copyright1

STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
Delhi Cuts Copyright: Why Are Government Courts Involved at All?
By Daily Bell Staff - September 17, 2016

Observing that “copyright is not a divine right”, the Delhi high court on Friday allowed Delhi University to issue photocopies of major textbooks published by leading publishers. The Justice held that the act of students getting books copied from DU’s library or its authorised photocopy shop enjoys protection under Section 52 of the Copyright Act, which exempts education from copyright infringement. – Times of India

We`ve written numerous times about the idiocy of state-mandated intellectual property rights and now a top court in India has summarized our argument in six words:

“Copyright is not a divine right.”

In fact, it is not a “right” at all. But try to defy copyright or patent law and you may end up in jail. Such “property rights” are increasingly becoming criminalized (here).

This is because Western-style governance (which influences the world) is increasingly subservient to the scourge of technocratic corporatism (here). And those who run this increasingly robust worldwide technocracy are insistent about such rights.

Before the Civil War in the US, patents were not generally honored, nor enforced by the Courts (here). This epoch  in the US involved a ferment of discovery and free-market applications.

Government “protection” of inventors can only be seen as beneficial if one believes that government itself is instrumental in the fair and productive functioning of the marketplace. Unfortunately, the 21st century itself is showing clearly that government is almost never beneficial to any kind of productivity.

In fact, it cannot be beneficial because every law is essentially a price fix and every time you “fix a price,” you distort distort commerce and damp creativity.

It is probably not necessary to give someone an extended period of time to benefit, as current laws provide. In fact, people are told that patents and intellectual property rights are for their own good, but such “rights” mostly benefit corporate holders.

Patent law and intellectual property rights provide support for an increasingly authoritarian, modern, multinational paradigm.

Along with corporate person-hood and monopoly central banking, such government enforced “rights” are responsible for modern capitalism with all its faux consumerism, warmongering and all-round (and increasing) impoverishment.

Such rights also give the world’s largest entities the power to control fundamental technology. Large entities can purchase advanced technology that is then not available to others because of patent law, etc.

Now, India has cut intellectual property rights:

In a 94-page order, the court essentially concluded that if DU can photocopy content within its library to impart education to students, then similar protection is enjoyed by the contractor, Rameshwari Photocopy Service.

… A group of publishers, including Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press and Taylor & Francis, had objected in their suit to the photocopy shop selling course packs, that is, compilations of photocopied portions of different books prescribed by DU as suggested reading in its syllabus. The HC held that when texts are used by DU for imparting education and not commercial sale, it can’t infringe on copyright of the publishers.

… The modest shop in North Campus was thrust at the heart of the case by international publishers who sued it for copyright infringement in 2012, resulting in Friday’s landmark verdict on intellectual property rights.

“Copyright, specially in literary works, is thus not an inevitable, divine, or natural right that confers on authors the absolute ownership of their creations. It is designed rather to stimulate activity and progress in the arts for the intellectual enrichment of the public,” the Justice observed.

Good for “Justice!” The decision may have been helped along by the escalating cost of textbooks, which in the West is reaching upwards of $300 a book as the publishing technocracy leverages its state-controlled judiciary.

Many years ago we predicted that ‘Net information would undermine the apparent legitimacy of central banking (here). We’ve also written that the same process will undermine patent law and intellectual property rights.

Finally, and most importantly, the idea of state justice itself comes under attack and private, “marketplace” justice reemerges. People will settle their quarrels on their own or with independent, third-parties as they did for thousands of years.

If people want to enforce patent and property “rights,” they should do so themselves, and pay for it themselves. Why should the taxpayer pay?

Current, state-run precedent-justice is a dead-end. The logical result of modern precedent-justice is a society where everyone is subject to various stages of incarceration.

There are plenty of ways that creative people can make money absent patents and intellectual property rights. But one ought not to be confused about the larger framework. For such an environment to work properly, state-supported corporate power has to diminish. Corporate person-hood (which didn’t exist before the Civil War) and monopoly central banking will come under attack as well.

Conclusion: Within this context, and assuming a democratic or republican legislative structure, governments would gradually lose power and equitable (non-monopoly) marketplaces would re-emerge. People would have the ability to choose their own destinies and create their own businesses free of the dead-hand of the corporatism that the banking class has so adeptly confused with intellectual property rights and “patent law.”

Tagged with:
Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • “Copyright is not a divine right.”

    There is no such thing as a “divine” right … just as a “divine” of any kind is a figment of 94% of the world’s population.

    That notwithstanding, know what a right actually is: A “right” is a “defended” “claim”. Make a claim and fail to defend it, you have no right. Fail to even make a claim and you have no right. Regardless of the founding fathers confusion on the subject, there is no such thing as an “inalienable right”.

    • Thanks, we were going to make this point too but decided it was better to discuss in a separate article.

    • Samarami

      I’ve observed the term “rights” argued endlessly at “libertarian” sites. I’ve ceased use of the term.

      I make choices. I have no doubt that there will generally always be those standing in the wings who will attempt to interfere with the choices I make. The challenge of liberty is in learning to circumnavigate those intrusions. And when you can’t fight ’em (or choose not to), you gotta side-step ’em.

      Sam

      • “I’ve ceased use of the term.”
        It is a perfectly useful term. You just have to keep its meaning in mind when you hear them declared. The very definition of “real estate” is a “basket of rights” … all are claims and all are defended by some mechanism … or they’re not there.

        • Samarami

          I’m certainly no authority as to how property — real and personal property — will be entitled once state as we know it capsizes and is scuttled (hopefully) by a critical mass of individuals. I’m sure one factor will be heavily embedded with trust, another by use of direct defense against invasion. Until that time there is no choice but to abide with current title considerations — “legal” mechanisms.

          Since none of us has ever known true freedom (not only from intrusive political “authority”, but also freedom from other elements as well) many of us may well find ourselves saddled with use of the acquiescent term “rights”. Sam

          • S: I’m certainly no authority as to how property — real and personal property — will be entitled once state as we know it capsizes and is scuttled (hopefully) by a critical mass of individuals. I’m sure one factor will be heavily embedded with trust, another by use of direct defense against invasion. Until that time there is no choice but to abide with current title considerations — “legal” mechanisms.

            TBM: As this conversation began, a right is a “defended” claim. Presently those claims are defended by a government process of recording by county clerk. If those records go poof, all title companies have copies. So defense through proof can be obtained. In the olden days, the owner of real estate maintained an abstract that was a record of every transfer from original deed (i.e. original theft by government). Someone challenging the claim would have to have equally detailed documentation proving their claim to prevail … or have a bigger stick.

            S: Since none of us has ever known true freedom (not only from intrusive political “authority”, but also freedom from other elements as well) many of us may well find ourselves saddled with use of the acquiescent term “rights”. Sam

            TBM: That didn’t work for the aboriginal American natives. Acquiescence is as stupid as agreeing to disagree.

          • Samarami

            And, Todd, I’m not stating that anyone should accept whatever comes down with acquiescence. What I am stating is that, to me, the term “rights” is a term OF acquiescence. And that’s why I began some years back to substitute “choices”. But that’s merely my choice (pun intended) — not dogma. Your mileage may (and apparently does) vary. Sam

          • S: What I am stating is that, to me, the term “rights” is a term OF acquiescence.

            TBM: If I claim the right for my nose to be free from your punch and defend it with a nose guard, have I acquiesced? If I defend it by demonstrating I can and will spread your nose all over your face if you try it, have I acquiesced. I really don’t understand your concept “OF acquiescence”.

    • Don Duncan

      Hitler claimed to be the defender of the “Arian Race”. He defended his claim. So, by your definition Hitler and the Nazis had a “right”. Or does a “right” become invalid (no right) when unsuccessfully defended? If so, might makes right!
      The term “inalienable right” is redundant, i.e., all rights are inalienable or they are not rights. A right is an intrinsic trait of all humans, whether acknowledged or not, understood or not, defended or not. It can’t be “waived” contrary to the corrupt, confused?, SCOTUS.

      • DD: Hitler claimed to be the defender of the “Arian Race”. He defended his claim. So, by your definition Hitler and the Nazis had a “right”.

        TBM: Correct … until his defense failed. Hitler “was” right … but he proved not to have the right he claimed.

        DD: Or does a “right” become invalid (no right) when unsuccessfully defended?

        TBM: Yes. It does become invalid when defense of it fails. That’s why vigilence is essential.

        DD: If so, might makes right!

        TBM: Actually, there’s a tribe in this world that has proven that might is not necessary to defend their claims … at least “their own” might is not. In our country, rights are defended by courts. Courts are now (actually always have been) corrupt. That defense is no longer open to us.

        DD: The term “inalienable right” is redundant, i.e., all rights are inalienable or they are not rights.

        TBM: So you demonstrate you don’t get it. You must perpetually “defend” your claim for it to be a right.

        DD: A right is an intrinsic trait of all humans, whether acknowledged or not, understood or not, defended or not.

        TBM: Ok. Get yourself found guilty of killing someone and see how far your assertion “a right to life” goes.

        DD: It can’t be “waived” contrary to the corrupt, confused?, SCOTUS.

        TBM: The SCOTUS has assumed what were once the exclusive “rights” of the Congress. How? Congress failed to defend them.

        • Don Duncan

          Don’t you see the contradiction in claiming a human right and then violating it? How can someone destroy lives, then claim the right to live?
          Congress claims the “right to rule” using the “social contract” argument.The populace buy it and we have authoritarianism. But the argument is just as contradictory as the previous claim. No one can defend rights by violating them, as Hitler & the US rulers do. Both argue the individual is sacrificed for some “higher good” or “common welfare” as if the group is not a collection of individuals. This is insane.

          One does not turn the “insane” into the “sane” by shooting a proponent of the sane in the head. Insanity is not sustainable. It always self destructs, e.g., Hitler/Nazism would have resulted on everyone tuning against each other, even if they had won WWII.

          • DD: Don’t you see the contradiction in claiming a human right and then violating it? How can someone destroy lives, then claim the right to live?

