint is superior to mine, it is not, and demonstrably not superior, and you demonstrate this fact every time you resort to falsification, misrepresentation, libel, lies, and falsehood. Now you can claim that you are superior because I am "always" claiming that "everyone" is against me, you can do that again, or you can misrepresent me in some other way, so as to make me look inferior, again, as if such a thing does, somehow, make you superior. These games you play, from my view, discredit you, and I do not make the mistake of transferring your discredit onto the good, and the accurate, texts written by many of the people who are intimately associated with in that Goldbugs camp of people. Your reference to Murray Rothbard is misplaced, I have already exposed his duplicity, he is among the supporters of legal crime, not among the supporters of free banking, among the group of people who call themselves Austrian Economic professors. A. Free banking (really free, not the false "Free") B. Not A I've repeatedly shown that duplicity from the words of one of their own, and I can repeat that link, and I can repeat those words, but for now this sentence is enough wasted power on you and your continued misrepresentations. As to the actual reality of what is or is not ideal currency, as people find it, use it, employ it, and as it powers up any economy anywhere, I think electricity, since its discovery, and its use, has shown to be the winner so far. If the idea is to monopolize, control, and employ as a tool for victimizing innocent targeted victims, I see no better device than "legal tender", in any form, be that form Gold, Silver, paper, or networked digital accounts (employing electricity). Currency (a medium of exchange whereby the tool itself is a vital tool necessary when people access division of labor, specialization, and economies of scale) is a double edged sword type of thing, due to its unique character, its power, and its ability to facilitate the production of actual power, physical power. The production of currency is subjected to manipulations of opinion. False currency, or "fiat currency", is a good example of this phenomenon, resulting from this character of currency (a medium of exchange...). Electricity cannot be falsified, and neither can oil. It is what it is, and it does what it does, and it does what it does exactly as it does each time, when it is what it is. Gold has similar properties; however gold isn't divorced from manipulations of opinion. Gold can be a very good medium of exchange when opinions think that Gold is a very good medium of exchange, and this can be measured as purchasing power. If Gold is not thought of, by anyone, as a good medium of exchange, like modern society for example, then gold isn't a good medium of exchange. How does Gold measure up? Can I use gold to buy something on E-bay? Can I use gold to pay taxes? Can I use gold to buy my groceries? How much does it cost me to use gold as currency in any of these transactions? If the answer is no, I won't except gold at this time, then the answer is no, if the answer is maybe, if and when you can prove that your gold isn't fake, or if and when you can prove that your gold is good, worth something, real, and not false, then the answer isn't yes, thanks, here is your groceries, move along, there is someone else in line, we are working with velocity here at the grocery store, then the answer isn't yes and the reason for something other than a quick "yes" answer is a measure of that other side of that sharp double edged sword called currency. If a person buys 20 solar panels and sells those panels to the manager of the grocery store, hooks up the power producers (all 20) to begin supplying the grocery store with power, and by that investment the grocery store owner pays less for electric power to the new power producer, you or I (the one who hooks up the power), and my pay is a lifetime of groceries, then that illustrates something about electric power, currency, and the power to purchase, while bypassing opinions. Each watt is worth a calorie of food - perhaps. Once the deal is made the seller can receive groceries at that rate, so long as the solar panels continue to produce power. If the grocery store manager buys the solar panels himself, if that is the snappy come back, then why are you and I not farming our own food? Why don't you and I farm, or produce, our own currency? The double edge on the sword of currency is there because currency must seek monopolization or cartelization so as to gain power, to become universally accepted, and in doing so the cost of haggling, the cost of measuring relative value, and the cost of proving value, are minimized. Even when the last two "best" or "highest quality" currencies remain to be the "accepted" ones there must be one last haggle, one last "exchange rate" calculation done, at the point of exchange, whenever the people trading are not somehow brought under some monopolization or cartelization routine, tool, or process. Absent a "legal tender" force, or tool, or opinion changing process, monopolization routine, cartelization routine, absent that force the process (without "legal" means) would theoretically be free competition of multiple competitors seeking dominance, seeking monopolization, and seeking cartelization for the one and the only one currency. What would the winner be? If actual reality were used to answer that question, it seems to me, the winner would be electricity, with oil a close second, currently, at this time in human history. But that is just me seeing with my brain, my eyes, and my capacity, or my power to know, and to know accurately. To suggest that I look, again, at words written by someone who supports "legal tender" or even someone who claims not to support "legal tender" while hidden behind his false message that person actually does support "legal tender" with his support of enforced property rights or enforced "intellectual property rights" or some other enforcement of some other contract, or some other support of some Gold Standard, or some other, hidden, support of something other than actual free banking, where the actual support being supported by the duplicitous individual isn't free banking, it is something else, something nebulous, something ambiguous, something hinted at but not confessed, then such a suggestion is misspent on me, I've been there and I've done that already. If the true winner of an actual free market competition for market share in currency markets were to be Gold as currency, then that would be the case, I can't see it, it makes no sense, since gold is much less able to pass quickly from user to user, therefore it limits velocity, it throttles down economic activity by that measure. It is simple to see this affect, and it is known to be a real condition, an actual fact, and a possible illustration of this affect is the T.V. commercial where the scene in view is a store, with a check out person processing a line of buyers, where the velocity of trade is smooth, quick, and efficient, and then someone in the line pulls out coins, or dollars, and then the quick and efficient commerce routine slows down to a crawl. Anyone at the grocery store who has had to wait longer in line because someone ahead in the line is "negotiating" the transfer of payment is someone who can see this affect without complication, without duplicity, without error - perhaps.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Oct 15th, 2009 11:29 am |
|
46th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Anyone, The libeler and his or her apologist have invaded this thread to accomplish some goal they two share, perhaps. As to the actual data hidden between all the text that is designed to discredit a person, that person being me, so as to discredit what the person says, that would be the stuff I write, the data, quoted above, is again false. The measure of power supporting the effort to eliminate competition can be easily found on bank accounts. How many competitors, for example, can compete with the U.S. National Debt? http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ Back to the libelers "contribution" to the topic: In context of the topic diversion (a welcome diversion from my point of view) the quote above is patently false. No U.S. Debt exists in any other currency whatsoever. There is no X debt, no Y debt, and no Z debt, there is only the debt created by the people who monopolize (eliminate competition) the U.S. National Debt. They produce dollars. The debt is dollars. Someone has to come up with 11,914,164,651,660 dollars, plus some change, and that number is increasing fast. In context, again, the offering from the libeler is patently false, measurably false, and the measure is easily measured. Example two: http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home The denomination, again, is the monopoly money, not X, not Y, and not Z currency. There is no competition for that power to create that power to purchase war, war that is employed to eliminate competition (both foreign and domestic), and the measure of effectiveness is absolute, in a measurable, traceable, documented sense. Back to the libeler's contribution (as the libeler expends effort to eliminate the competition by conjuring up false publications): Who has yet to answer that question? Why would a question that is already answered suddenly become the "only important" question? To who is that question the "only important" question and why is that person claiming that that is the "only important" question to anyone but the person doing the claiming? I think an important question is: How can innocent victims avoid being victimized by war mongers and libelers?
Habits may transfer. MODERATORS Please note the egregious example of libel above as the libeler continues to publish libel on your forum, this public access forum, this place that isn't free from people who volunteer to libel innocent people who volunteer to publish on this forum. Who does this "fellow" forum member target with that quote above? Who does this "fellow" forum member mean to attack with that sentence? Who continually accesses libel as a means of eliminating competition? Who hates competition? I do not hate competition; to publish that lie is to libel against me, again. Please stop publishing such libelous falsehoods aimed at me on this public access forum. Please stop the continuous libel, please stop. The aim of the competition I know, in context of this topic, the aim of productive competition is to provide the highest quality products at the lowest possible cost. The aim of some other form of competition (not a form of competition that fits in context of this topic) may very well be to "eliminate other competition" in some way, "inherent" as the libeler claims. What does that have to do with this topic? Species A is in competition with species B for the last of a declining supply of vital resources. What happens? Species A destroys species B and survives. That could be an example of planning on and following through with the plan to eliminate the competition by killing off the competitive species. What does that have to do with this topic? Team A is competing with team B for more points, so team A plans on attacking team B, going through team B, getting to the goal, and scoring a point or six. What does that have to do with the competition that is in the context of this topic? A supplier of money (accurate currency) doesn't have to raid the competition, torture them, kill them, and by that plan the supplier of money eliminates the competition - it is an elective plan, not at all necessary or produtive. The supplier of money can supply higher quality money at a lower cost instead. If competitor A isn't up to the task the competitor could find work where the competitor is up to the different task instead of resorting to the other type of "competition".
