| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: Joe Kelley |
|
||||||||||||||
| Will | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Thu Apr 27th, 2006 09:53 am |
|
1st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Jacob Hornberger, Thanks for this: http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger84.html Especially this: “the American people figure out a way to reverse what has happened to their country – and have the will to do something about it” Please consider doing both:
I will continue reading your work to see how the progress manifests itself. Meanwhile, and with no effort to insult intended, I’m doing the same here: http://www.power-independence.com/ This morning my personal best efforts will focus on your offering (linked above) and add to it in my debate section. You are invited to participate. I know we are all busy and we all have our own individual estimates of ‘how to’ get the job done. My thinking is, at some point, we will all be on the same page eventually. That page may become an overly frightening page. One that is unconscionable and very difficult to face. Joe
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Apr 27th, 2006 10:24 am |
|
2nd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Organisms, all those that are alive, require energy. That is a problem. That problem is an economical problem. When one organism lives at the expense of another organism, then, a new problem arises. The new problem is a political problem. Energy becomes power and power is used to destroy. This is elemental physics. The problem is obviously an expenditure of energy as a means, a power, by one organism in the effort to survive at the expense of another organism. The solution to that problem is to figure out a way to balance the power wielded by individual organisms. Is it not obvious, then, that energy, being the source of power, must be considered when endeavoring to find a solution to the problem of unbalanced power? In simple terms: Any organism that uses power to destroy must already have the energy required in that effort. Take away the energy and that organism no longer has any power. This is then a dilemma: How does one organism take away the energy of another organism without becoming just another problem? I think you may find the answer to be rather simple and it comes from a particularly famous source. I won’t spend too much time trying to authenticate the source. I have my suspicions. In my own words: If a person takes your coat, then, give him your shirt too. If a person demands help to carry a load for a mile, then, help that person carry the load for two miles. There is no need to be confused. The solution is easy to see. If it is not, then, please consider the following: There is a whole lot of energy contained in a lie. One lie becomes two lies. Two become four. Four becomes eight. In a very short time the one lie becomes falsehood. Falsehood in one person is a particularly destructive form of energy. Example: If a person ‘thinks’ that alcohol will cure his addiction then that form of falsehood enforces alcoholism. Falsehood shared by many people is similar to one lie progressing exponentially into falsehood. Falsehood in one person becomes falsehood in two people. Two become four. Four become eight etc. Example: It is right to take something from someone simply because you can. I’ve purposely lead this effort to this end here and now. The energy problem can be a simple matter of producing more of it and reinvesting that extra production into producing more of it. Like a lie the expansion of production becomes exponential. The despots will have energy coming out of the asses and so will everyone else. No need to bomb Iran. No need to worry about despots. They tend to kill each other off anyway.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Apr 27th, 2006 12:51 pm |
|
3rd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I force myself to become the ‘voice’ of my debating partners since they have no voice in this debate. I utilize the concept of empathy. My opposition might think: Ignoring the fact that nuclear war is a clear and present danger will not address the problem in the least. To wit I have a response already started in another thread here on this individual forum. I do not ignore that which is clearly dangerous. Advertising any military action is paramount to suicide. Read: Unintended Consequences by John Ross. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1888118040/002-7716953-7584837?v=glance&n=283155 I do not have the energy to physically stop nuclear war. If I had, then, I would not be sitting here writing. If my empathy spider sense is working and the opposing viewpoint has determined that I ignore the clear and present danger, then, they are wrong no matter how many times their falsehood repeats the accusation. After Waco I ran for congress. I told everyone willing to consider my viewpoint that baby burning is a crime and we supplied the energy. The paper trail of evidence starts with my pay stub. It ended with an autopsy that would make any T.V. viewer of the CSI shows face their own falsehood (in my opinion) supposing that their consciences could be turned on as easily as conscience can be turned off; and tuned out. http://www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/81/81_aut.html Above is number 81. A very large number if it is you or your loved one. As to the nature of the problem and how to solve it: Below is a hypothetical example of human commerce: Take any High School auditorium: Fill it with 100 people. 