            TBM: Of course not. I opened this conversation with a real life definition of a right: a right is a “defended” “claim”. If you claim a right to destroy lives (even your own) and defend it, you enjoy that right. If you claim a right to live and fail to defend it, you’ll likely not die of old age. A fetus can make no such claim nor defend it. A deity can make no such claim nor defend it.

            DD: Congress claims the “right to rule” using the “social contract” argument.

            TBM: And Congress defends that claim with force paid for (illegally by RICO statutes) by you and me. Congress was instituted by capitalists (and communists … there is no distinction) when they instituted the rest of government. See the Mayflower Compact for a simple instance of doing this. There “is” no contract. At the very best it is an implicit partnership … but there’s no buy/sell clause (a necessary component of any contract for association).

            DD: The populace buy it and we have authoritarianism.

            TBM: I’m populace. I don’t buy it. Yet I pay for it. Last time I tried to defend a claim I made (using RICO statutes), within 19 days they had placed a lien on my property … no due diligence signed by a judge who never spoke to me and likely doesn’t even exist. Now I can’t sell or trade it without going through “their” process (and paying their demand as they ignore my claim of a larger demand … with evidence … on them). Even if I wanted to “take out” the person or persons responsible, I have no easy way of knowing who they are … another effective defense of claims.

            DD: But the argument is just as contradictory as the previous claim.

            TBM: Your confusion goes away if you embrace the obvious definition of defending a claim. Try it.

            DD: No one can defend rights by violating them, as Hitler & the US rulers do.

            TBM: Of course they can. The right they are violating is a myth. Its defense is not there. Hitler, by the way, was a very good person … and Lincoln was not … both histories in many versions (by the winners is the one you see) exist for your perusal. Unfortunately Hitler was unable to defend his claim against the “tribe” who got we, the USA to gang up on him, where just 6 months earlier we were praising and admiring him … as I still do. And Lincoln was able to defend his claim … and Sherman made sure the question never came up again. Go figure.

            DD: Both argue the individual is sacrificed for some “higher good” or “common welfare” as if the group is not a collection of individuals. This is insane.

            TBM: It is real life. Water “always” flows down hill when influenced only by gravity. We could defend our claim to this country (and protect our selves from our government) much cheaper by just arming and perpetually training ourselves in mobilization … the Swiss model of defense.

            DD: One does not turn the “insane” into the “sane” by shooting a proponent of the sane in the head. Insanity is not sustainable.

            TBM: I am very sane … more than you. I rely on no myths like you. I rely on reality and reason. Try it. It works. I also rely on the golden rule. Try that … it works too.

            DD: It always self destructs, e.g., Hitler/Nazism would have resulted on everyone tuning against each other, even if they had won WWII.

            TBM: Hitler did overtly and with the support of his populace what our occupied government is doing covertly … and with the support of a 94% duped populace (witness the WTC7 collapse and those who never heard of it) … but no support of the other 6% who “are” paying attention. I’ll take Hitler any day. You should too. You are putty in their hands.

            The only solution I see is iterative secession. That would make spaces for all different beliefs… and let people claim and defend a right to exclude interlopers (e.g. missionaries and busy bodies). Globalization is what we’ve been moving toward throughout the entire history of our republic … and the monarchy we supposedly broke away from. And by the way… democracy “never” works when more than 50 people are involved.

          • The deity needs defend nothing
            Nor claim anything.
            Truth simply is
            where illusions battle for position.

            I understand that projected ego onto deity is a different matter entirely – but for me that distinction is significant.

            Your sense of ‘right’ is simply the temporary ability to do – yes.
            Which is the power struggle when encountering anyone limiting or countering that ability. Which is the basic tenet of an exclusive identity in material existence – no?

            Rights are social agreements. failing any social code of check on behaviour you have only the right to be yourself and communicate that in whatever way you feel moved or guided. If you don’t feel worthy or equal to such a capacity – then you wont claim your right by using it.

          • B: The deity needs defend nothing
            Nor claim anything.

            TBM: That can be said for anything that does not exist. I have no conflict with that.

            B: Truth simply is
            where illusions battle for position.

            TBM: What???

            B: I understand that projected ego onto deity is a different matter entirely – but for me that distinction is significant.

            TBM: What???

            B: Your sense of ‘right’ is simply the temporary ability to do – yes.

            TBM: What does what you just wrote mean? Is there a typo in there?

            B: Which is the power struggle when encountering anyone limiting or countering that ability. Which is the basic tenet of an exclusive identity in material existence – no?

            TBM: I don’t know? What “power struggle”? What “ability”? What “exclusive identity”? What existence is there besides “material existence”? If you have one, when did you first discover it? Did it lead you to a crowded space, or were you left alone there?

            B: Rights are social agreements.

            TBM: In whose society? Certainly not in any society I know about or have personally experienced. However, I have seen to be it repeatedly to be misinterpreted as such. Divine right … and unalienable right … they are dead give away’s on those who haven’t really thought it through … those who have simply memorized and regurgitated. For one week I once wrote down every single right I heard asserted. I have it somewhere in my files. It was a very long list … over 100 different rights asserted. None had a defense and for most the implicit claim was ambiguous at best. Try it yourself. It’s pretty humorous.

            B: failing any social code of check on behavior you have only the right to be yourself and communicate that in whatever way you feel moved or guided.

            TBM: And the claim behind that right is made by whom? And the defense of that right is what? And who challenges that right to the extent you feel it should be asserted?

            B: If you don’t feel worthy or equal to such a capacity – then you wont claim your right by using it.

            TBM: So you say a claim to a right comes with the use of it? Fine. That makes as much sense as “you can’t challenge a law without breaking it first”.

            If I punch you in the nose, that’s an implicit claim of a right to punch you in the nose. If you knock my head clean off in response, that’s proof (after the fact) that I don’t have that right, as I will never try to assert it again … implicitly or otherwise. My defense would fail.

            If on the same hand if I punch you in the nose, you sue me, get a judgement in your favor for damages, and take everything I have, and the law is standing on your lawn as I try to reclaim it … well, then you prevail. I don’t have the right to punch you in the nose.

            If I punch you in the nose because I just discovered you raped my little girl, well, the defense of my implicit claim (and the one you successfully challenged in my previous example) will not be so tenuous.

            None of these three cases changes the substance of “all” rights and what they mean and how they come about.

            And notice, I said all this very directly … no double-talk.

    • A divine right cannot be taken away or it would not BE divine, but it can be lost sight of and believed not to be – as a result of not being in one’s right mind.

      Divine extension can be reflected and shared in our own extensions of worth – such as to extend the right to life that we feel and know moving as our self; as our being – prior to self-defining claims and defended assertions of struggle within conflicted self.

      The use of imagination is a divine right – including the ability to disregard or invalidation of any imagination that does not support or reinforce a defended claim to be a self in one’s own right – as opposed to being divinely created, guided and sustained.

      However, the assignment of divine attributes to human invention is a self-aggrandising and usurping of the movement of being by a narrative control mentality founded in the belief that the right to live is taken and held by force and guile and so can and will be taken back – but ‘over my dead body’ – that is to say my ‘will’ or mind is now defined as resisting and defending the ‘loss’ of such a self-asserted ‘right’.

      If you can imagine it, you can focus within the desire to bring it into being.
      There was no need for a term for ‘real’ until fakery arose from defining SOMETHING real to the rejection and exclusion of all else. Likewise human IS divine prior to the redefinition of human in ‘fallen’ or corrupted terms of self-agrandisement – and so is not ‘lost’ so much as lost sight of amidst the struggle within division for the reparation of lost or denied ‘right’.

      Law in truth is Alive – but the law of stone tablets operates as a controlling mechanism or device in place of a Living Law that is believed either LOST or NOT existing. The term “the spirit of the law’ points to the living purpose of the law – where the ‘letter’ of the law gives ‘rights’ to the dead or un-mindful mechanism of precedent in form – while disregarding the spirit that gives form – so as to assume the right to define or judge reality in terms of form – which of course becomes the mask for hidden or trojan agenda to operate ‘unseen’.

      The struggle for power is the attempt to overcome or escape believed or feared powerlessness. And the display of such power is the need for personal support and reinforcement of that which otherwise would not be felt and known true – because it is an imagination – regardless the degree of investment of assertive claim and defence brought to bear on its behalf.

      The equality of the divinity of humankind is not in our physical birth – but in our Soul expression. False framing is the deceit of the mind given power of identification. If you act as if something is true – then in that moment you make – and experience it true for you – regardless if it has any true resonance or belonging in you at all.

      Framing spirit or purpose in forms of flesh points to a specific focus in which a universal perspective can seem lost, denied, betrayed or abandoned – because a specific ‘mind’ experiences itself as ‘separate’ and defends against universal as if that will result in loss of self rather than the recognition and extension of self in the whole (in all).

      I sketch out in idea as an invitation to reflect and consider – not as a claim to fix down in definition. If something works for you – then use it for what it clearly is and does – along the purpose you accept and recognize as your own – even if not what you previously claimed and defended as your right.

      If nothing here speaks to your interest then that also is your freedom to follow only what interests or enlivens and resonates in you – for your own reasons and through your own devices. But all choices have consequences by which you can re-evaluate who you truly are and what you truly want – regardless the choices that brought you to this moment of discovery.

      Doing as you are moved is already in motion but the attempt to redefine your ‘self’ as the ‘doer’ separates a sense of ‘you’ from the movement and assigns power of good and ill over Life. Not in truth – but in accepted judgement, believed and experienced. To move in alignment with being rather than identify in resistance against or upon it, is felt freedom in joy. There is nothing more satisfying that being who you truly are – and yet the ‘right’ to claim different in self defined identity is held onto as a precious and treasured possession-ability – by which to be possessed and rendered worthless.