The libeler has an ongoing discussion with his or her Straw-Man, perhaps, and the curious thing about that, to me, is why that argument spills into this thread. "We" can't improve currency (make it more accurate if "we" want more accurate currency) if a part of "we" insists on employing any means imaginable, or unspeakable, to eliminate competition - such as libel. U.S. National currency is not accurate, not "constantly improving", not "quality"; but it may be efficient at transferring purchasing power from the victims, and I can see why so much power is spent on apologizing for it, hiding it, disguising it, ignoring it, and why some people employ their own power to censor any person who may happen to raise the subject above a whisper. A competitive viewpoint (among many competitive viewpoints) is the following. Since morality is the root of civilization, cooperation is its life blood, because cooperation is required to access division of labor, specialization, and economies of scale. If anyone reading this has ever worked in a setting of cooperation, where the team is working together for a specific goal, each with their one special talent, each being productive with time and energy focused on their part of the production, and during that harmony someone in the group begins to execute a plan where the plan is to get something for nothing, to use someone in the group as a stepping stone to an easier job, and that nefarious someone begins to create lies, communicate lies to some central power, some team leader of sorts, and at that moment when that 'defector' executes the plan, the team's productivity falters, in-fighting begins, as that one 'defector' employs plan B, if you have been there, do you now see a parallel example? Plan B?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Oct 16th, 2009 11:02 am |
|
47th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Anyone, I do not know why the libeler is inspired to repeat, over and over again, his or her version of perspective. My guess is that the person intends to discredit any voluntary tax, or to ignore any voluntary tax as if no such thing can exist, a form of selective ignorance perhaps. Something ignored does not go away, as if the child holding his hands over his eyes can make him or her invisible during a game of hid and seek. My part in this discussion is as serious as Nuclear War. People do pay taxes voluntarily every day. People even pay voluntary taxes that amount to a greater percentage of total earnings voluntarily, not just a low percentage. Why ignore that fact? What would be the purpose of discrediting that fact, or ignoring that fact? I can't answer that question since I don't ignore or discredit that fact, it is a fact, and it is a significant fact. The significance amounts to a measure of the power involved. A. How much power is available from all the people who would stop pay an involuntary tax if they banded together and acted as one collective power? B. How much power is available from all the people who would stop the people who would stop paying an involuntary tax if they were confronted with a great power focused toward avoiding the payments of involuntary taxes? And that is my version, spoken by me, and that isn't my version spoken by the libeler who pretends to speak for me, when, in fact, the libeler is speaking for his or her own creation, his or her Straw-Man. The group of people in the A list above and the group of people in the B list above constitutes a measurably smaller number of people than the number of people in the C list, it seems to me.
Again, that is my view, not the view of the Straw-Man pretending to speak for me.
The libeler has a way of looking at things, a unique way, and a way of communicating that unique perspective. He or she may see a tax as being only one thing, his or her way of seeing it. What does that have to do with the topic? If two people or 2 billion people see a tax as a voluntary thing and no one in that group of people taxing each other disagrees with the voluntary tax, then one person disagreeing with the tax could exert his or her power toward avoidance of paying the tax, what happens? What happens in reality? What happens in his or her utopian dream? If, among the billions of people who view a tax as voluntary (and do so because they see a need to combine power to defend against criminals who combine power into cabals), if among those people the idea expands into an idea where suspected criminals are judged by some reasonable process, then some reasonable process may become a reality, it make take an actual form, the form may be something similar to Trial by Jury, or the form may change over time into something less like Trial by Jury, as people ignore specific things that may not be immediately obvious. If one person has a negative view concerning the process of combining power (taxing) into a defensive force for the purpose of avoiding crime (defending against it) as criminals combine power into aggressive, and criminal forces, or powers, then one person has one option, perhaps more than one option, when faced with a criminal power intending to victimize that one person. Who will help that one person defend against crime if that one person with the negative view is currently being victimized in a real and measurable way? What is the process by which that one person is helped? Are the people helping that one person taxed, or are those people helping that person paying a cost that would otherwise be spent on things that are more immediately interesting to their own selves?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Oct 19th, 2009 01:17 pm |
|
48th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
hash3m, Person A exchanges with person B. Person B thinks the exchange is accurate as Person B receives a personal check in exchange for an old gold wedding ring. Person A thinks that the gold ring is gold. The gold is not accurate since the gold ring is a lead ring painted gold or some other inaccurate gold, not really gold, not accurately gold. The personal check isn't accurate either, there isn't anyone anywhere, as it turns out, willing to exchange the personal check for anything, and it was a one time form of inaccurate currency by that measure. The measure of inaccuracy is a check that cost the receiver of the check one fake gold ring and all the time and energy spent on finding out exactly how inaccurate the check is, in fact. The measure of inaccuracy is also the cost of all the time and energy expended in finding out that the gold ring was not gold, after all. Had the gold ring been plated with gold, the measure of inaccurate currency wouldn't be the same measure of inaccuracy as was the gold painted ring. Had the gold ring been all gold the measure of inaccurate currency wouldn't be the same measure either, and from the rubber check writer's perspective the rubber check and the gold could be seen by him or her as an accurate form of currency. The check was worth one gold ring. The ring is worth one gold ring. The currency to him or her, the rubber check writer, is accurate currency. On the other hand the ring passes from someone who can measure the inaccuracy of the rubber check as inaccurate currency, inaccurate to the tune of one gold ring and all the costs required in finding out that the rubber check is, in fact, inaccurate currency. At least the victim now knows that the rubber check writer writes rubber checks. Currency that is designed to be inaccurate, on purpose, can be seen as currency that is accurate, precisely accurate, from the perspective of the producers, designers, and maintainers of inaccurate currency as they receive wealth by that use of currency. Who measures it? How is it measured? A. The currency accurately transfers wealth from the deceived consumers. B. The deceived consumers transfer wealth even if they don't know it at a measurable rate and the measure is a measure of inaccuracy, not accuracy, from the perspective of the victims. The U.S. National debt is a number. Is it accurate? Is it currency? What does it do? What is it designed to do? Who uses it, why is it used, what is the cost of using it? Are there alternatives to its use, a currency that is more accurate (able to transfer more wealth from more people, faster, to fewer people, "better" and more "accurate" in that sense) or is the competition less accurate (not able to transfer wealth at all from the users to the producers of the competitive currency)? Is accurate currency accurate from each and every user of it, or not? A. Universally accurate B. Not A
You and I are not far off in viewpoints, while you and the Straw-Man you create, the one you place my name on, may have an argument going, I suspect you do, and those two sentences quoted above measure up to me as accurate currency, universally accurate, words that covey meaning, agreeable meaning, equitable meaning perhaps. I could explain what I mean, but who am I speaking with, the reasonable person or the one who libels? If the currency is measured as accurate by both people in one transaction then who can say that the currency is inaccurate? Example: The fake gold guy was paid with the rubber check for his fake gold and then, the fake gold guy pays for something else with the rubber check, a used car perhaps. Meanwhile the rubber check writer pawns the fake gold ring on someone else, buying a handful of Federal Reserve notes perhaps. What has happened? The currency passes as accurate currency, yes or no? Eventually the rubber check is falling apart, paper deteriorates, the ink fades, etc. Eventually the gold paint wears off the ring. Eventually someone measures the currency accurately. Currency is dynamic, not static. Money could be seen as a static thing, perhaps. The argument for the sake of argument costs something to one of us, perhaps the other one of us gains by that routine somehow. This topic doesn't ask for libel. The victim here has not volunteered to be libeled. The exchange is inequitable; the currency is false by that measure. The currency is inaccurate by that specific measure. Example:
That is an example of inaccurate currency. I do not hate competition, far from it. Competition is the power, or the force, that drives prices down to cost, and the power, or the force that drives quality up to the highest possible limit of quality and quality in this sense is universal, not "quality" in a one way sense, as shown above, the quality of accurate currency is universal to all, not "quality" to someone using currency as a means of getting something for nothing from some hapless victim. That false sentence quoted above is not a "quality" sentence from my view. From the view of the author of that sentence, as that sentence publishes what it publishes, is obviously a quality sentence to the author, or the person writing it would not write it. It was a "quality" sentence during the process of creating it, publishing it, etc. By that measure it appeared to be worth something. The moment this reader read that sentence this reader found that sentence to be false, to be another example of libel, to be of a very low quality, very inaccurate, an example of inaccurate currency, costly to me, a cost that isn't easily measured. The reward, perhaps, gained by the writer may also be difficult to measure. Why does anyone produce and distribute inaccurate currency? What is the point? Where is the demand for it? I certainly don't want any inaccurate currency. Who does? Who wants inaccuracy currency? Who produces it? Why do they produce it? Who distributes it? Why do they distribute it? How does something not wanted by so many people become current, become active, and flowing within a social structure? Why is falsehood produced to such great abundance when roughly half the people involved are injured by that production of inaccurate currency, at least half, and the other half are the only one's who benefit by that production of that inaccurate currency? How do the producers of inaccurate currency manufacture demand for it? How do the consumers, the victims, come to see the inaccurate currency as necessary or desirable to a point where the victims consume the false stuff? What is the process by which inaccurate currency becomes legal? Why, for example, are liars, known liars, proven liars, elected to office regularly? Is the process incorporating inaccurate currency as a tool to be used toward that end, that goal, where wealth transfers from the producers of wealth to the producers of inaccurate currency? Why do the people continue to work in exchange for inaccurate currency? Who duped them into such an inequitable deal? How was that accomplished, exactly? Is there a demand for higher quality and lower cost currency? If not, why not? The power to collect wealth from many producers of wealth is a power. Once that power exists the collected wealth can increase. When wealth becomes a power to purchase, and that power increases, what is the limit of possible increase in that power to purchase? Can that power purchase defense against crime, avoidance of crime? Can that power purchase criminals willing to commit crimes, to lie, to cheat, to rob, to rape, to torture, and to mass murder for a piece of the action? If that power is used for defense against crime, that power to transfer wealth from many, to increase the collective power, and then use that power to purchase defense against crime, is that something called insurance? Is that simply a process that can be called: Insurance? People send wealth, give it up, transfer wealth, to a collective pot of wealth, and in return the process insures the purchaser against crime. That is simple. If, on the other hand, the process is crime, then the consumers will get what they pay for, yes or no? If crime is called socialism, it is still crime. If crime is called capitalism, it is still crime. Falsehood hides the truth, yes or no? Who produces it? Why do they produce it, and can't you see that it is inaccurate currency? What does accurate currency look like? Is it past the point of no return? Is accurate currency not welcome, not demanded, not even on the table?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 11:33 am |
|
49th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
hash3m, Your aim is off the mark by a wide measure. You have me confused with your imagination; perhaps. Your subjective opinion is lacking objectivity. What possible event inspires you to make that error in calculation? How can you be so wrong? Perhaps you fail to see your own errors? How, for example, do you arrive at the notion that "fraud" is objective? Fraud is subjective and measurably so, ask any two people, where one person produces the fraud and the other person is victimized by the fraud and see if the answers are the same as these two subjective perspectives convey their version of that supposedly objective thing. One thing, two opposing views of it - hardly the stuff of objectivity. Fraud is not objective. The object of fraud is to cause a false subjective perspective; how can it be objective? If it were objective it wouldn't work. Why do you fail to see that despite all the data that supports that accurate observation? Again your subjective opinion doesn't objectively measure the supposed "voluntary" action caused by an effective fraud. An effective fraud causes the victim to "volunteer" to give up less for more, and this can be accurately measured. If you now claim that "voluntary" is as "objective" as "fraud", then your crusade to address your belief in what I "will ultimately try" will dig an even bigger false perspective. Why go there, when your premise ("you will ultimately try...") is false in the first place? That is measurably subjective and certainly not another case of you being objective. That is a case of subjective opinion being paraded as fact. It is not fact. What is necessary and what you think is necessary are not the same thing, not in that case. Why must you and whomever you exchange something with insist upon a non-equal trade? Why can't you see that other people have the power to trade equally despite your false presumption that supposes that they can't trade equally, or more precisely: equitably? Are you redefining the word: equal - as you have redefined the word "accuracy" to be something associated with "ad hoc"? The reason why equitable commerce is a more accurate form of communication compared to equal commerce concerns how things are measured, and by whom. If everyone, in a universal sense, is free to measure the exchange, without your enforced dictates being followed religiously, they are free to gain at the expense of the other people trading, gain nothing, or give up more for less, as they see fit. If the trade occurs in a measurable way by anyone during any trade whereby the trade is inequitable (someone gains more for less, or gives up more for less), then that is a measure of inequality, or inequity, by that measure, by that person, for that trade. If the other person claims that the trade is equitable, or equal, the other person doesn't defeat the other person's measure. In a universal sense, all true, and accurate measures, are as valid as all others. If one measures a trade as inequitable, and they still do the trade, the reason for doing it may not be a "voluntary" reason. The supposed "voluntary" reason may be one of necessity, an offer that can't be refused, not logically, not with any sense of expediency, or economy. A person holding leverage over someone can force inequity upon the supposed trading "partner", and that person can claim that the exchange is voluntary, while the person holding the smelly end of the stick has an opposite opinion. The trade is one trade, seen from two opposite perspectives. When the trade is seen as a win/win from both perspectives, the trade may be equitable, presuming that no fraud has occurred - whereby the loser is measurably less benefited by the one exchange unknowingly, and the factor of "not knowing" is a pre-meditated and effectively executed production of false data produced by the benefactor of the fraud and that false stuff is transferred accurately to the victim of the fraud. Again: the victim may well be duped into a false belief in having benefited as much as the other trader (equity, not necessarily "equally") because the fraud was an accurate fraud, and effective fraud, a true fraud, a real fraud, a fraud that worked, a fraud that did not fail, and a fraud that did not fail due to the intended victim's lack of power to uncover the fraud before the fraud worked. | My intentions can be summed up as follows: I employ discussion as a means of exchanging ideas, so as to "borrow someone else's brain" since my brain is limited to what my brain can do, and another brain increases the power available in the process of processing ideas - or thinking. My intention is to employ discussion so as to gain greater control over my thinking process, so as to better my life. That is my intention. My intention is to employ discussion. My intention is to borrow your brain. My intention includes and intention to avoid argument. I see no point in argument. What would be the point of argument? See how I borrow your brain? I ask for your perspective concerning what would be the point of argument from your viewpoint. I have my limited viewpoint of argument. I see argument as being counter-productive. That is my limit. What is the point of argument? Why do you presume to have the power to dictate to me? I will not ignore these questions and this post. I find these questions and this post to be valuable, and these questions and this post inspire me to respond. That sentence is a good example. I read it and I see a dictatorial statement produced by you and that dictatorial statement is obviously meant to target me. "That" may or may not be "my intention", I don't know what "that" is, your communication that is presumably meant to let me know what "that" is didn't communicate "that" to me well enough for me to accurately know what you think concerning "that" (my intention), and now that I have offered to you what my intention is, presumably, we can move on, and we can bypass any errors you may have produced concerning what is or what is not my intention. A person who suffers from