| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: Joe Kelley |
|
||||||||||||||
| Hear My Apology | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28th, 2007 11:26 am |
|
1st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://hearmythunder.org/cgi-bin/index.cgi?action=forum&board=economics&op=display&num=213 What follows is a 'personal' reply to a 'moderator' who elected me as a moderator and then after my defense against personal attacks the moderator takes sides with the attacker and revokes my 'status'. The reply could not be sent as the 'user does not exist' anymore. The forum moderator censored exposure of his apology for 'personal attacks' as a means of what, exactly, entertainment?
I am going to pick a few of my posts on that board in order to save them before more censorship may occur on that board.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 28th, 2007 11:27 am |
|
2nd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I think human kind is very nearly on the brink of a significant evolutionary precipice. In order to convey what I mean, what I think, to someone else, intact, I propose a need to be honest and interested in accurate discussion where people actively intend to find agreement even if the end result is an agreement to disagree (rather than disagreement being a goal). Here is a beginning test in my effort to open the discussion and test your willingness to step into my shoes and see things from my point of view. You can test my interest in seeing your point of view too; however – this is my thread looking for ‘peer’ review concerning my discovery of a new way to see the world. I am interested in seeing the world from your viewpoint too. I am not interested in joining the Dooms Day Parade. The test is a simple one. My intention is to have the reader follow simple instructions and then comment freely upon the results of the test. Open a browser to Google: http://www.google.com/ Now type in four specific words and press enter (or the Google Search button). Type these four words No More Legal Criminals Comments?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 28th, 2007 11:27 am |
|
3rd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Gary, A universal law is a simple concept that is not vague or ‘kind of and sort of’ in nature. The idea is based upon ‘all men being created equal’ and concepts like ‘justice’ (not to be confused with punishment), liberty, freedom, and equity. Sayings like: “What is good for the goose is good for the gander” intend to convey the meaning behind the concept of universal law. How can anyone arrive at a false understanding of universal law? I can’t answer that question since the concept is very clear to me. If anyone does not abide by the universal law, for any reason whatsoever, the universal law is broken and the person failing to abide by the universal law is a criminal, no ifs, no ends, no butts, and no exceptions whatsoever. No one is above the law. See what I mean? I am not accusing you of not seeing what I mean, rather, I am responding to something you wrote that indicates a need on my part to be more precise (elaborate and expand in case the shorter version is not enough information to convey accurately) about what I mean to communicate (my viewpoint). This: “This march is assisted by the making of laws by those believing they are leaders and as such have some right to create laws of a universal nature.” That does not compute on my end. Either a law is universal or it is not universal. Either a law applies to everyone or a law is an enforced prejudice where a person or a group is out side the jurisdiction of the law, by law, and anther person or another group is inside the jurisdiction of the universal law, by law, where one person cannot or must do something specific and another person does not have to or can do the opposite. Take torture and mass murder for example. Person A can torture, by law, because person A has a license to torture; by law. Person B will be tortured for torturing; by law. Person C can murder massive numbers of people until the bodies pile up by the ton, by law, and Person C is not guilty of any legal crime whatsoever. Person D can begin to murder massive numbers of people and Person D is already a criminal, by law, because Person D began to murder one person (perhaps Person D merely thought about it). A universal law is a law that does not exclude anyone from the jurisdiction of the law. I can try to read your sentence again in context and try to understand the meaning meant before you elaborate. Perhaps it will be better to wait for a response.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 28th, 2007 11:27 am |
|
4th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
IntoTheBreech, I did. If you did not understand how I did, in fact cut to the chase, then you fail to understand that I did cut to the chase. Why I did not link to the web site was explained while I cut to the chase with my first post. I was conducting a test. Your response is a response to my test. So far you accuse me of doing something wrong ‘not cutting to the chase’ and you presume something concerning my motive (as if I ‘should have’ directly linked to a web site) and your presumption is inaccurate. I didn’t link a web site because I didn’t want to link to a web site. “Is there a particular reason you want folks to go through Google? Yes. The test was similar to my personal discovery. Now I am asking other people to Google four specific words and I want to find out what they think about what they discover when they Google those four specific words. I’ve discovered, so far, that anyone who Google’s these words will find the same results; however – that is a presumption on my part. So far my results are quite a bit less than conclusive. “Possibly for data-mining reasons?” That question is like a field full of explosive mines. Before I can answer that question with any confidence in supplying an accurate answer it is my request to get some measure of explanation of the term ‘data-mining’ as you understand that term to mean. I can elaborate some on my motive for asking other people to perform my test. I have one computer on one desk and it is hooked up to RoadRunner. My son has another computer on the same desk and it is hooked up to Verizon. One network connection is cable and the other is ‘phone’ (coax and 3 wire). During my discovery of moving Google