      I responded to your post – whether I have any right to, is secondary to the fact. It could be be denied expression by editors – or denied attention by disregard – yet I have the benefit/consequence of living this response – and of a fresh perspective arising from it. I share it to that which is receptive and listening – that has not been invalidated, inhibited, suppressed or denied in readers or in being. I cannot give the power or right to read it – but I can honour that capacity to choose to focus where you recognize yourself regardless if it is currently used to ensure you do not. And I can illuminate where poor choices result in poor outcomes as a natural support for your right to make better or more aligned choices with respect to who you truly are and can recognize and appreciate yourself to be.

      There will always be a metaphysical presumption that logic then unfolds – and confusion of the concept with the living operates no less logically in its resulting confusion – but of course a concept of self cannot see or know or re-evaluate anything – but can be used to ‘see’ all things likewise separated from true Cause – as a world of separate effects resulting from conflicting purposes. All of this may seem impractical – yet the operation of such device of deceit is the principle bone of contention among Daily Bell association… of a sense of coercive limitation and interference in one’s freedom – as it is felt, desired, imagined and believed to be.

      • B: A divine right cannot be taken away or it would not BE divine, but it can be lost sight of and believed not to be – as a result of not being in one’s right mind.

        TBM: 94% of the world believes in some kind of divine. Which of the myriad divines are you referring to?

        B: Divine extension can be reflected and shared in our own extensions of worth – such as to extend the right to life that we feel and know moving as our self; as our being – prior to self-defining claims and defended assertions of struggle within conflicted self.

        TBM: How long have you been in the pulpit?

        B: The use of imagination is a divine right – including the ability to disregard or invalidation of any imagination that does not support or reinforce a defended claim to be a self in one’s own right – as opposed to being divinely created, guided and sustained.

        TBM: Again, which of the myriad of “divines” are you referring to to support and prove your assertions?

        B: However, the assignment of divine attributes to human invention is a self-aggrandising and usurping of the movement of being by a narrative control mentality founded in the belief that the right to live is taken and held by force and guile and so can and will be taken back – but ‘over my dead body’ – that is to say my ‘will’ or mind is now defined as resisting and defending the ‘loss’ of such a self-asserted ‘right’.

        TBM: And the world is flat … and everything in the universe revolves around the Earth.

        B: If you can imagine it, you can focus within the desire to bring it into being.
        There was no need for a term for ‘real’ until fakery arose from defining SOMETHING real to the rejection and exclusion of all else.

        TBM: What evidence do you have that real came before fakery. Once case in point: Copernicus revealed the “real” after thousands of years of fakery … and it took a few hundred years of the fakery to go away. Why? Because the elites had a vested interest in the fakery. Our “improper” MOE process has the same attribute. We could institute a “proper” process right now that “guaranteed” zero inflation and zero interest load on responsible traders. We won’t because capitalist, communists, and their instituted governments have a vested interest in our “improper” process. It sustains them. Without it they die.

        B: Likewise human IS divine prior to the redefinition of human in ‘fallen’ or corrupted terms of self-agrandisement – and so is not ‘lost’ so much as lost sight of amidst the struggle within division for the reparation of lost or denied ‘right’.

        TBM: Tell that to the medicine man in Africa. He sees it differently. So do all the other myriad divines that are not “your” divine.

        B: Law in truth is Alive – but the law of stone tablets operates as a controlling mechanism or device in place of a Living Law that is believed either L OST or NOT existing.

        TBM: Explain why it is against the law to question the holohoax?

        B: The term “the spirit of the law’ points to the living purpose of the law – where the ‘letter’ of the law gives ‘rights’ to the dead or un-mindful mechanism of precedent in form – while disregarding the spirit that gives form – so as to assume the right to define or judge reality in terms of form – which of course becomes the mask for hidden or trojan agenda to operate ‘unseen’.

        TBM: I’ve gotten by 70+ years with just one “rule” … it’s not even codified in any of the “laws” … including the 40,000 new ones they create each year. That rule is the golden rule. I need and observe no other. It has worked splendidly for me.

        B: The struggle for power is the attempt to overcome or escape believed or feared powerlessness.

        TBM: Or really? When both are totally relative terms? I have two sons. One wants to be a big fish in a small pond. The other is a small fish in a big pond … and far more powerful.

        B: And the display of such power is the need for personal support and reinforcement of that which otherwise would not be felt and known true – because it is an imagination – regardless the degree of investment of assertive claim and defence brought to bear on its behalf.

        TBM: Display of power is really a part of defending a claim. In football some strategists say the defense wins the game. Well, for that to happen, the offense must at least score once. Offense can win without defense. The reverse … not so much.

        B: The equality of the divinity of humankind is not in our physical birth – but in our Soul expression. False framing is the deceit of the mind given power of identification. If you act as if something is true – then in that moment you make – and experience it true for you – regardless if it has any true resonance or belonging in you at all.

        TBM: Again, which divine are you referring to? Where does that leave all the others who have a different divine … or none at all?

        B: Framing spirit or purpose in forms of flesh points to a specific focus in which a universal perspective can seem lost, denied, betrayed or abandoned – because a specific ‘mind’ experiences itself as ‘separate’ and defends against universal as if that will result in loss of self rather than the recognition and extension of self in the whole (in all).

        TBM: Now please turn to page 249 in your hymnals and join with me…

        B: I sketch out in idea as an invitation to reflect and consider – not as a claim to fix down in definition. If something works for you – then use it for what it clearly is and does – along the purpose you accept and recognize as your own – even if not what you previously claimed and defended as your right.

        TBM: correct. Iterative secession. Then rediscover those all important words: Discrimination, segregation, racism. They are terms referring to concepts that abound in all nature … both animal and vegetable. They are crucial to the survival of “all” species.

        B: If nothing here speaks to your interest then that also is your freedom to follow only what interests or enlivens and resonates in you – for your own reasons and through your own devices.

        TBM: As long as it doesn’t encroach on someone elses defended claim.

        B: But all choices have consequences by which you can re-evaluate who you truly are and what you truly want – regardless the choices that brought you to this moment of discovery.

        TBM: Now again, please turn to page 184 in your hymnals.

        B: Doing as you are moved is already in motion but the attempt to redefine your ‘self’ as the ‘doer’ separates a sense of ‘you’ from the movement and assigns power of good and ill over Life. Not in truth – but in accepted judgement, believed and experienced. To move in alignment with being rather than identify in resistance against or upon it, is felt freedom in joy. There is nothing more satisfying that being who you truly are – and yet the ‘right’ to claim different in self defined identity is held onto as a precious and treasured possession-ability – by which to be poss essed and rendered worthless.

        TBM: Thank you all. I have run out of pear shaped words for today. Please be sure to come to ritual school Wednesday night. We will have refreshments.

        B: I responded to your post – whether I have any right to, is secondary to the fact. It could be be denied expression by editors – or denied attention by disregard – yet I have the benefit/consequence of living this response – and of a fresh perspective arising from it.

        TBM: Someone may or may not dispute both are claims to the right of this conversation. I suspect most would say “please take it outside”.

        B: I share it to that which is receptive and listening – that has not been invalidated, inhibited, suppressed or denied in readers or in being. I cannot give the power or right to read it – but I can honour that capacity to choose to focus where you recognize yourself regardless if it is currently used to ensure you do not.

        TBM: Do you really understand what you write? There is a word for it … double talk.

        B: And I can illuminate where poor choices result in poor outcomes as a natural support for your right to make better or more aligned choices with respect to who yo u truly are and can recognize and appreciate yourself to be.

        TBM: And you can also illuminate where poor choices result in good outcomes. So what?

        B: There will always be a metaphysical presumption that logic then unfolds – and confusion of the concept with the living operates no less logically in its resulting confusion – but of course a concept of self cannot see or know or re-evaluate anything – but can be used to ‘see’ all things likewise separated from true Cause – as a world of separate effects resulting from conflicting purposes.

        TBM: For those of you who are having trouble understanding this double-talk, I remind you of our Tuesday evening classes on “developing your double-talking skills”. There will be refreshments.

        B: All of this may seem impractical – yet the operation of such device of deceit is the principle bone of contention among Daily Bell association… of a sense of coercive limitation and interference in one’s freedom – as it is felt, desired, imagined and believed to be.

        TBM: And for some lighter reading, take a look at Uncle Remus.

        • If the foundation is skewed – everything else skews from it.
          Beliefs are not observations or indeed recognitions – but to translate observations into human terms requires the currency of conflicting beliefs and definitions.

          I enjoyed finding what I had to offer and I take it you enjoyed using it for your own purposes.

          The word ‘divine’ would be redundant if evil were not accepted into the Human heart. For the ‘Only’ does not require its own term – being already a recognition. However, when you extend a sense of worth with the golden rule – you must first have it to share it. The golden rule works in reverse when one treats others as self-hatred judges – and the world of hate and war witness this everywhere to minds that are set in loveless judgement. There has to be some recognition and receipt of the worth of being – or the golden rule mechanism merely mimics the forms of a relationship.

          I don’t belong – and have never belonged to – nor recommend any movement of human institutional ideology or religious persuasion. But I trust that you find what you need as you are honest enough and willing enough to accept it – and if being a 6% elitist serves you at this time then find out what it has to teach you – for why else would you have called it into your life?

          Rights are associated with wrongs – or perhaps ‘unacceptables’. Human consciousness and human society can become wrong-minded in terms of false assumptions and out of date or ill-fitting definitions – from which rise behaviours that are out of accord with one’s own nature and that of others.

          Rather than fighting ‘might is right’ along with deceitful tricks and ruses – I point to the underlying template currencies of thought – which are no less corrupted than the ‘money system’ that is operating as an evil in the guise of a protective power. If you don’t share this interest then may you enjoy what you are interested in.

          It is pointless to debate points when different orders of meaning are being brought together that have no meeting – and you can believe you are free of beliefs – if you want to.

          You have the right to your own experience – regardless what anyone else or any external condition seems to assert. And I support you in that freedom – as in the capacity to grow in such discernment and exercise a true self-responsibility within the gift of awareness of being.

          • “You have the right to your own experience”

            By making that assertion you are clearly not paying attention. Go back and read what you have written. Try to find a single element of substance in it.