behavioral modification routines may transact voluntarily in his or her own mind, while the transaction is far from any moral sense of legitimacy. Case in point: Person A grows up to believe that Nationalism is synonymous with patriotism. Person A transacts with Person B. Person B is hired by the people who produce a sufficient quantity of false propaganda so as to modify the behavior of Person A. The transaction is a deal whereby Person A "joins the military". Person A volunteers to kill people for oil profit, in an accurate and measurable way. Person A thinks he or she is volunteering to "spread democracy" or "liberate", or fight the "War on Terror". People involved in that transaction: Person A (volunteer) Person B (volunteer) Person B has also volunteered and he or she is working at the recruitment office, processing volunteers during the transaction, where the volunteer signs at the bottom line on the transaction document. Transaction: Military Service Back to the question (good question in my opinion): Both people in the above transaction may very well be convinced of the legitimacy of that transaction at the time of the transaction. I see such things as being illegitimate in a measurable way. People are tortured, and massive numbers of people are murdered. I find that to be rather illegitimate. If, on the other hand, the "War on Terror" was a true thing, instead of a false ad campaign, and Person A, and Person B were truly being employed to liberate someone, or to legitimately do something, perhaps even "spread democracy" (whatever that means), then that wouldn't be an example of a voluntary transaction being illegitimate. How is the truth measured accurately? How about this: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/ This in particular: $695,228,665,326 What if the shoe was on the other foot? What if China invaded Texas for its oil, then Alaska for its oil and gold, then California for all the goodies left there? Would people here have a more accurate understanding of the "war on terror"? What would happen if people here in this Nation State decided to have a "war on falsehood"; would you volunteer? If the war on falsehood gains territory, will fewer people be selling their lives for oil profits, and is that a case of "preventing people for transacting voluntarily"?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 08:44 am |
|
50th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
hash3m, You libel, you do that, and you continue to do that, and from your view, are you wrong? If you libel, like you do, and you continue to libel, like you do, you may call it "right", or you may call it "wrong", but measurably it is called "libel", libel is the accurate word, you libel, but to you it is something done, something "accomplished", something done again, something "accomplished' again. You do it. You continue to do it. You, from my end, are creating a 2 and calling it a 3. It is measurable as a 2. You libel. You continue to libel. The word "libel" means nothing, neither 2 nor 3, it is like the word "fraud", it depends upon the person doing the measuring. You measure what you do and call it whatever you call it, when it suits you. I measure what you do, each time you do it, again, and again, and it is, in fact, libel. My measure isn't as objective as math. It is accurate each time, but it isn't math. How can the difference between my measure and your measure be accurately accounted for? You call something fraud if someone else does it, perhaps, but if you do it, what do you call it? If you are the victim, you call it what? That is not the stuff of objectivity. Math doesn't fall into that category of things that are subjected to interpretation; or manipulation. Example: I trade 1 thing for two things with someone who I convince, by some actions on my part designed to convince, that the person trading with me is getting the better end of the deal. The fact is that one thing is traded for two things, simple math. My actions designed to convince someone else isn't math. If I do it, if I make that plan, that plan to libel, or that plan to steal, I'm not counting wrong, as far as I am concerned I am counting right, I am counting upon my ability to pass false, misleading, and inaccurate data, data that is false on purpose, data that is false for a reason, data that is measurably accurate if the data accomplishes the designed task - it if false my my view, and it is accurate from my view. It is false and innacurate from the view of the victim. It is subjective. If your reasons for publishing false data concerning what I think and what I write is to discredit me, to glom onto me a false image, to create negative feedback in the hopes that someone else will steer well clear of me, based upon your false data, and certainly not based upon what I write, since your libelous false misrepresentations are inaccurate, if your reasoning is x and x occurs, then you accomplish your goal with your version of math? That is not math. Your math works for that intended purpose. It isn't math. It is libel. Call it what you will. Now, if you find that everyone excluding me, everyone alive today, without exception, believing in your libelous falsehoods concerning what you publish here against me, you then can claim that your version of math is true. It is Math, because you and everyone else says so. That doesn't change the facts, rather, that measures the number of people who share your libelous beliefs, which are false. Fraud is a word that intends to describe something done by people who incorporate specific actions designed to accomplish specific goals. Fraud could be a form of math, sure, 1 plus 1 equals 3. People use it all the time, not universally, everyone can't be successful at fraud, each time it is used, to accomplish the same goal; there must be a victim, otherwise there would be no point to it. Math, on the other hand, is either accurate, true, and measurably true, in every single case, no matter who is using it, it always works the same way, every time, unless the math in question is as yet not well understood by the people using it - certainly not addition, subtraction, division, etc. - as you appear to be claiming, or associating, with your grouping of "fraud" with "math". Fraud is fraud. Math is math. One mans' fraud isn't another mans math, not mine, certainly not mine. You can claim that fraud is like math, and measuring it as such, I've seen the ruler you use, it is the same ruler you may be using that measures your libelous publications, while that ruler can't be used by me, it has no gradations, the only gradations it has on it are the erasable ones you put on it. It is subjective. It isn't objective. If it were objective, I could measure the same "fraud", or the same "libel", and come up with the same, accurate, measure as you do. You would cease to produce your libel immediately if you were to use my measure of "fraud", and you don't, therefore "fraud" isn't even close to the objectivity of math. Saying that "fraud" is analogous to "math" is like saying the Ten Commandments on stone tablets is analogous to a calculator. One is certainly objective as any user can find the sum of one plus one on the calculator. Ask a professional fraud, or libeler, for the product of some problem resolved by the stone tablets and the answer may sound like the "right" answer but what does the fraud or the libeler actually do? The calculator answers the math problem every time in every effort to prove the answer; if it works accurately. If it doesn't, it is broken. If it adds 5 plus 5 and comes up with -378, a fraud, or libeler, may have a use for it. One apple exists. Eat it. How many apples are left? 1 - 1 = 3? Ask the fraud, or the libeler, for the interpretation of the stone tablets and the answer may be the same as the one I get, but when proving time comes, libel continues, fraud continues, the measure is subjective. If you do not connect the examples I offer to the viewpoint I communicate, such at the recruitment for military service example, then what am I to make of such an omission? Are you arguing with your Straw-Man? For my part, in this discussion, I have my reasons for it, my reasons have been confessed; they are true reasons, accurate communications of true reasons. You can do the same thing, it would be equitable, you could state an accurate confession concerning what you are doing here in this thread, and why you are doing it here in this thread. From the measure of the victim, the subjective measure, fraud and libel are wrong, or "theft", or whatever word is used to convey the accurate measure of it from the subjective viewpoint of the victim. From the viewpoint of the producer of the fraud, the beneficiary, it may also be "theft", as a matter of fact; the word is the same word after the fact, but what about before the fact? The fraud or libeler doesn't go around advertising what he is about to do with the correct label, it wouldn't work that way, the victims may be able to read. Fraud is certainly not "implicit" to the victims before the fraud is accurately executed as planned by the fraud, no more than a libel is "implicit" in the libelers mind; presumably. I don't libel, how would I know? Again; math is "implicit" as a tool used by anyone, ever, universally, to solve math problems. Fraud isn't the same problem solver for each person. Fraud solves the problem of having to work for a living, presumably, from the frauds measuring device. Fraud may be easier than working to produce something of value. Fraud is a problem from the victims measuring device. Libel solves the problem of having to address actual challenges offered to the libeler; from the libelers measuring device; presumably. Libel is a problem from the victims measuring device. That is one interpretation of the word "equal". It isn't the one used by some people as some people trade equally. The version of "equal" between traders who trade "equally" can be more precisely communicated as "equitably" traded; not 1 for 1, but 1 measure of total cost for one measure of total cost (a possible example of an equitable trade that is equal from a cost/value