Search results to the first on the list on the first page I conducted a test to see if my ability to move a Google Search result to the first on the list on the first page worked on another computer besides my own computer. My thinking was to see if the results were Universal. I’ve asked someone I know in Denmark and he found the same results. The evidence appears to support an accurate hypothesis. The next step in the test may be to see if someone other than me can get a specific Google Search to move to the first position on the first page. If you want to volunteer to try, then, please feel free. “To be perfectly honest, the petition makes absolutely no sense.” To be perfectly honest; the petition makes sense to me. If the petition makes no sense to you, then, do you really think that the petition is to blame for your lack of understanding? I am being as honest as possible. “This could be the reason there are only 2 signatures, one being the sponsor of the petition.” So…do you intend to insult the other person who signed the petition along with me or has your level of superiority above us lifted you from any such accountability? Lysander Spooner wrote two of my favorite works: An Essay on the Trial by Jury An Essay on the Trial by Jury A New System of Paper Currency http://www.lysanderspooner.org/papercurrency.htm In Trial by Jury Spooner reports how the sovereignty of free men as jurors checked the power of any supposed KING because any one person (not universal) could nullify any law made by anyone with his one vote. One Juror had veto power. The King was also checked by a price upon his head, a fine, to be paid by the Kings killer for murdering the King. That was the punishment – a fine. Have you ever read Jim Bell’s essay on Assassination Politics? http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/jimbellap.htm Lysander Spooner’s Paper Currency System, if I may be so bold to say, was the plan that launched the modern evolved free market system (the voluntary one not the one enforced in parallel by organized crime). Rather than having to rely upon the cumbersome and often dangerous currency of Gold, rather than that, the commodity backed paper system, where land titles supplied the standard of value, such as Lysander suggested, has in fact worked out in modern times; even if the actual parallel circuit is not readily visible due to the interlacing of ‘legal’ impositions and distortions of that market. Who owns the titles? Who pays the mortgage interest? If organized crime (rouge state) backed out of the business and allowed competitors to compete, then, mortgage interest on property would reach for the cost of supplying the currency used in the housing market. Please, anyone, read either The Essay on the Trial by Jury or The New System of Paper Currency and start a new thread on it. I’ll dive in that one. This topic concerns a parallel viewpoint and one that is more up to date. I can offer an example of where my perspective (new discovery) is focused (but by no means is this link going to explain the whole concept to any degree of detail – it is a piece of the puzzle): http://business.iafrica.com/features/649690.htm I can’t quote from that link in any way that makes sense. It is the entire concept, or viewpoint, from that link (like the entire concept of Spooner’s two works and Jim Bells or even Howard Bloom’s “Global Brain”) that fits into the viewpoint. The viewpoint of which I speak is akin to an epiphany purchased from many years of searching. It is almost like passing through a one way valve or door. At some point I now realize being in a new room and the door back to the old room is locked. During the passage through, as I noticed it occurring, I started writing. My writing has developed for many years. This may explain why some people find my writing incomprehensible. I can’t say. I do have a lot of experience with people telling me off and suggesting to me that ‘my’ writing makes no sense. That is odd from my view. I don’t go around telling other people that their words make no sense. I say: I do not understand what you mean. Please explain. See the difference?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 28th, 2007 11:28 am |
|
5th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Showcase, I can think of only one; however - to argue against this one universal law proves its universality. I'm again inclined to test your resolve to participate and learn my viewpoint; however - I am also inclined to point out that my one example of universal law is objective and therefore physically provable. I can try to understand if you prefer to ‘cut to the chase’ so to speak and insist that I do all the work; as if somehow I were able to be some kind of authority on the subject of universal law. Consider, for example, that we two are at the bargaining table as the last two people on the planet, an exercise in communication skills if nothing else, and we seek something similar, if not exactly, your question. This one:
Replace a few words to arrive at: Showcase, Can you give me one example of a Universal Law? I think one is enough. You may want more. Can “we” start with one first? That last question, like yours, is a complex question (it is not intentionally a trick question as if I were trying to trip you up). Please consider playing along and offering one of your own example of one Universal Law so as to offer a base from which I can begin to read your perspective; honestly. Does this not sound reasonable?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 28th, 2007 11:28 am |
|
6th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Showcase, I think I can agree to your first universal law. Mine is: Do No Harm. How do you define 'coruption'? I define HARM in a physical sense; like science physics. Example: If you harm me and I can measure that harm somehow, then, I can return to you and say; hey - you are harming me see this right here (my eye is hanging out from your poking it with your finger). If you poke the other one out and say "You are corrupting me.", then, who is harming whom and who is corruptin whom? I think I can agree with your first universal law. What do you think about my scientifically based and objective universal law that applies to every single human being without exception? Do you reject my law and do I really have to ask why - if so? How about this: "How do you know when a politician is lying?"