            I know of nowhere someone can go to learn such skills in flowery double-talk … unless it would any and all churches. Thus, you must be self taught.

          • Your definitions provide the framework for your interpreted experience of what I wrote. Not mine. Not your Grandpop’s. Not ‘society’s’. Your accepted self definition is your freedom from which your perceptions and behaviours proceed – regardless where you got it from.
            So your experience is unique – and even IF the ‘world’ was a universe of external objects in space out there along one axis of time – your experience of it would be unique. Just as you are unique and recognisably you.

            You have the right to experience through self-acceptance or through self-denial. These can take different forms but if you are in conflict with yourself you will have a conflicted experience of WHATEVER.

            In line with your request I went back and read line one…

            “If the foundation is skewed – everything else skews from it”.

            Imagine you had the wrong city map out while trying to navigate a foreign town in Europe at night and became enmeshed in heated arguments with your wife – as happened to a late friend of mine. When they finally discovered their error it was a cause of laughter – but while labouring under a false assumption they had a very hard time.

            Assumed knowledge may be anything but.

            Logic will operate no less from false assumptions than from true.

            If you can point to something I wrote without without substance I can perhaps illuminate its substance for you. If you simply refuse ‘flowery language’ fair enough. If by doubletalk you mean deceit or self contradiction please say so – for I simply find phrases to convey meanings felt.

            What likely does not compute for you is that I speak from a different foundation and therefore nothing groks to your current framing. I feel moved to grow and share in a different basis of thought than the patternings that manifest the world most everyone here hates or feels oppressed by and yet persists in supporting – perhaps by choices they are not aware they are making or reactions they are baited into as a result of conditioning they are not awake to being patterned by. But I do so in a spirit of invitation to whatever movement of interest alights. In other words freely and to a freedom to take or leave it.

            I enjoy and appreciate very many political and social comments here, but my own contribution is a bridge to the mind that our society and world is an embodiment of – that is unconscious by design – and not just as an ‘evil plot by elitist war-mongers’.

            The desire to KEEP the unconscious unconscious is strongly associated with a sense of personal control that is not what it seems – as the state of our world testifies.

            If you have no interest – let it pass by while attending to what does. If you have a specific issue – be that of a curiosity or a complaint – you can simply communicate rather than ‘spar’.

            I associate doubletalk with Orwell’s depiction of ‘mind-control’. Perhaps a mind not feeling in control projects its fear on what it does not understand?

            You are exercising your right to your own experience – whether you recognize it or whether you prefer to judge and blame what you are unwilling to own. I don’t say you ‘should’ or ‘should not’ judge or blame – but I do say the mind is utilized to provide such a self-justifying narrative over a sense of dissonance held out of awareness. You may say this is like stating the obvious but of no significance.

            Yet narrative control is a primary weapon in the assertion of a false reality at expense of true – and uses many kinds of tricks to target and capture or divert attention accordingly. One can readily observe this in one’s own mind as in a cursory scan of ‘news’ sites. It is so pervasive and ubiquitous that to NOT use it, is to stand out as a kind of dissonance to accepted ‘reality’.

            So I appreciate your somewhat willingness to somewhat engage – but in your own reply you embody what you criticize in me – no?

            You can tell me what I am not doing and you can assert it lacks substance and you can appeal to churches or self-teaching as insinuations of invalidity – but you might be more honest to say you don’t understand what I wrote – or whether it is understandable – for that is what I read between the lines – though please correct me if I read you wrong.

          • B: Your definitions provide the framework for your interpreted experience of what I wrote. Not mine.

            TBM: And so you helpfully supply “your” definitions? Not!

            B: Not your Grandpop’s. Not ‘society’s’. Your accepted self definition is your freedom from which your perceptions and behaviours proceed – regardless where you got it from.

            TBM: My experience provides the framework for my interpretations. My formal education, less and less.

            B: So your experience is unique – and even IF the ‘world’ was a universe of external objects in space out there along one axis of time – your experience of it would be unique. Just as you are unique and recognisably you.

            TBM: Heads up left field … here comes an argument.

            B: You have the right to experience through self-acceptance or through self-denial.

            TBM: I make no claim. I am defending against nothing. No “right” is involved. Do you see yourself as some granter of rights? You clearly don’t know what a right is. A right is a defended claim.

            B: These can take different forms but if you are in conflict with yourself you will have a conflicted experience of WHATEVER.

            TBM: An “if” that is begged by nothing in this conversation. That would suggest it is “you” who is conflicted.

            B: In line with your request I went back and read line one…

            “If the foundation is skewed – everything else skews from it”.

            Imagine you had the wrong city map out while trying to navigate a foreign town in Europe at night and became enmeshed in heated arguments with your wife – as happened to a late friend of mine. When they finally discovered their error it was a cause of laughter – but while labouring under a false assumption they had a very hard time.

            TBM: Ok. I’m imagining that … even though it isn’t even remotely imaginable to my sensibility. Continue.

            B: Assumed knowledge may be anything but.

            TBM: It’s in the root of the word … an “ass” out of “u” and “me”.

            B: Logic will operate no less from false assumptions than from true.

            TBM: Until they cease to do so as the false assumptions are revealed … logically and rationally. The false assumption that “gold is money” … just because … is just such an instance.

            B: If you can point to something I wrote without without substance I can perhaps illuminate its substance for you.

            TBM: I don’t think I can point to something you wrote “with” substance … beginning with this dialog, and otherwise in my whole conversation, by my recollection. I don’t challenge flowery language with substance. Its just when I peel it back to see what it is saying and find nothing … that’s when I cry “foul”.

            B: If you simply refuse ‘flowery language’ fair enough.

            TBM: I don’t. But I do refuse double-talk in any kind of language.

            B: If by doubletalk you mean deceit or self contradiction please say so – for I simply find phrases to convey meanings felt.

            TBM: Look it up. It means putting out words that sound important but mean absolutely nothing. I saw Johnny Carson pulled into a prank by a double-talker. The phony Carson had no trouble at all going along with the conversation as if it had meaning and he understood it. It was at a cocktail party … and he was not part of the gag … he was the target of the gag.

            B: What likely does not compute for you is that I speak from a different foundation and therefore nothing groks to your current framing.

            TBM: If we went back and dissected every sentence you’ve written to discern its meaning and then endeavored to come up with a concise statement of the concept … we would be totally flummoxed in the process … and you would be to, because you would describe what you were saying in still more double-talk.

            B: I feel moved to grow and share in a different basis of thought than the patternings that manifest the world most everyone here hates or feels oppressed by and yet persists in supporting – perhaps by choices they are not aware they are making or reactions they are baited into as a result of conditioning they are not awake to being patterned by.

            TBM: Another perfect example of double-talk. Want to go back and dissect “that” sentence for its meaning and concept. Want to challenge five different people to do it independently and see what correlation there is in the meaning they discern? You seem to be saying you are in your own world. I’m totally happy to leave you there. I sure don’t want such nonsense in mine.

            B: But I do so in a spirit of invitation to whatever movement of interest alights.

            TBM: Ok, with that spirit, take the above challenged sentence and send it to five people whom you respect. Ask them to write down their interpretation of the meaning of what you write … using as many words as they want. Then ask them for a concise thesis statement or statement of concept. Then let’s review the results. I don’t have five friends that could get past the first five words so I can’t help. But I’m expect that you run with such people.

            B: In other words freely and to a freedom to take or leave it.

            TBM: Even the short sentences come out meaningless.

            B: I enjoy and appreciate very many political and social comments here, but my own contribution is a bridge to the mind that our society and world is an embodiment of – that is unconscious by design – and not just as an ‘evil plot by elitist war-mongers’.

            TBM: Ok, try and dissect that one and see if you can get someone to understand its meaning.

            B: The desire to KEEP the unconscious unconscious is strongly associated with a sense of personal control that is not what it seems – as the state of our world testifies.

            TBM: Do you have that desire? Is that “your” struggle? (he asks in Johnny Carson fashion).

            B: If you have no interest – let it pass by while attending to what does. If you have a specific issue – be that of a curiosity or a complaint – you can simply communicate rather than ‘spar’.

            TBM: I presume this conversation began with me responding to an assertion by you. I’m equally sure it ran off the tracks with that first interaction … and has remained off the tracks. I submit the reason for that is your double-talk. The experiment I suggest could prove me wrong … but I don’t think so.

            B: I associate doubletalk with Orwell’s depiction of ‘mind-control’. Perhaps a mind not feeling in control projects its fear on what it does not understand?

            TBM: Actually, that’s probably not how it comes about. But then it’s so mysterious I can’t immagine how it originates. Orwell’s depictions all had a specific purpose in mind. They were disinformation … not double-talk … except for the chants that were taught.

            B: You are exercising your right to your own experience – whether you recognize it or whether you prefer to judge and blame what you are unwilling to own.

            TBM: No. I’m not exercising any right. I’m making no claim. I judge everything. When I see subterfuge I expose and blame it. With the Mises Monks, subterfuge abounds.

            B: I don’t say you ‘should’ or ‘should not’ judge or blame – but I do say the mind is utilized to provide such a self-justifying narrative over a sense of dissonance held out of awareness. You may say this is like stating the obvious but of no significance.

            TBM: Then again, I may not say that. What’s that little voice in the back of your head saying now. What would it say when I showed you a video of WTC7 falling down?

            B: Yet narrative control is a primary weapon in the assertion of a false reality at expense of true – and uses many kinds of tricks to target and capture or divert attention accordingly.

            TBM: Do you really think double-talk has any hope of “controlling the narrative”? Actually, I guess all religions prove it not only has hope … it attains that goal. Bible school is a 7:00PM Wednesday night … free refreshments will be served.

            B: One can readily observe this in one’s own mind as in a cursory scan of ‘news’ sites. It is so pervasive and ubiquitous that to NOT use it, is to stand out as a kind of dissonance to accepted ‘reality’.

            TBM: What I have become particularly adept at is scanning articles for substance … and deceptions … and deceit … and outright falsehood. Then, if I can interact with the author, or those who claim to understand and believe the nonsense and will defend it. That doesn’t seem to happen here. It doesn’t happen in churches either.