perspective). Who are you arguing with? Why do you omit, or ignore, my part in this discussion? Why do you prefer to create some nebulous argument? Who ever claimed that one exact thing would ever be traded for one exact copy of the same thing by anyone ever - if that is what you presume to be worth arguing about? An equal trade can easily be measured by the cost required to replace the thing traded measured against the cost required to replace the thing being traded for. Precisely "equal" is one way of seeing a trade, not my way, it is one way. "Equitable" trades are seen similarly by at least two people, the people trading equitably - they both see the trade as an equal trade, not necessarily as a precisely equal trade where the same exact thing, in the same exact condition, is exchanged for an exact, and an exactly equal, copy. What would be the point? Who would want that version of "equal" trades? Not me. Is that an argument conjured up by a Man of Straw? Equitable trades intend to transfer purchasing power equitably, so as to gain by accessing division of labor, specialization, competition, and economies of scale, and avoid gaining at the expense of anyone, if at all possible. That is my part of this discussion. You can ignore it, of course. You can ignore my part of this discussion, if it challenges you too much, and you can keep on commenting in this thread as you keep on constructing an argument with some nebulous non-entity - certainly not anything or anyone associated with me. As to the rest of the dogma associated with Austrian Economics: I've read Menger's work. and it is worthless to me, it is based upon inaccurate measures of value, false things. It is based upon a supposed value linked to scarcity. In his own words the value of things is based upon the scarcity of things. I much prefer the measure of cost as a more accurate measure of value. If the dogma you prefer works for you then I'm in no position to judge. What does that have to do with this thread? Does this thread cause you some measure of concern relative to your dogmatic beliefs concerning economy? That is not math above. That is a subjective way of perceiving both "utility" and "value". If I measure value as "how scarce something is" then that is what I choose to do. If I measure value as "how much it will cost me to get it", then that is what I do. One is as subjective as the other, neither are objective. If I wake up and oxygen is scarce, I can't breathe, I value oxygen more than when I wake up as oxygen is abundant. If I find that it cost me no effort to breathe my value judgment of air is less than when I find that I have food stuck in my air passage. My cost for failing to procure a ready supply of air is death. Which is more subjective? Which is better for you? You will choose what is better for you. I will not be subjected to your version of "marginal utility" or "value". I will, instead, be subjected to your libel. Libel, to you may have some "marginal utility'. Libel, to you, may hold some subjective value. What does your libel cost me? What will it cost me to replace what your libel has stolen from me? I don't want your libel, and I certainly don't want your way of seeing economy. It works for you at my expense, in a measurable way. Your libel cost me. I measure the value of my defense based upon a cost associated with failing to defend myself against your libel. I don't view my defense as a subjective value based upon scarcity; no more that I view oxygen as a subjective value based upon scarcity. Failure to defend cost me. Failure to procure a steady supply of oxygen will cost me too. You are not strangling me. You are libeling me. If you are pre-disposed to libel against me, it seems to me, it would be very bad for me if you were in control of my supply of oxygen. You could employ that control of my supply of oxygen, with its "Marginal Utility", and you could extract from me a very large measure of "Subjective Value" by making my supply of oxygen just scarce enough to get whatever you desire from me. Your cost may be a simple screwing down of the knob on my oxygen supply; while my cost is whatever you make me do, skip rope, dance, whatever you want, since I must have that oxygen. You can claim that I volunteer to give you all you ask for too, and you can make me praise your "economic dogma" as you desire too. You can even make me believe in it - presumably. I do need oxygen. You have your way of seeing things, and it is subjective. To me the above quote is measurably false, an example of "double speak" or "duplicity" or "dogma". If it works for you to get what you aim to get then it does. I'm not here to quibble about what you want and how you get it. This thread on this forum is specific, and my motives for being here are specific. My specific thread and my specific motives do not concern Austrian Economic Profit and Wage Paying Systems. Why bring that dogma here? Why publish that dogma here as if it were objective fact, if that is what you are truly doing, or even truly believing? What is the point of publishing subjective economic viewpoints as if those subjective economic viewpoints were facts - if that is what you are doing? My example of a "voluntary" exchange was offered, as an example of my side of this part of this diversion from the topic, and to ignore it is to ignore my part of this side of this part of this diversion from the topic. Why ignore my part of this part of this diversion from the topic? What is the point? My example concerned two "volunteers" exchanging military service for pay; at the moment the transaction transacted. I have an award here in my home. I helped out my fellow human beings who are currently working in the U.S. Military. Despite all that I know concerning what is being done with the U.S. Military, it seems to me, the people in it are still people. If you choose to ignore my part of this discussion, then what is your business here exactly? At the moment when the volunteer signs on the bottom line and joins the Military a transaction has voluntarily occurred. Then, in time, the person moves from that table to somewhere else, and then somewhere else, and a trail of tortured and murdered people occur. The people do what they think is right. If they "think" they are defending liberty, and they risk everything to do that, they are risking everything for what they think is right, and they are volunteering to do that. It is all voluntary, from their viewpoint. You can call it legitimate. You can call it illegitimate. You can ignore it. I don't. I prefer to see it accurately. I prefer not to place false labels on it, to make me feel more comfortable about it. I prefer or meet the challenge of knowing what is and what is not accurate. You can help me. Why do you ignore me? Why do you libel against me? Is your dogma so precious as to be worth my hide? How many people are you willing to expend to secure your dogma? If you bring yourself to the point of exchange where the volunteers help each other sign a contract to join in Military Service, right there at a table, right there where a pen is used, then you bring yourself to my part of this part of this diversion from this topic where you have helped us go. If you ignore that, then what was the point of helping us get here?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Oct 31st, 2009 09:01 am |
|
51st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
+++++++++++++ Both of them may regret their decision after the fact, but the actual transaction voluntarily occurred because they both preferred what they received more than what they gave up at the moment of trade. +++++++++++++ hash3m, Again, if you have an argument going with some imaginary being created by you, then I can understand the reasoning behind your wandering into this thread, spilling into it so to speak, to work on that argument. Have at it. I’ll be something like a referee. If someone somewhere has ever communicated to you that you and whomever you trade with can’t do as you say you do, when you trade, then that person may be inspiring your reactions, like the one above. I’m not that person. You can do whatever you want when trading, and the person you trade with can do whatever they want when trading. Are we clear about that so far? I’m going to repeat, just in case we are not clear.
Those 5 things in that laundry list are things that pass from me to you if you care to accept those things, a trade of sorts, and I offer them as a gift, from me to you, if you take them, that is fine, if you reject those 5 things, that is fine too. I am doing my part to be clear, to be accurate, to avoid confusion, and to defend against further libel produced by you and passed from you to this pubic forum where your product is available to pass to anyone caring or interested in receiving your product. Back to your product: +++++++++++++ Both of them may regret their decision after the fact, but the actual transaction voluntarily occurred because they both preferred what they received more than what they gave up at the moment of trade. +++++++++++++ Anyone can, and I know for a fact that some do, trade down, and they do so on purpose. Many people, perhaps very many people, willingly receive less for more, on purpose, when they want to receive less for more, on purpose, and that type of transaction is so common as to have inspired a word in English where that word in English is a label for that type of transaction. That type of transaction is called: Generosity. Here are two types of transactions:
If you are interested, at all, in entertaining a viewpoint that isn’t parroting the ASEIPWPSCPSDTU (Austrian School of Economics Interest/Profit/Wage Paying Systematic/Capitalist Pricing Scheme Dogma type of “trading up”) line, nor the Straw-Man argument conjured up in reaction to that pricing scheme dogma, then you may be interested in viewing a third exchange type, an exchange type that is neither “trading up” nor “trading down” on purpose.
The third option looks more organized when the third option is placed in between “Gaining at someone else’s expense” and “giving up something for less or nothing in return”.