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 28th, 2007 11:28 am |
|
7th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Yes, His lips are moving. I think that democracy is not 'majority rule' as so many politicians (and economists) lead people into believing. Democracy is a method by which innocent people endeavor to avoid becoming victims. Example: “Throw the bums out.” That is a phrase that isn’t meant to convey a violent and aggressive attack upon the bum in question, rather, the democratic idea was (and is) to take away the bums license to lead. The bum lied. The bum burned down a church full of babies, toddlers, children, women, men, old men and women AFTER experimenting on them. So…take away the bums license to lead (torture and mass murder). The problem with democracy is its inherent passivity in the face of mortal peril that may come in the form of a mushroom cloud (I’m not reading from a script) or in the form of a terrorist pretending to be spreading democracy. True practitioners of the democratic ideal (or universal law theorists = not to be confused with conspiracy theorist) are not necessarily pacifists when it does come down to the enemy being literally at the gate. Some of us own guns and know how to use them. The ideal (democratic, republic, voluntary association, rule of law types) is to exhaust the peaceful means before resorting to the defensive violent means. Call the ‘problem’ a thin blue line between knowing and doing the right thing peacefully before having to do the right thing violently (defensively) and miss the point. The problem will always be torturing mass murderers because they lie. Imagine requiring a lie detector test running live during the debates? Imagine a meter moving from HUGE lie on the left to compete accuracy on the RIGHT. Is the RIGHT right? Is the left left out? I think it is well past time for honest productive people to agree to something – anything. So long as we don't agree to torture and mass murder each other for profit. That isn't right.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 28th, 2007 11:30 am |
|
8th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Do you really want to know? I can link a few examples and explain how the principles work. The most important principle is equity that can also be labeled as liberty and/or voluntary exchange. Equity requires accurate accountability or the often misunderstood label 'responsibility' so any form of funding that does not account accurately will, by design, cause inequity, slavery, and involuntary exchange.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 28th, 2007 11:30 am |
|
9th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://tmh.floonet.net/pdf/jwarren.pdf The above has accurately been described as a new discovery of interacting principles being tested and confirmed. The time period coincides with a curious evolution of current language from an older to a new form. Words like Socialism, Capitalism, and Communism, at that time, were being defined into the current form. Legal currency at that time was also evolving as the time of Andrew Jackson and his defeat of the Central Bank caused a restructuring of modern finance. Modern ‘Austrian Economists’ are currently split between Pure Free Market and Libertarian “Legal” currency proponents. That split began with Adam and Eve I suspect and all along in history the conservatives (for lack of a better word) contended with liberals (again the word fails to accurately convey the reality). Consider, for example, how Warren’s Cost Principle is, in fact, a form of working FREE MARKET currency. For those who struggle with Josiah Warren’s prose there is another source explaining the same thing: http://www.anarchism.net/scienceofsociety.htm Becoming familiar with that particular example of FREE MARKET currency and by contrast the form that currency exists today (Dollar Hegemony) looks like the naked extortion that it is – in fact. To bridge the gap between the exta-legal or non-legal and completely divorced from any involuntary or enforced (or fraud) currency such as the example provided by Warren’s Labor Dollars (and please do discuss but not accuse this as being some vague Labor Theory of Value straw-man) ARE examples of ‘legal’ or semi-legal forms of competing currency such as: http://www.lysanderspooner.org/papercurrency.htm In simple terms it can be seen that ‘legal’ enforces a monopoly and therefore competition is excluded, which, allows the utility of currency to fetch a price based upon necessity rather than cost. Competition brings price to cost, since, the competitor offering the same thing at a higher price will tend to lose customers – who pays more for less? A very illuminating and more current example of how FREE MARKET currency (even the semi-free type) economizes: http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/cc/CC.html#history The Worgl used between wars is a very good example. Here is a very good explanation: http://www.perfecteconomy.com/index.html The dollar hegemony is designed to fail while the designers profit from the failure and this is not a new thing. The competition will win. It is in the best interest of any people to Free UP currency for their own good – really. I have much more to report on this subject including something I call Energy Currency. Energy currency leads to power independence. How can that be a bad thing?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 28th, 2007 11:30 am |
|