            B: So I appreciate your somewhat willingness to somewhat engage – but in your own reply you embody what you criticize in me – no?

            TBM: No. I am direct. You are flapping in the wind to the point of being totally opaque.

            B: You can tell me what I am not doing and you can assert it lacks substance and you can appeal to churches or self-teaching as insinuations of invalidity – but you might be more honest to say you don’t understand what I wrote – or whether it is understandable – for that is what I read between the lines – though please correct me if I read you wrong.

            TBM: You are correct. I “don’t” understand what you wrote. I have given you the challenge. Send “that” sentence to five people you trust and admire and ask them to translate it. What I challenge is outright double-talk. I am actually amazed that anyone can master it to the extent you have.

            TBM: A characteristic of double-talk is that on inspection it has no meaning. That’s different than reading a language you don’t understand … or one you do understand but with many special words (i.e. shop talk). In that case you can make (or get) translations that bring out the concepts … even in those idioms that can’t be translated literally.

            I don’t expect that to happen with your stuff. Prove me wrong.

          • Well I have no desire to prove you wrong and no desire to engage further with your ‘prove me wrong’.
            Your notion of communication is argument and I find it and you a bore – regardless of whether any points you make have validity. The way you conduct yourself is framing all ‘communication’ in terms of your self-righteousness – to which you are welcome. I am indifferent to your framing of issues used to demonstrate you are right and no one is going to prove you wrong. There is no argument – only a failure of communication. Or perhaps an intent to engage communication in futility. Well done – you are very good at it!

          • B: Well I have no desire to prove you wrong and no desire to engage further with your ‘prove me wrong’.
            Your notion of communication is argument and I find it and you a bore – regardless of whether any points you make have validity.

            TBM: Trapped, pleads the typical “right to avoidance”. Runs away without support a single one of his assertions.

            B: The way you conduct yourself is framing all ‘communication’ in terms of your self-righteousness – to which you are welcome.

            TBM: I am not righteous. What I write is “irrefutable”. There is a difference.

            B: I am indifferent to your framing of issues used to demonstrate you are right and no one is going to prove you wrong.

            TBM: That’s why kick boxing is such a neat sport. You can prove someone deficient and there is no point of argument. These discussions against religious dogma are more difficult. The true believer “always” runs away. They are incapable of mounting a logical rational defense of their regurgitated dogma.

            B: There is no argument – only a failure of communication. Or perhaps an intent to engage communication in futility.

            TBM: The failure is in your court. I have answered every one of your objections and you have failed to support any of your assertions which I have challenged … all challenged with illustration and proof.

            B: Well done – you are very good at it!

            TBM: I wish that was true. When the duped run away without grasping the obvious, who can chalk that up to “well done”. I’m just running out of time (72+ years and counting fast) and impatient in trying to put across the simplest concepts against the professional duping. Mark Twain got it right. It’s easy to fool people; it’s very difficult to unfool them.

            Try it yourself. Show people the video of the collapse of WTC7 and ask them if they have ever seen it before. By my poll, 94% (all but 16 out of now 272) have not. All have seen WTC1&2 collapse hundreds of times. In all this poll taking I have gotten only one rational reaction from those 94% totally duped. It was from a young postal lady. She said “that changes everything”. The others slide me into “conspiracy theorist” category … as they have been dutifully indoctrinated to do.

          • Because I experience your approach to be a trap – I take no part in it. You ‘engage’ from assertive ‘irrefutable proofs’ that allow no conversation outside the frame you set.
            I haven’t run away – I just engage communication where I find a willingness and a movement of desire to do so.
            If your definition of ‘communication’ is the establishing of ‘irrefutable proofs’ – then you cannot but be a bore to experience because you ‘already know’ and only ‘listen’ in order to refute. This is no way to teach – if that is indeed you desire before you change classrooms.

            Sport is great for those who feel the desire to pitch themselves against opponents in the intent of opening excellence or the intent of being seen to win. Go for it with whoever wants to play.

            I don’t say the failure of communication is ANYONE’s fault – I simply describe the nature of what is evident in non-blame terms. One man’s failure of communication is another man’s victory. It is up to you to establish and accept what is real for you. I don’t expect or require you to accept anything that is not true for – and of you. But if something is not true – but is a privately assertive interpretation that cannot really share of commune-icate – then it is divorced from what is actually going on and will manifest in frustrating experience. If you have joy – who is anyone to judge your choices?

            I do not seek to unfool others so much as to illuminate choices they are perhaps unknowingly making – with the freedom to therefore make a better – if they so desire.

          • B: Because I experience your approach to be a trap – I take no part in it.

            TBM: Fine. By expressing it that way, you have either been trapped or narrowly avoided a trap. Share your experience.

            B: You ‘engage’ from assertive ‘irrefutable proofs’ that allow no conversation outside the frame you set.

            TBM: I haven’t disallowed changing the frame. I haven’t disallowed anything. I’ve merely asserted the obvious … and proved it. Refute it if you can … even if you must change the frame to do so.

            B: I haven’t run away – I just engage communication where I find a willingness and a movement of desire to do so.
            If your definition of ‘communication’ is the establishing of ‘irrefutable proofs’ – then you cannot but be a bore to experience because you ‘already know’ and only ‘listen’ in order to refute. This is no way to teach – if that is indeed you desire before you change classrooms.

            TBM: When I make my assertion, I “always” make it in the face of something that violates that assertion. If I describe the details of my assertion and prove its validity, I throw the ball into the other court tio defend their assertion. They can’t both be proved. They are mutually exclusive in every case I do this. Agreeing to disagree is never an alternative. The ball has never come back … just like it’s not coming back here.

            B: Sport is great for those who feel the desire to pitch themselves against opponents in the intent of opening excellence or the intent of being seen to win. Go for it with whoever wants to play.

            TBM: Fine. Enjoy your religion in comfort. Just stay out of my space … and for sure I’ll stay out of yours.

            B: I don’t say the failure of communication is ANYONE’s fault – I simply describe the nature of what is evident in non-blame terms.

            TBM: You’re just playing the discourtesy card. It’s always played when you don’t have a valid case. When you can’t support attacks against your assertions.

            B: One man’s failure of communication is another man’s victory.

            TBM: Are you declaring a failure of communications here? I’m responding to every one of your assertions. If there were questions, I would respond to them (there are none here … I’m dealing with a cry baby). So what part of communications are you not satisfied with? Civility? Charm school? I’m running out of time … and long ago ran out of patience.

            B: It is up to you to establish and accept what is real for you.

            TBM: I have not personalized this in any way whatever. If I had the power to do so, I would reject your attempt to do so too. I don’t have that power and don’t seek it. I don’t need it.

            B: I don’t expect or require you to accept anything that is not true for – and of you.

            TBM: Again. This isn’t about me.

            B: But if something is not true – but is a privately assertive interpretation that cannot really share of commune-icate – then it is divorced from what is actually going on and will manifest in frustrating experience. If you have joy – who is anyone to judge your choices?

            TBM: What mushy, nonsensical, double-talk that is. Put that out for translation.

            B: I do not seek to unfool others so much as to illuminate choices they are perhaps unknowingly making – with the freedom to therefore make a better – if they so desire.

            TBM: So go ahead and do it. Do a “for instance” right here. And observe, you haven’t moved the ball an inch in this discourse. You are just pouting.

            Grow up.

          • The resort to derision and name calling is a very clear witness to a personal agenda – which also manifests in impatience.

            The capacity to use the mind to ‘trap itself’ in its own thought is a curious one. But then – change your mind about your mind.

            I used the term “commune-icate” to indicate that there is a context for communication that transcends a logical exposition of asserted or presumed foundation.

            The capacity to fixate on what is perceived ‘wrong’ and and does provide a sense of ‘right’ that then operates without checking back into the original perception, taken as a self-certainty. That framing – which I feel you embody with a very vigorous will – makes such a narrow range of focus as to be merely an attempt to prove your founding assertions as better and truer than everyone else – and the way you go about it expands into a branching series of points that lose any sense of relevance in me at least.

            But I answer because I also feel something in you that is desirous of truth regardless your way of going about it and for that I feel to honour you with reply. Not as refutation of your points or failure to refute your points – which to me feel to narrow down perspective rather than open perspective – and so feel lifeless though intensely held no doubt.

            If you can reply without resorting to personal attack then why not do so?

            Sharing my experience…

          • B: The resort to derision and name calling is a very clear witness to a personal agenda – which also manifests in impatience.

            TBM: I admit to finally becoming impatient. I have zero tolerance for double-talk.

            B: The capacity to use the mind to ‘trap itself’ in its own thought is a curious one. But then – change your mind about your mind.

            TBM: Doesn’t sound like any concept I’ve ever asserted.

            B: I used the term “commune-icate” to indicate that there is a context for communication that transcends a logical exposition of asserted or presumed foundation.

            TBM: Fine. Word games are sometimes fun.

            B: The capacity to fixate on what is perceived ‘wrong’ and and does provide a sense of ‘right’ that then operates without checking back into the original perception, taken as a self-certainty. That framing – which I feel you embody with a very vigorous will – makes such a narrow range of focus as to be merely an attempt to prove your founding assertions as better and truer than everyone else – and the way you go about it expands into a branching series of points that lose any sense of relevance in me at least.

            TBM: Double-talk … warp speed.

            B: But I answer because I also feel something in you that is desirous of truth regardless your way of going about it and for that I feel to honour you with reply. Not as refutation of your points or failure to refute your points – which to me feel to narrow down perspective rather than open perspective – and so feel lifeless though intensely held no doubt.

            TBM: How about going back and reviewing the bidding … to see if you have made any contribution at all. If I can make any sense of your double-talk at all, reflect on Occams Razor. Reflect on Einstein: “Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler.”

            B: If you can reply without resorting to personal attack then why not do so?

            TBM: I can’t even remember the subject any more. I know my original assertion was “a right is a defended claim; make no claim; there is no right; fail to defend the claim; there is no right.