I can understand that you may not want to look at option 2 or 3, and that is fine, leave those products out of view, ignore them, and I will fill in the blank for anyone else who may have an interest in those products, and anyone else who may not want to think of me as your Man of Straw – just in case someone might be inching that way. The BLANK between Profit at the expense of someone and Generosity is neither Profit at the Expense of someone nor Generosity, it is the middle place between the two, and it can be called “equal trading” or it can be called equity, or equitable commerce. It can be called:
That brings me back to the part that is pushed under the rug, the part that appears to be unspeakable, the part where the two people are at the recruiting office, and one partner is signing on the bottom line to join in on the Military Service Contract thing, where both partners are conducting a voluntary exchange – voluntarily. Do those people realize the nature of option 1? Here is option 1 again:
My guess is that they do not fully understand the gravity of option 1, and my guess is that that is also why this part of this discussion from the topic is unspeakable to some people. I am not that person, I speak about it. It is speak able, I am speak able. I can respond to that subject matter. I am respond able. Do you have a response to my part of the topic where you have helped place us at that voluntary exchange at the recruitment office where volunteers are voluntarily transacting? How many times can I ask before it is obviously not something that you are willing or able to respond to? +++++++++++ That's because fraud isn't fraud until it actually happens. lol, seriously man? +++++++++++ Fraud begins as an interest in someone’s mind. You can laugh out loud, sure, and you can question my sincerity, sure, but who are you responding to? Are you responding to your conjured up Straw-Man? Your questions of sincerity have nothing to do with me. I am serious enough to run for public office. I am serious enough to join armed marches on the capital. I am serious enough to write and speak my mind concerning unspeakable things. Your argument isn’t interesting to me, it has nothing to do with me, and it is out of place in this topic. Why are you brining your argument in here? What is the point? ++++++++++ It is all voluntary, from their viewpoint. You make a good point, something both of us would do well to remember. It is voluntary, from their viewpoint. But a transaction requires two parties, so the actions of only one party do not make the transaction a fully voluntary one. Murder and torture are generally voluntary on behalf of one party, notably the murder or torturer; but they are clearly non-voluntary transactions once both parties are considered. ++++++++++++ People who libel, or people who commit fraud, do libel, and they do commit fraud, and it starts in their minds, and their minds are inspired by things the occur previous to the spark that ignites the idea, and previous to the adoption of the idea to proceed down that path, where the idea and the path is to injure someone else for personal gain. What does that have to do with the subject here in this thread? The idea of this thread is “accurate currency”. The idea of this thread is to link accurate currency with something I all Joe’s Law, to see accurate currency from a Joe’s Law perspective. Joe’s Law: Power produced into a state of oversupply will reduce the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production. Accurate currency is powerful currency, because it is accurate. The very loose connection between your argument and this topic is the introduction of a form of accurate currency that isn’t universally accurate. Fraudulent currency is only accurate from the viewpoint of the criminals who produce the fraudulent currency and I can adjust Joe’s Law to address that introduction of that destructive power (it is destructive from the victims perspective, not destructive from the criminals perspective). Joe’s Law (in defense against criminal powers): Universally productive power produced into a state of oversupply will (not may or might) reduce the price of power while purchasing power increases (each unit of accurate currency has the power to buy more, more quality, and/or more quantity) because universally productive power reduces the cost of production. That is Joe’s law expanded (wordier) so as to defend against destructive power (inaccurate currency from the victim’s perspective) being produced so as to gain at the expense of the targeted victims. Here is where I share much with the dogmatists in the Austrian School, and here is also where I depart from that dogma in a big way. I share the viewpoint that the frauds at The Fed are destroying much, destroying many, and destroying greatly, as those criminals follow through with their plans. I depart from the dogmatists on a few obvious points of interest. Obvious to me, perhaps no one else, but that is fine by me. I can proceed alone.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Nov 1st, 2009 11:55 am |
|
52nd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
hash3m, When you repeat your viewpoint in this thread, what are you doing? Are you trading down or up? You could trade in another thread, a thread where the topic is your advertised viewpoint. What is the point of repeating your way of seeing things, over and over again, in this thread? You may trade a Ferrari for a scooter, and you may do that because you want a scooter, and you may do that because you don't want the Ferrari as much as the scooter. Thanks for keeping me out of your dogmatic way of seeing things. I don't go there, I see things differently and I prefer to see charity as charity. People can be, and people are, charitable when people have that plan and when people execute that plan. There isn't only your plan, and there isn't only the Austrian Economics Interest/Profit/Wage Paying/System plan. Thanks for making your latest advertisement here exclusive to you, rather then making your latest advertisement here inclusive to everyone (which it is not). You may trade a scooter for a Ferrari, and you may do so for whatever reason you come up with, and that doesn't have anything to do with me, this topic, or my way of seeing actual, real, current, and accurate modern economic activity - where charity is included in it. Charity is, perhaps, one small part, so a reader who may be reading this may do good, do a more accurate job, of placing charity in an accurate place, and avoid confusing charity with another actual, real, current, and accurate modern economic activity called "dumping". Dumping can be seen as "giving away the razor so as to sell razor blades". "Giving away" in such a case isn't "charity" when compared to, say, someone volunteering to serve old people at the old folks home, for no pay, even when doing so requires time off of a paying job. The point of me communicating both "Charity" and "Dumping" is to point out, again, that the Austrian Dogma is incomplete, from a more complete, or more accurate perspective of economy, where people wander from equitable transactions to the extreme ends of wandering. Example of the extreme ends of wandering from equity can be seen with a laundry list as such: Equity That is the middle. That is when one person trades at a measurably equitable rate with someone else. To use the Ferrari for a scooter example, the traders are both completely satisfied with the trade, as far as they are concerned. As far as those two are concerned 1 Ferrari is worth as much as one scooter. Now that we have a base by which to measure these two people during that transaction we can add to both sides of equity. I can put equity in the list as number 2 and can add number 1 and number 3 to both sides of equity. 1. Blank 2. Equity (1 Ferrari = 1 scooter) 3. Blank If 1 Ferrari is given up for nothing in return, then the trade is not equitable.
Which is a sustainable method of operation? Clearly, it seems to me anyway, that equity is sustainable and wandering off of it is merely charitable. The giver upper will run out of things to give up, and must return to work, or starve, or depend upon charity. The receiver, if receiving more for less is taken to the obvious limit, will consume all the charitable people. When the receiver has all the Ferraris, all the scooters, all the food, all the power, the limit is reached - obviously. Everyone else has starved to death. Equity is sustainable. Wandering from equity is also sustainable such as 6 of one and half a dozen of another is sustainable, or what comes around goes around, or perceptions such as "karma" are sustainable (so far). Being taken to the cleaners by the same "trader" tends to grow old, and the "giver" (the one receiving less for nothing, or some unsustainable measure of trade) tends to find more equitable traders because, perhaps, being taken to the cleaners is obviously unsustainable. The giver gives up. The reciever has an interest in sustaining the inequitable flow to him, or her. Anyone, please, please note here, I'll put a big red marker here too. [size=NOTE THE CLAPTRAP HERE] Who is this person arguing with? A sentence is true, then the arguing person follows up the true sentence with the word "No", then adds a comma, and then another true statement Fraud begins as an interest in someone's mind. That is a true statement. Why would someone react to that true statement with the word "No"? Fraud begins as an interest in someone's mind. That is true. Why respond to that true statement with a false reaction to it? If the person responding to the true statement could disprove the true statement, then would that person do so, or would that person do something else, and what is that "something else", and why is that person failing to disprove the true statement, and why is that person doing whatever that person is doing here? I have no problem with someone following up a true statement with more true statements. There are many forums, many topics, and many places to "state the obvious", such as "thinking begins in someone's mind" and "fraud hasn't occurred until it has actually occurred" or "black is black" and "white is white" or "the sun is the greatest source of power in this solar system" - well that last one may be "iffy". Why add "no" in between the true statement I published and the true statements published after repeating the true statement I published? What is the point of that false ad? Why downgrade a word? Why is this person re-defining a word? Why is this person miss-associating the word "accuracy" with the word "subjective"? What is the point of this example of duplicity? Who is this person arguing with, again, and again, and again, and why do that in here, why spill that brawl into this particular topic on this particular forum, there must be a reason, is this a purely random occurrence? That argument happened to wander in here of all places? Where is this Straw-Man whose argument will crumble? I see only the creator of the Straw-Man and his personal argument, where this "property rights" dogma proliferates, confuses, or does whatever it's designer has planned for it to do. If the idea is to accurately convey the meaning of crime, if that is what is to be done, then my observation is to direct focus at the criminal, to see the criminal planning the crime, and then see the criminal execute the crime, to see the process as it occurs from beginning to end.