10th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Anyone, The idea that currency is tied to government is the same idea that suggests that government is not of and by the people; rather - government is separate from the people. The people are here. The government is over there. I don’t do that and therefore the currency the government uses is, in fact, the currency the people use, abuse, misuse, and falsify. To answer the question asked in a way that exactly answers the questions asked requires a more thorough understanding of at least one term. Government Do I have this right without having to go back and cut/paste exact terminology? To support a particular currency for use within a given network of individuals there is merely an action whereby the individual agrees to send the currency to someone who agrees to receive the currency. People pretending to be helping other people may be inclined to cause into being a method by which each exchange is identified and then tagged for exploitation whereby a portion of the currency value is transferred to the people pretending to be helping other people. The power of that fraud is enormous and it can be measured physically as purchasing power. That does not mean that the measure is exact for all time; rather the measure is exact for a specific time. I don’t wish to run at the mouth. Government is not as it seems. Currency is a fraud until it is accurate. Tax can be nothing more than an insurance policy. Involuntary taxation is theft and please understand that all advocates of involuntary taxation are thieves in fact if not simply dupes or accessories to the crime. I do not want to be insulting so please consider offering a version of the apology for involuntary taxation that does not include my torture and my injury without my consent. I do not like being tortured and injured. It isn’t my thing. It tortures me to see all the innocent people tortured and mass murdered as a result of this very simple crime. Think please for a moment at least (if you are an advocate of involuntary taxation) what it is you fear of liberty. I tend to stake out my territory as soon as possible so please avoid being offended if you do not advocate involuntary taxation and even if you do; I’m here to help (and I ‘m not demanding pay or punishment). I am here to help myself, in case you are wondering, since this is how I learn. Help me learn – please. I’d like to move on to energy currency.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 28th, 2007 11:31 am |
|
11th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
A news flash:
Source: http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6688 Look up "Equitable Commerce" if any confusion exists concerning the news flash. The term "free" trade can be confused with 'free to impose obedience upon the innocent'. Equitable trade (or commerce) is a less ambiguous term - on purpose. A less powerful economic power may be more inclined to accurately identify inequity while the more powerful economic power may be inclined to ignore inequity, or, impose it by fraud or force. I don’t know the accurate translation of the term ‘equitable’ from English to Russian, Chinese, Venezuelan, Korean, Cuban, Iraqi, or Iranian language. I don’t think the term is synonymous with freedom, in any language; so much as the term is, as far as my understanding goes, with terms like Justice and Liberty. Like this: Equity = Justice = Liberty = credit Freedom = punishment = crime = debt Discussions on these issues (where people seek an equitable meaning for the terms used to convey an accurate perception) are rare, from my viewpoint, and argumentation on these issues (where people seek power over other people by fraud or force of intellect) is more common – less equitable. People may prefer to be told what to think and, in turn, to tell other people what to think – freely; as if the idea were to impose reality rather than understand it from as many diverse perspective as possible – like peer review – to gain a more accurate understanding – just in case the myopic viewpoint were false – even just a little bit false. Seeking agreement appears to be an equitable cause – if you know what I mean. If not, then, I can try to be more precise. The time is right.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 28th, 2007 11:34 am |
|
12th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
That is enough old stuff that can tend to explain what happened on that forum. The introduction of new methods of interaction (beyond the Hegelian dialect) can stifle or reduce traffic. I suspect that may exist was an inevitable reaction to the loss of perceived profits.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 28th, 2007 11:38 am |
|
13th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
One more thing:I will monitor your comments on the board and if you continue to be attacking toward other members, if you continue to be unable to enter a frank and honest discussion without turning it into some attack session, or if I lose any other members due to your approach I will remove you. That was false. The 'moderator' Gary wrote that to me. During my reply, while I typed on that forum, my 'membership' was killed off. When I pressed the button to send the response a page loaded informing me of my demise.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 28th, 2007 12:58 pm |
|
14th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 11:47 am | |
| Power Independence > Fight Night > Debate > Hear My Apology | Top |