            I think I also said that obviously means there is no “god given” or “divine” right. There is also no “inalienable” right. I stand by that assertion and the only rebuttal was, you have to play by the rules. And might does not make right. Well. I think the evidence proves differently.

            B: Sharing my experience…

            TBM: Thanks for sharing.

          • I replied to this yesterday but it has disappeared. It’s obviously not worth replying to again.

          • Obvious or not is your business but I believe I read it and responded. Perhaps in another exchange. But if there is something to share or discover together it can still find its way in a future exchange.

          • Ok

  • Dimitri Ledkovsky

    The “Sponsored Links” are the same cheesy ones seen on almost every alt-media site. I feel had.

  • esqualido

    “In fact, it is not a “right” at all.” I suppose getting paid to prepare meals for others is not a right, either, but try finding a free lunch after pulling that line a few times.

  • Wheezwiz

    ” modern capitalism with all its faux consumerism”. Why call govt. interference capitalism, when it is surely socialism whenever govt is involved ?

    • I’ve come to realize there is precious little difference between capitalism and socialism (communism) and governments are just instituted by both … and they swing back and forth into each other. I call it the new trinity: Capitalism, Communism, Government. It’s all the same.

      • Don Duncan

        Authoritarians/collectivists have co-oped many words/terms over the centuries, marrying contradicting concepts with them, slowly destroying all competing ideas with this epistemological trick. It is dishonest, but works on the ignorant, nonintellectual masses and the pseudo-intellectual front persons encourage the conspiracy to curry favor with TPTB. Ayn Rand called it the “fallacy of the stolen concept”.

        Should we abandon every concept attacked? Should we endeavor to establish new ones in their place, only to see those attacked? Is continual retreat a winning strategy? I think not.

        Capitalism is economic freedom. Freedom can only exist outside of the authoritarian/collectivist paradigm, manifest in govt. Where there is govt., there is a mixed economy, not capitalism or socialism. Total socialism is self-destructive. It cannot exist alone for long. It must have some capitalism (free/black market) economics to parasitize.

        The fall of a society is the failure of authoritarianism, which goes unrecognized. A failed society reverts to a free/freer society, a healthy society, which is then parasitized anew as the cycle continues.

        • DD: Authoritarians/collectivists have co-oped many words/terms over the centuries, marrying contradicting concepts with them, slowly destroying all competing ideas with this epistemological trick

          TBM: Not only that, they have designed and instituted systems which favor themselves to the detriment of others. Competing systems can reverse and stabilize that. Ask how.

          DD: Capitalism is economic freedom.

          TBM: Capitalism is “two years”. I can both demonstrate it and prove it. Ask how. Can you demonstrate that capitalism is “economic freedom”. Can you prove it? Can you even define it?

          DD: Total socialism is self-destructive. It cannot exist alone for long. It must have some capitalism (free/black market) economics to parasitize.

          TBM: Capitalism, communism, and government (the trinity) are all one and the same. I can demonstrate it. I can prove it. Ask how.

          DD: The fall of a society is the failure of authoritarianism, which goes unrecognized.

          TBM: A society with authoritarianism has already failed.

          DD: A failed society reverts to a free/freer society, a healthy society, which is then parasitized anew as the cycle continues.

          TBM: The solution is smaller societies. Iterative secession. Democracy can’t work with more than 50 people involved … so institute a framework where all common decisions are decided by 50 people or less. I can describe one. I can prove it works. Ask how.

          • Mark Baumann

            You have an incorrect view of Capitalism. Your mainstream ivory tower view is dead wrong. Study Socialism, Human Action by Mises and Capitalism by Riesman and you will understand the true definition of Capitalism and then be able to make comments aligned and grounded with the DB and readers like me. Your definition (of Capitalism) is more aligned with Fascism.

          • MB: You have an incorrect view of Capitalism.

            TBM: Mine is not a “view”. I can demonstrate it. I can prove it. Capitalism “is” two years. Prove or demonstrate otherwise.

            MB: Your mainstream ivory tower view is dead wrong.

            TBM: Well, I guess you told me. Pulling rank?

            MB: Study Socialism, Human Action by Mises and Capitalism by Riesman and you will understand the true definition of Capitalism and then be able to make comments aligned and grounded with the DB and readers like me.

            TBM: Been there. Done that. I can blow any of Mises writings out of the water within the first 10 pages … revealing the remainder to be pure double-talk. Want to take me up on it? I have his books. I don’t have Reisman, but if he worships at the throne of Mises like Rothbard, I don’t need to. Does he do that? If not, I’ll take a look.

            MB: Your definition (of Capitalism) is more aligned with Fascism.

            TBM: We have a pretty pure definition of Facism. It’s where the means of production are in private (non-government or non- collective) hands … but the government or collective “dictates” what those private hands can and will do. It’s not ambiguous. Fascism is just an assertion that capitalism and communism are the very same thing … the pendulum is just in different positions.

          • Mark Baumann

            Your droning on… Believe what you want. If you cannot speak here in the correct terms of reference than your dribble comes off as just that. You cannot discuss complex topics without a standard baseline.
            Here, the baseline is Mises, if you cannot get on board with that, your discussions will be completely ignored because they are senseless.
            “Fascism is just an assertion that capitalism and communism are the very same thing” … You have got to be kidding.
            Why would we want to discuss IP (anything) from your terms of reference?

          • MB: Your droning on…

            TBM: Just answering assertions and setting them straight.

            MB: Believe what you want. If you cannot speak here in the correct terms of reference than your dribble comes off as just that.

            TBM: So this “is” a religious discussion after all, right? I’ve slipped into another hive of Mises Monks?

            MB: You cannot discuss complex topics without a standard baseline.
            Here, the baseline is Mises, if you cannot get on board with that, your discussions will be completely ignored because they are senseless.

            TBM: Oh. One needs to be a member of the clan here? If I’m not on board with the religion, you’re all fingers … in your ears? Now that’s rich. Another navel contemplating organization!

            MB: “Fascism is just an assertion that capitalism and communism are the very same thing” … You have got to be kidding.

            TBM: Not only am I not kidding, I supported my assertion. And you’ve said nothing to describe or prove otherwise. You’ve just pulled rank with an arrogant quip. Good luck with that.

            MB: Why would we want to discuss IP (anything) from your terms of reference?

            TBM: Who is “we”? Are you the rector here? Re. my terms of reference. I “always” lay out the facts, describe the concepts, give the examples, and make the proof. I always get back religious arguments. This Mises Monk infestation is really getting expansive.

          • Mark Baumann

            Your reply is not even comprehensible. Your responses do not address my point. Please move on troll.

          • I’m not moving anywhere. From Wikipedia: In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,

            “I” didn’t start this. Troll is a term created by people like you on the internet making assertions, failing to support them when challenged, and demonstrating their skill in avoidance dominates their behavior. My response obviously addressed your points … point by point.

            I am not a troll. I am a disgusted old person who has spent 70+ years being continually frustrated by the brain dead whose mouths and pens still work.

          • Mark Baumann

            Your premises are not correct. You have a foundation of fascism [crony capitalism] that you identify as capitalism. That is just plain wrong. I agree with your disgust for the federal reserve system [central banksters] which allows the 0.1% get filthy rich at the expense of the rest, but, again, that is not capitalism.

          • MB: Your premises are not correct.

            TBM: So correct them. Support your correction. I’m getting thoroughly disgusted with Mises Monks who make assertions without supporting them; who will not support them when challenged; who cannot support them and change the subject or just run away … claiming victory of course. Let’s see how you do here in those departments.

            MB: You have a foundation of fascism [crony capitalism] that you identify as capitalism.

            TBM: Strike one. I have lucidly defined and described fascism as a form of capitalism and communism coexisting simultaneously in the same framework … and of which doesn’t try to fake any contrast between the two. When the means of production are in private hands (an attribute of so called capitalism), but control is in public hands (an attribute of so called communism), you see there is no distinction between the two. I have repeatedly repudiated the use of the adjective crony relating to capitalism as being superfluous. There are no instances of capitalism that don’t involve and are not enabled and are not instituted by cronies. Let’s see if you go to the trouble of illustrating a case where I am wrong, let alone proving it.

            MB: That is just plain wrong.

            TBM: Strike two. Just plain whiffed it! Nothing of substance at all. Third and 10 (to mix a metaphor).

            MB: I agree with your disgust for the federal reserve system [central banksters] which allows the 0.1% get filthy rich at the expense of the rest, but, again, that is not capitalism.

            TBM: Strike three. Faux support of the obvious; another assertion without support; no contrasting illustration or proof.

            How do you people live with yourselves?

          • Mark Baumann

            In 60 seconds I see three uses of fallacious arguments. Need I go further?
            1. Argumentum Ad Hominem: “I’m getting thoroughly disgusted with Mises Monks…”

            2. Onus Probandi: “I have lucidly defined and described fascism as a form of capitalism and communism coexisting simultaneously in the same framework ”

            3. False Equivalence: “When the means of production are in private hands (an attribute of so called capitalism), but control is in public hands (an attribute of so called communism), you see there is no distinction between the two.”

          • MB: In 60 seconds I see three uses of fallacious arguments. Need I go further?
            1. Argumentum Ad Hominem: “I’m getting thoroughly disgusted with Mises Monks…”

            TBM: When a child does something that is openly wrong, you call their attention to it. Your civility diminishes with the number of times you have to point out the same defects to the same people.

            MB: 2. Onus Probandi: “I have lucidly defined and described fascism as a form of capitalism and communism coexisting simultaneously in the same framework ”

            TBM: I had to look it up. My language is English … though I am under more and more pressure to learn Spanish to exist in my country.

            The Wikipedia article you seem to refer to:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

            MB: 3. False Equivalence: “When the means of production are in private hands (an attribute of so called capitalism), but control is in public hands (an attribute of so called communism), you see there is no distinction between the two.”