If the topic is crime, the argument between the Sraw-Man and his creator can crumble their own arguments about crime, as they see fit, my part of this discussion, on that part of that diversion from this subject, is not an argument. My part is to see crimes at the origin of it - or sooner, and to see it accurately as soon as possible, so as to have the time, and the power, to avoid it, be i libel, or be it torturte and mass murder. My part isn't an argument; nothing to crumble. I won't be the victim of this libeler, if I can see the plan unfolding in time. I can employ my power to communicate accurate currency. Accurate currency is productive purchasing power; in a universal sense.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 11:17 am |
|
53rd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
hash3m, You are still creating and publishing falsehoods and targeting me with those false creations. That sentence targets me, and it is false. From my view your falsehoods are good, not perfect, examples of fraud. You are the fraud, you target your victim, and your intended victim is me. I see an opportunity to defend against your fraud. From your view, perhaps, your viewpoint isn't as good an example of fraud as your fraud is to me. Your fraud is good, I'm just able to defend against it - somewhat. See how there are two sides to this exchange. When someone fails to see the other side of the exchange, it seems to me, the person doing the failing is apt to misunderstand the other side of the exchange, the person who fails to understand the other side of the exchange is prone to get it wrong, perhaps even backwards. I don't know what you think. I know what I think. Someone so caught up in an attractive belief, a favored way of seeing things, is someone who may mistake that way of seeing things to be the only way to see things, and no other way of seeing things is possible. That is a case of self defeating, closed minded, false belief. Value can be seen as cost. This isn't new stuff. Example: Replacement cost. A common practice in the effort to accurately measure value is a calculation based upon accurate estimates of replacement costs. If someone could show me where I am "perfectly backwards" on anything they might actually do so - if they could. What is the point, again, of arguing with your own preferred Austrian Economics Interest/Profit/Wage Paying Systematic fleecing of the working people? Why are you brining that argument in here? Who are you arguing with? Why bring your Straw-Man in here? Your economic viewpoint may very well be as it is; but what does that have to do with me, what does that have to do with this topic? If you prefer something and someone else has it, go ahead and get it, and go ahead and think about what you are doing in any way you can conjure up or follow if your thinking follows some pre-recorded dictates or dogma. Why are you publishing those subjective viewpoints in here? This topic concerns accurate currency from a Joe's Law perspective; so, wouldn't your publications of the argument you are having with your Straw-Man be perfectly not backwards in a topic having the title you choose to place on your argument with your Straw-Man? As far as I know, and you could correct any of my errors if I am working with errors, your Austrian Economic Theories require a specific type of currency and your way of seeing things isn't such that the currency you employ is, by design, universally accurate. As far as I can tell, and you aren't giving up any trade secrets, not willingly, as far as I can tell you prefer fraudulent currency, where the currency is accurately made fraudulent by you so as to be an accurate tool you use to conduct your fraud, to gain your interest, to get what you want at the expense of your victims; but what does all that have to do with this topic? I'm not one of your victims, not so long as I can defend against being one of your victims, so it makes sense that you now bring along your Straw-Man so as to conduct your argument against your own nebulous viewpoint. Why not discuss the topic instead? I am a poor referee here since you prefer not to have a referee during your argument with your Straw-Man. You ignore specific things that refer to accurate data, you ingore specific things that are examples of accurate data, and you even manage to re-define the concept of accuracy in your mind, or so your words suggest. What is the point of continually ignoring the topic and continually arguing with your Straw-Man, and what is the point of falsely associating me with your self-created Man of Straw? I am not arguing with you, what would be the point? What would be the point of arguing with someone who makes up false ideas and then attributes those false ideas to their chosen opposition? You can do that all by yourself, you don't need me to place your false idea on, why not find someone who will accept your false ideas placed upon them as you wish? Why am I so special to you? Why do you pick me, of all the forums, on all of the World Wide Web, why pick me to conduct your false advertisements? Why pick this thread? What is the point? The point of this thread is to accurately communicate the concept of accurate currency (universally accurate and not fraudulently accurate from the fraud's unique perspective) from a Joe's Law perspective; which is a power perspective. Joe's Law: Power produced to a state of abundance will reduce the price of power while purchasing power increases since power reduces the cost of production. In order to view a power perspective such as the one I view it may be a good idea to shed the dogma that dictates the necessity of inaccurate currency - or fraud. There is no place for fraud, or inaccurate currency, in a productive power perspective, since, logically, destructive power, like inaccurate currency, or fraud, destroys - rather than producing. That is what you say, why are you claiming that "economics" said what you said (or wrote)? Now your Straw-Man has taken off one hat and your Straw-Man has donned a hat called: "Economics"? Can I meet this guy, or is this guy actually you - again? If I give a Ferrari away, I do it, and I do it for reasons that may not be understood by you. You might very well get my reasons backwards, perhaps not perfectly backwards, but so far you have a long history of failing to feed back any measure of understanding concerning what I think. So far your feedback appears to be inspired by what you misunderstand concerning what I think, so much so, that it appears from my view that you are arguing with some imaginary creation that you have constructed without my help. What does your Austrian Economics Interest/Profit/Wage Paying/System have to do with me, or this topic? Why can't you speak for your own thoughts? Why do you pretend that some nebulous entity speaks your thoughts instead of you? Do you think that Mr. "Economics" will inspire greater belief than you can? You are behind that curtain. I can see you working the levers. Who are you asking? Are you asking your Straw-Man? Why are you constructing these libels here in this thread? Why are you targeting me with you inaccurate currency? What is the purpose of your "help" - here? Please find a place where your argument is appropriate, or please explain why you are targeting me with this "help", or whatever this is that you are doing. Your argument above appears to be defending this: It appears as if you are defending a concoction of legal doctrine, perhaps, I don't know. What is the point of creating an argument and then confusing the argument you create with an ever expanding series of false viewpoints? A fraud, or a price, or a cost, or any viewpoint occurs. If that is true, if such things do occur, then a time and a place where it begins can be accurately known. A time and a place where it ends can be accurately known too. What is the point of claiming that these things can only occur at one time, and not have a beginning and an end? Are you stepping from your preferred Economic dogma into your preferred Legal dogma? How many possible diversions from the topic are possible? Someone dead set on creating a never ending argument has an advantage over someone who prefers to communicate accurately, in a universal sense. If you desire argument for the sake of argument, can you get it, if you want it, if you love it, if you need it, and if you must have it - I suppose. What is the point of your part in these diversions from the topic? Will your answer be true? Will your answer be accurate? Example: Does that confess your desire for argument? When no argument originates from me, or anyone, do you create an argument out of thin air? What is the point of continuing this charade if your beliefs concerning what I may or may not do are proven to be inaccurate? What really drives you into here? Do you really think that I am going to mislabel something? That is what you do. If you are transferring or projecting your faults onto me, and then fearing your mirror image, then this whole business you are conducting here makes sense to me. I prefer not to believe in my reasoning here, certainly not without some acknowledgement on your part, since you are the only one who knows what you actually think, presumably. I can only guess. I can only guess based upon what you do, or I have to trust what you say. So far what you say about me has nothing to do with me. So far what you say is demonstrably false, demonstrably fraudulent, and so far, as far as I am concerned, you libel me, and you do so repeatedly. That is hardly the stuff worthy of trust. So, really, what are you doing here? What is the point? Suppose the dollar hyper-inflates, going back toward the topic, and suppose that the Chinese, Russians, Iranians, Indians, Japanese, and Hugo Chavez's Economic power (including oil), take over the power associated with the term "World Reserve Currency"? What, other than ignorance (a destructive power), stops the people in this land from creating their own accurate currency to replace the hyper-inflated (and thereby power-less) dollar, and what stops that accurate currency (replacing the dollar) from competing and winning market share from the hypothetical new Reserve Currency suppliers? The answer is simple. The Dollar Hegemony must destroy all competition at all cost or it will lose market share, and The Dollar Hegemony (the people who wield that power) currently has the power to eliminate competition within this legal regime (North America, or the U.S.A). That stops any effort, and all effort, to the extent of it's power (the power wielded by specific people) to effectively produce an accurate currency to replace the fraudulent currency. That is the power, and it is real. On the other hand; there are people who are gaining power where these competative people are producing a more accurate currency and gaining market share. All is not necessarily lost, not by a long shot; the power struggle isn't won by those who destroy alone. Someone must actually produce productive power. Is productive power going to be invested toward the production of more and more productive power, or will power be employed to destroy competition?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 11:17 am |