1 despot 99 political philosophers, Each having their own individual ideal The one despot takes the weakest, youngest, most beautiful individual and begins employing despotism upon that individual. The despot utilizes all known despotic practices; rape and torture being the most heinous. The despot makes up a few new routines above and beyond the default routine. The pacifists gather and consult their collection of knowledge. The anarchists do the same. Meanwhile, perhaps days later, the despot moves on as his current ‘property’ expires. He moves on to the next most promising piece of property. Now there are 97 philosophers, one despot, and one subject. The ‘commerce’ continues. The commerce is not equitable. The commerce is based upon the value principle. The despot values life more than the subject, in an odd sort of way, a selfish greedy measure of value that is unsustainable. In time there are 96 subjects and one despot. The remaining subjects are progressively less valuable. They are busy trying to find a common principle by which they can address the present and obvious concern. There is one less now that may have had the best answer. When the ‘leader of the free world’, your ‘president’, goes “Nukular” the results will be similar to my ‘thought experiment’ above and that ‘thought experiment’ is currently happening all around the globe. Get in line or get as far back in the line as you can. Whatever you do, by all means, don’t entertain any possible notion that just maybe you may have missed something important that has already been discovered in history. Above is the situation. The youngest, the weakest, and the most beautiful can be any unknown and faceless Iranian now living. Note: The auditorium doors are open. Some people leave. The show is just a little too pornographic. They would rather have someone edit the display. Not end it. Some people pull up a chair. My participation might be similar to the despot's. I could claim the despot as "my" property to do with as I pleased at that moment. My technique in consuming my property may not be as obviously enjoyable. Maybe not. The point is: I do not know what I would do in such a situation. I can only guess based upon empirical evidence. Despots do not openly conduct their business for long. Their business is covert or short lived. In the auditorium everything is out in the open. Back to the High School Auditorium: Someone fed the despot. Why? Have ‘we the people’ suddenly fallen from the turnip truck? I think the answer is no. ‘We the people’ feed the despot because some of us want a well fed despot in a our corner. Suppose the despot begins his violent tirade in the open for all to see and some of us can’t sit idle as the business progresses. It is too late to stop feeding the despot. Can we agree that only a few, left in the auditorium, will begin to see the value in having a stronger despot in their back pocket. Is it not obvious that a very well fed despot would be even more appealing, at that time, than a scrawny, sickly, and anemic despot “on deck”? And so, if it can be seen, that some solutions may appear to be appropriate, as time goes by, but those apparent solutions are not necessarily the best possible solution. When people begin to understand that each other human being is NOT another organism to be used for personal gain, then, they may be allowed to come up with a notion that each other organism can be potentially very beneficial so long as they are allowed to grow up unmolested. Profiting from Iranians who are allowed to grow up unmolested may include the profit gained from a previously unknown human invention or discovery potentially occuring because a particular iranian was allowed to live. What is the cost of killing Jesus? That isn’t too tough to answer is it? What is the price? I’ve wandered a lot. So now my opposing perspective may have lost interest. Why not turn in your 401K and use that power to invest in energy production? Now is a good time to start. Just like yelling in the High School Auditorium. Produce more energy aimed at the problem. Yell: “I can help you.” Help the despot too, if possible, in time, so as to reduce the production of despots rather than accelerate that business practice.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Apr 27th, 2006 02:44 pm |
|
4th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Something a 13 year old can understand: My daughter informs me that she is being punished for the acts of an unknown individual. I try to explain to her the concept of collective punishment. She digests the information and returns days later with another example of that, as yet, foreign concept i.e. collective punishment. This time the perpetrator is identified. My daughter says: “What the teacher does not seem to understand is that the ‘rule’ to keep quiet amounts to a rule to make noise.” I listen. “Knowing that silence will be punished at the slightest outbreak of noise inspires us to talk since we will be punished anyway.” I respond: That is not the worst of it. What is being done, in effect, is the empowerment of the least able to keep quiet. That noisy person can punish everyone at will. He or she already has a need to talk and now he or she has the added incentive to wield the power of punishment. The “rule” is that there will be no “rule” whatsoever. In fact the rule is to have no rules. The power to punish is given to the least likely to follow rules. Do you see this happening? My daughter nods as if a light bulb goes off above her head. I continue: If you feel like punishing anyone and you don’t care if everyone is also punished, then, all you have to do is start talking; even if you have nothing to say. My daughter reports the following day: "My teacher has changed the rule." I wonder. Is it that tough to figure this stuff out?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 01:10 pm | |
| Power Independence > Fight Night > Debate > Will | Top |