            TBM: I checked the Wikipedia article. It does not include the tactic of serving up fallacies to avoid a rebuttal (which can not be defended) at all. It also does not include the tactic of using a dead language to cause your partner in conversation confusion, work, and possible misunderstanding … especially if they are not paying close enough attention to do so.

            In short … the Mises Monk tactic is the same as our government’s tactic. Delay, obfuscate, drop red herrings, declare it set law and/or old news, declare yourself the winner and all challengers conspiracy theorists or suggest they have insufficient intellectual standing to participate in a debate.

            In a word, the tactic is “avoidance”.

            You seem to be a master. Absolutely zero rebuttal to what I wrote … zero! You are probably good at killing messengers too.

            How do you people live with yourselves?

          • Mark Baumann

            You are missing the point over and over again. There is no need to concoct a rebuttal to statements that don’t make sense.

          • Is that the ostrich rebuttal … or the possum rebuttal? Or is it the “you don’t have standing in this conversation” rebuttal.

            Regardless, all three arrive at their destination … avoidance.

            I feel so fortunate to have never be infected by the disease that seems to have consumed you and the rest of you Mises Monks. It differs from other religions not at all.

          • You do well in some regards and throw it away in others. There is simply no need to denigrate when making your points. There is also no call to paint everyone here with the same brush.
            This is a personal indulgence that invites focus where you don’t need to invite it – as I see it.
            I appreciate that you are not trolling and are willing to elucidate for the most part in a respectful manner – but perhaps you lose patience when others don’t get or don’t want to get what you are saying.
            I appreciate a general education in communicating without recourse to the dark arts – which is a training over time because the mind is an evasive presenter of its own script seeking validation – whereas what I might call the heart intelligence is an integrated desire for communication and a willingness to uncover greater perspective as a result.

            I might add that your sense of your points being evaded was a simple enough observation and yet the flowery diatribe – whilst perhaps entertaining – took away from the main point.

            Everyone teaches the thought system they identify with – bar none. If you rubbish the person you validate their defences – which then also override their possible willingness to communicate the issue. No?

          • B: You do well in some regards and throw it away in others.

            TBM: Be specific.

            B: There is simply no need to denigrate when making your points. There is also no call to paint everyone here with the same brush.

            TBM: I haven’t given up the validity of profiling. When I find my profile filter trapped someone it shouldn’t, I apologize. Are you due an apology?

            B: This is a personal indulgence that invites focus where you don’t need to invite it – as I see it.

            TBM: What do you mean by that? Are you using “focus” as as synonym for “attention”?

            B: I appreciate that you are not trolling and are willing to elucidate for the most part in a respectful manner – but perhaps you lose patience when others don’t get or don’t want to get what you are saying.

            TBM: Yes. I lose patience. Especially when I find myself in a hive of Mises Monks. Zerohedge is also such a venue, as is Mises.org. And especially since I refuse to “agree to disagree”. Make and prove your points or disprove mine … or admit that you have lost. Don’t just run away. I never run away.

            B:I appreciate a general education in communicating without recourse to the dark arts – which is a training over time because the mind is an evasive presenter of its own script seeking validation – whereas what I might call the heart intelligence is an integrated desire for communication and a willingness to uncover greater perspective as a result.

            TBM: “Heart intelligence”? Mine pumps blood. Does yours have an accessory mine didn’t come with?

            I don’t know about you, but I have a little voice in the back of my head. It asks lots of questions and scrutinizes my answers … actually my every thought. But it is just me arguing with myself … making my case to myself before testing it on others. That kind of training does not serve one well when they get into the ring. But so far, the voice in the back of my head is seeing things much more clearly and proving them more conclusively than “anything” I have seen or confronted in the ring so far.

            B: I might add that your sense of your points being evaded was a simple enough observation and yet the flowery diatribe – whilst perhaps entertaining – took away from the main point.

            TBM: What flowery diatribe?

            B: Everyone teaches the thought system they identify with – bar none. If you rubbish the person you validate their defences – which then also override their possible willingness to communicate the issue. No?

            TBM: No. If a person is serving up rubbish, I will directly rubbish them. If they see me doing the same, they will act accordingly. I look for logical convincing rational reasoning in all cases … both from myself, and those whose mutterings I classify as rubbish. If they are gaming me (i.e. just getting under my skin), I let them and I don’t run away. I keep holding their feet to the fire. Most have to change their alias as a result. I never change my alias and use my real identity where possible.

            For someone to say “gold is money”, especially when they back up the statement with “it has been such for thousands of years”, my dander gets up. That’s religion … plain and simple.

            For someone responds to my objection that there is only 1oz of gold per person on earth (less than 2 months rent) so it can never be money … and I get, “you just change the value of gold” … I admit … I go ballistic. And they run away as fast as they can when I give them the “tide raises all boats” argument … just like raising the minimum wage. It’s disgusting. The line has never failed to go dead at that point … usually with them first declaring themselves the winner and me no longer worth their valuable time as I’m just “not going to get it”.

            Go figure..

          • Mstrjack

            TBM, you make a good point. The meanings of words are critical in order to properly discuss topics.

            I have always understood “capitalism” to mean using resources to mine, grow, and sew valuable products.

            Please prove how capitalism is “two years”.

            Also, I gained the “right” to my life at conception. When I die, I don’t lose my right to life, I simply lose my life; even if I don’t defend them I still have my rights. I just don’t get to enjoy them.

          • You were conscious at conception?
            perhaps in some way that you cannot from your current sense of self recall, you were.
            The terms ‘my life’ can mean all sorts of things – not least of which is a sense of possession – but if we run off with a false framing, are we in fact possessed?
            Society – others – give us the right to live by recognizing and embracing us as one with them. Generally speaking.
            If aborted or miscarrying, the right may be withheld or held in posthumous grief as a life that did not come to be.

            Using money to make money at the expense or disregard of others is different from using capital to set up in business for the provision of goods and services that meet a human need and are therefore valued enough to generate support for one’s business and those who work it.
            And of course propagating false ideas and associations in order to corrupt and substitute true needs with dependencies of a captive market and negative result is marketing to and for a false sense of need that sucks wealth and life out of others in return for sickness, isolation, war and false identity.

            What a thing is – may be deduced by the use to which it is put.

            As I give so shall I receive – so as I extend the rights of a true sense of worth – for your being and not as a transaction or comparative evaluation – so shall I be in receipt. You might rubbish what I see and accord me no worth but ridicule – but I have what I give – while you have your own reward.

            If you lose your life I’m sure you will find it turns up somewhere! How exactly do you have it? And if the sense of ‘I’ that believes it ‘has it’ is replaced by a perspective that the exclusive focus within it, previously denied your awareness, are you – or was that a part of you that you took as the whole?

            The meanings of words and definitions make all the difference to how we frame our experience. Generally humans ascribe to themselves powers they have never possessed – and lose sight of power they inherently are.

            The power of a wish, a desire – can motivate and shape one’s whole life – but as the saying goes – be careful what you wish for. The desire to be more than we are creates the experience of lack. But of course we can grow more conscious and appreciative of what and who we are.
            A sense of lack can also grow to its logical conclusion – of non-existence or death. But can you undo or finally lose the fact that you are receiving a quality of awareness through which you have consciousness of life?

            “It’s Life Jim – but not as we know it!” said Bones.
            (But he means conceive, define, perceive and agree – for truly knowing life IS life.

          • B: Using money to make money at the expense or disregard of others is
            different from using capital to set up in business for the provision of
            goods and services that meet a human need and are therefore valued
            enough to generate support for one’s business and those who work it.

            TBM: When money is obviously and provably (I can do it in less than 300 words) “an in-process promise to complete a trade”; and when anyone who has money (which they created or obtained through trade) has wealth with which they may immediately buy a drill press, a lathe, or a floor plan of inventory … or anything else someone claims is capital, even if you think there is a difference in the two, there is clearly no distinction. One exchanges freely for the other if you have have not been duped in your trade (i.e. bought a drill press that won’t make a hole).

            When you make a false assertion and get called on it … with a demonstration illustrating its failures, you cannot proceed with your story until you set it straight, one way or another.

          • I do not agree with you. Money is created by debt – with a promise to repay also accounted as a deposit. Trade doesn’t have to come into the creation of money. Money as it operates in our world is debt.
            Borrowing on debt to buy up and asset strip – for example is not the same as borrowing money to buy or set up a responsible business. If you don’t see responsibility in business – then you don’t see anything but exploitation and disregard for others as the outsourcing of your own consequences onto others and we will find no agreement here.

            So those who ‘have’ the most money tend to service the most debt – for they use money to make money – generating a flow-through that grows in capacity to borrow and spend. By this they also become captive to financial overlords.

            Your point did not address the two – but only the purchase of capital goods. I saw no such demonstration as you claim. You are hasty to make claims for yourself against others when you could simply enjoy communication.

          • B: I do not agree with you.

            TBM: Here’s the thumbnail sketch. Read it carefully and be prepared to poke holes in what is irrefutable logic if you think you can. Otherwise, change your thinking because what I describe here “is a proof”

            First, examining trade: (1) Negotiation; (2) Promise to deliver; (3) Delivery. In simple barter exchange, (2) and (3) happen simultaneous on-the-spot. Money is an invention by traders themselves to enable simple barter exchange over time and space. Thus money is “obviously an in-process promise to deliver on a trade”. And an in-process promise to deliver is obviously “a debt” … so all money is debt … and there’s absolutely nothing remarkable about that fact.

            A “proper” MOE process recognizes this. It knows “traders create money” … not banks … not governments. The process openly and non-anonymously documents the contracts creating the money … it’s public information open to all to see and scrutinize; it monitors for delivery as promised; it immediately mitigates defaults by interest collections of like amount. This (1) guarantees perpetual zero inflation of the MOE itself; (2) rewards responsible traders with zero interest load; (3) weeds out deadbeats with heavy interest loads; (4) money is always freely created by traders … everywhere; (5) money exists only for in-process trading promises. None obviously exists before creation; none exists after return and destruction or reclamation of defaults through like interest collections and destruction. Thus, zero inflation guarantees are validated for “all” money creation.