|
54th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
hash3m, You are pointing out "absurdities"? What are these "absurdities" that you are pointing out? If you point out that your Austrian Economic Interest/Profit/Wage Paying System has severe limitations in it scope, as you do repeatedly, then you point out the severe limitations of your viewpoint; what does that have to do with my viewpoint? When you read something that doesn't fit into your viewpoint, it may even challenge your viewpoint, your reaction is to repeat some dogmatic nonsense and then begin characterizing your reaction as some argumentative victory? Now, within your dogma, you attribute "economics" with concern? Your viewpoint attributes a human emotion to your Austrian Economic Interest/Profit/Wage Paying/System? Your economic system is concerned? Is your economic system as concerned as you are, less, or more concerned? Did your economic systems concern make you publish libel, out of it's concern? Are you merely acting on behalf of your Austrian Economic Interest/Profit/Wage Paying/System's concern, or is your continued libel more a reaction resulting from your concern? Is the System you believe in concerned, at all, that your subjective value judgment concerning the libel you publish is a measurable example of cost to me? If your System made you do it, with your System's concern for it's subjective value judgments, then can I ask your System to call you off, to make you stop producing and publishing all the libelous falsehoods you aim at me? Example: Can I ask your System, with it's concern for subjective value, the System that makes you libel, if that is the responsible, and the accountable entity, the one with the concern, can I ask your System to actually point out something absurd, through you presumably, rather than merely claiming (falsely) that you have, or even can, point out something absurd? Cost is a measurable tool used by people when people desire to produce, and then they do produce a more accurate measure of value when employing that tool accurately. Is that sentence above a challenge to your System's concerns, or is it, as your words appear to suggest, that the above sentence is an absurdity? Why do you continually blame wrong things, absurdities for example, produced by your Straw-Man, your vaporware? Does your other vaporware construction tell you to do it? Does your Austrian Economic Interest/Profit/Wage Paying System's concern dictate to you that you must create a Straw-Man and then you must blame your Straw-Man for being absurd, or do you have a hand in this libelous enterprise? What exactly is absurd? Is it absurd to claim that a system can be concerned, or is that just your way of diverting the topic even further from the topic? So far you claim that the word "accuracy" is "ad hoc". You claim that "fraud" is objective. You claim that cost is objective. You claim that "subjective" value is a concern of some thing that speaks to you, something you call "ecnomics". The first claim where "accuracy" is "ad hoc" has been hashed out, by your own admission, to be a paranoid emotion you suffer concerning what I may or may not do, again by your own admission, and then that miss-association (accuracy is ad hoc) has been a reaction to your paranoid emotion, a product of your own surreal imagination. Accuracy is accuracy. Ad hoc is not accuracy. When you fear something surreal, you miss-associate "accuracy" with "ad hoc" - and my guess is that your actual concern, and not the concern of some nebulous System, is that you are challenged by something that you prefer not to see, something you prefer to ignore, and therefore the easy way out, for you, is to produce libel. My guess is that your knee jerk reaction to things that challenge you is to shoot the messenger. Next you claim that "fraud" is objective, and from the eyes of the fraud, or the libeler, as the fraud or the libeler plans the fraud or the libel, the statement may be true; fraud, or libel, is an objective plan produced by the fraud or libeler, and then fraud becomes an executed plan once the fraud or the libeler executes the plan to fraud or libel. We went through this claim already. From the victims perspective the fraud or the libel can also be an objective process whereby the victim ends up paying an objective cost associated with the libel or the fraud; however the victims' objective measure is a cost while the frauds objective measure is a gain, at the expense of the victim. That is hardly the stuff of objectivity, and perhaps not completely absurd. A third party to a fraud can have another opinion concerning the fraud, and now there are three different viewpoints concerning the supposed objectivity to the fraud. If all three were concerned with some measure of accuracy, then all three would be concerned with some measure of accuracy, and if all three knew what was accuracy, then all three would know that accuracy can't be measured differently by all three subjective viewpoints. Accuracy, the actual thing, is a universal measure of fact, not subject to miss-interpretation. Miss-interpretation is the opposite of accuracy. A person does not need to be involved; a monkey can be involved in an accurate measure. A monkey can measure the chances of surviving a jump down out of a very tall tree, for example, and come up with the accurate measure that the fall won't be pleasant. If the monkey, or a human being, measures the distance accurately, relative to the harm a fall from the distance would cause, then the data, from an accurate perspective, may inspire the monkey, or the human being, to avoid that fall. A fearful monkey, one who miss-steps on a regular basis, a monkey who miss-steps while fearing things that do not exist perhaps, may be a monkey that falls while failing to perceive the impending fall accurately. An accurate perception is what it is, and to call it "ad hoc" is what that is. How many words are needed to confuse something simple, or are those words conveying accurate meaning that could be worth knowing? How does that claim above measure up to the following: "We" don't know the exact reasons people do what they do, and notice the use of the word "exact", which is an accurate measure, an exact measure, and which is not an inaccurate measure, "exact" is not "inexact". "We" don't know the exact (accurate) reasons but economics knows a reason? Is the reason told to us by "economics" an accurate reason, or is it not accurate? If the reason is charity, then does "economics" know it, or does "economics" fail to know it? If "economics" says something; are "we" required to obey or will we suffer libel if "we" don't obey as told? If the reason is "dumping", and "economics" ignore it, do "we" have to ignore it too? [size=MODERATORS] Please note the employment, again, of libel. The "fellow" forum member hash3m, continues to publish false, derogatory, inflammatory, and criminal misrepresentations of another forum member, despite repeated attempts to plead with the repeat offender to ceases publishing the offensive text. The employment of the word "insane" is unbecoming, at the very least. It is disingenuous. It is measurably inaccurate. It is false. Please note the employment of ambiguity and then the employment of false representations, of the facts, being presented as fact. If the libeler could produce some support for these libelous false claims, then wouldn't the libeler do so, assuming, of course, that the intent was to expose these supposed "insane conclusions"? So far as I can tell, the views "on it" are limited to your views on one word, where your views address the topic by addressing the one word, and that word is "accuracy". So far as I can tell, your views on the topic, on that one word, are false. Accuracy is not "ad hoc" as you have claimed, and as you have previously confessed, your false claim was inspired by another misperception you confess to having perceived. Here: When you get around to publishing text that is relevant to the topic you will, or you won't, and perhaps instead you will publish text that claims to be addressing the topic while not doing so. When you move from the topic back to your preferred dogma handed down to you from your "economics" that speaks to you, with it's concern, then you can do that too, and you can claim that you are then "citing valid economic evidence"; while the accurate measure of "validity" is only accurate from either your subjective view, or from the viewpoint of the "economics" being that uses you to speak for it.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 10:24 am |
|
55th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Michael Delavar, You prefer to add this unpleasant chore to the list of things you are doing these days? How does that work? Reading this forum, then reading this topic, you find cause to offer corrective text aimed at someone who needs it, this seems to be a possible scenario, and you avoid mentioning any language that directly challenges someone who writes this: So, I think I get it, the person who associates a fellow forum member with the word "insane" is not worthy of direct moderation while the person targeted by that association with the word "insane" is worthy of direct corrective moderation by you. The topic is not worth discussing to this forum membership. That much is clear. The moderators, such as they are, have spoken.
In parting, you can have your forum, for all it is worth to you, my point will remain here, in this text, for as long as the moderators allow. Accurate currency is unwelcome here, what is welcome, what is rewarded, is libel. It is not worth continued libel, having my viewpoint twisted around, misrepresented, and on top of that having my efforts to defend against that libel moderated while the libeler is given a free hand in this market of ideas. Libel wins here at your request. Have fun doing whatever it is you are doing here, I see no point in it, not without accurate currency. I can leave with an open question. What is so attractive about falsehood, here in the form of libel, that you find it in need of so much dedicated support?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 10:26 am |
|
56th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I took the last reply by a self elected forum moderator as a request from him, or her, for me to consider my participation as unwelcome. That ends that "discussion". What ever happened to discussion?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 12:27 pm | Page: 1 2 3 |
| Power Independence > Networking > Expanding Connectivity > Copy | Top |