            Now, with that in mind, I will handle your reply. All you have to do to refute my reply is to find a defect in the proof I have just given.

            B: Money is created by debt –

            TBM: Correct

            B: with a promise to repay also accounted as a deposit.

            TBM: Incorrect. Try to support that assertion.

            B: Trade doesn’t have to come into the creation of money.

            TBM: Correct. Further, it can use money without creating it. Further, almost all simple object exchanges on-the-spot has money as one of the objects being exchanged.

            B: Money as it operates in our world is debt.

            TBM: Correct. That is true in “all” worlds regardless of how governments and capitalists co-opt the process. Capitalists demand tribute on all money created by traders … and on most trades even when the traders are just using existing money. Capitalist call this interest and arrive at its amount by black magic called LIBOR. Governments create money just like other traders .. but they never deliver. They just roll over their trading promises and that is default … perpetual defaulting is counterfeiting. That’s where inflation comes from … not from capitalists parasitic interest claims.

            B: Borrowing on debt to buy up and asset strip – for example is not the same as borrowing money to buy or set up a responsible business.

            TBM: “Borrowing” and its opposite “loaning” are contrivances of capitalists co-opting traders’ invention of money. “Creation” is the only proper term … and it is “always” done by traders. Whey you buy a house with 360 equal payments, you created the money the contractor receives for his house. You return and destroy the money you created as promised until you have returned “all” of it. It’s just that simple. Anyone can be a money creating trader, though most of us only do so in buying houses, cars, and major appliances. Some of us are smart enough never to create it to obtain depreciating assets. With a proper MOE process, that wisdom is out the window … and justly so.

            B: If you don’t see responsibility in business – then you don’t see anything but exploitation and disregard for others as the outsourcing of your own consequences onto others and we will find no agreement here.

            TBM: Money and traders’ responsibility is certainly not confined to the business domain. When you trade for an education, you aren’t in the business domain (as I assume you use the term).

            B: So those who ‘have’ the most money tend to service the most debt – for they use money to make money – generating a flow-through that grows in capacity to borrow and spend.

            TBM: Only works with our current “improper” MOE process. With a proper process guaranteeing zero inflation, that doesn’t work at all. And with all traders free to create money anytime the see clear to delivering on the promise that entails, people having money … hoarding money … saving money … none of that is of import at all. The supply and demand for money is in perpetual perfect balance (it’s the nature of every trade). Money never loses value (contrasted with our “improper” process that loses 2% annually by design and 4% annually in practice).

            B: By this they also become captive to financial overlords.

            TBM: And so by instituting proper MOE processes we neuter them.

            B: Your point did not address the two – but only the purchase of capital goods.

            TBM: I don’t know what point you refer to. But the proper MOE process I refer needs make no distinction between capital goods and otherwise … and it requires “no” reserves.

            B: I saw no such demonstration as you claim. You are hasty to make claims for yourself against others when you could simply enjoy communication.

            TBM: Not much haste in this reply. In fact I defy you to find haste in any of my replies, other than my opening reply to assertions I know to be false and can back up if challenged. Try me.

            In this very instance, I have blown away “all” of your assertions except the obvious truism … money is debt.

          • Mstrjack

            I don’t see how consciousness has anything to do with inalienable rights.

            I have as much of a right to my life as an oak tree or a lion. Rights are not granted by humans. Rights are granted by the creator of life.

            Do you deny that a lion has a right to live on Earth? How about a tree? Do plants and animals have a right to live here on Earth? If not, why not?

          • Is not the word ‘right’ redundant in such instances?
            Rights – as a human legal – can be ‘given’ or extended to others, to animals or to plants – and then a process of law invoked for the defence of such rights – or a process of revision for a change of such rights.

            If we have rights from our Creator – then they are the extension of the Creator Will …AS US.

            We may claim and defend a right to deny and redefine our Natural Inheritance as if it is our power by right and claim that is granted by a redefined creator god who we then call on as justification. This occurs within the right to imagine and accept anything you want – without limit or censor – but with consequence from which to recognize the nature of your thinking. Without free will – is NO will – only blind mechanism of no creative power.

            The resonance of the qualities of Life within me naturally move to extend as they are received. In this the gratitude for being extends to other beings as a recognition of Life in all. So the basis of ‘rights’ is in the recognition of Worth – as I see it. Where the corruption of rights is in the protection of the grievance at the expense of real communication – such a ‘right’ not to be offended – which gives power to the offence and denies true correction or resolution.

            The capacity to recognize one’s self in another – and in existence, is not the projection of lack, frailty or invalidity upon the other as powerplay over them in guise of a sympathy. You have the right to a true awareness of your being – and if I try and mess with that – I mess up my own – while you are still free NOT to join with false suggestion.
            So I don’t ‘give you that right – your being does – but in sharing it – we grow it – AS our capacity for conscious awareness.

            Everything in your life – lives in You. (As You do in Everything). Now and always – and yet the unfolding experience of this life is a rich experience of discovery and challenge through which your grow.
            This is a reversal of the claim that God is not living or being You along with All That Is – but you are alone and complete in yourself and a power unto yourself – for in that exclusive sense of yourself you are as if separate – protect that separateness as your life – from a sense of threat that will snuff it out or overwhelm you.

            We may claim divine right – or any other kind of rights – but do we need to justify, defend or apologize for what we are?

            No one has the right to override another’s will – but that does not mean that two or more cannot conspire to deny their own will in attempt to possess or control the other – and thereby become to all intents and purposes possessed and controlled by another. But behind all the layers of deceits and pretences, is the true being that is extended to you as your Creation – which is not the same as your physical personality existence – but embraces you here because nothing true is rejected.

            The desire to judge good and ill in ones own image covers up the capacity to discern the true from the false. The key then is to want to know the true from the false rather than persist in a false claim that cannot be defended – so much as sacrificed to.

            Perhaps this is mostly unintelligible to you at this moment in time, but it is simply my response and not argument at all. If anything stirs your own insight or interest – then it is your insight from which to live as you feel moved.

            No one can ‘give’ to an unwillingness to receive – but the willingness to give is the willingness to receive – and so I don’t see ‘rights’ as a leverage to engineer a ‘better world’. I do feel to check the wrongs that deny the whole so as to inflate and gratify the ego of the ‘separated’ part – and part of that is according equal rights to the protection of the law as it serves the health and wholeness of us each and all. Otherwise we trash our own humanity when we trash others and indeed, our living Planet.

            So I don’t trash myself – that presence is open to participate in positive integrative ways rather than what inevitably comes from a self-rejecting script.
            Being in my ‘right mind’ is the opposite of being right against another’s wrong – which is pale substitute unworthy by comparison. One rest in self-honesty, the other seeks self validation at expense of another.

            I do not limit myself to the physical framing of life – but of course I embrace the miracle of experiencing life in such terms. I dont feel there is anything mysterious to our Universal or Source connection and support – excepting a desire for secrecy cloaks itself in symbols myths and mysteries by which to associate with a nebulous sense of specialness in scarcity – so as to ‘own and control’ the Temple – or in modern terms the Template by which we interpret perception.

            As I see it we are supported in purpose and when that purpose is no longer active – the thoughts acts and behaviours pertaining to that purpose are no longer supported. Change. Obviously the qualities to the gestalt or field in which we are conscious are pertaining to the capacity to feel them – which is not the verbal mental mind I am using to clothe meanings with words. It is a truly open consciousness. Purpose as I used it here is Spirit or the Movement of Being that we can assert narrative over as if to ‘lord it’ or judge – but are absolutely dependent upon and truly, are one with.

            If there was something you sought that you did not feel met – try restating it. But an expanded perspective transforms or even dissolves our question. Which does not make it an ‘answer’ in terms of the problem – but rather a condition of clarity in which the problem does not exist or have meaning in the terms set.

          • M: TBM, you make a good point. The meanings of words are critical in order to properly discuss topics.

            TBM: Thank you. I’m sorry you put it in the singular. In an open discussion you can’t “define” every term before you use it. Those words and concepts that are the point of discussion or support it, you should at least address in meaning and/or import … or be able to defend them when challenged … and I do.

            M: I have always understood “capitalism” to mean using resources to mine, grow, and sew valuable products.

            TBM: I doubt that you have “always” understood that. You were probably led to believe that implicitly by someone or some organization and never thought about it at all … let alone to challenge it.

            Let me give you an obvious and real life instance of how so-called capital is created and how one becomes a capitalist. Let’s see how it fits into your understanding. I will do it in my answer to your next question.

            M: Please prove how capitalism is “two years”.

            TBM: Proof that capitalism is “two years”.

            You are a crony (i.e. someone gives you a privilege not granted to all) who is invited to “create” a bank. You put in $1M and get the privilege of “blessing” traders’ creation of money (i.e. promises to complete trades over time and space). Your privilege is limited to 10x what you put in plus 10x what depositors entrust to you … which again, you have the crony granted “right” to take … in this case the crony is the “government” which your collection of cronies has instituted for that and other defenses of their claims.

            You then bless (you call it loaning) traders’ creation of money … and in the process deceive them into believing it is “you”, not “they”, who create money. For illustration, you charge 6% interest and pay the savers 2% giving you a 4% spread.

            That 4% multiplied by your 10x leverage gives you a 40% return on “your” money … plus an infinite return on your savers’ money.

            Just considering your money, in two years at 40% your $1M is now $2M. You take “your” original $1M back off the table leaving “none” of your skin in the game. You leave the other $1M to ride, with its gains, indefinitely. In 20 years it is over $800M. In 40 years (a typical professional career) it is a whopping $700 billion.

            You and your cronies call that capital and yourselves capitalists. Yet you have absolutely no skin in the game. Proof positive, capitalism is “at best” two years … and it’s obviously “all” crony.

            M: Also, I gained the “right” to my life at conception. When I die, I don’t lose my right to life, I simply lose my life; even if I don’t defend them I still have my rights. I just don’t get to enjoy them.

            TBM: Only if you are clueless about what a right is … obviously it is “a defended claim”. At or before conception you can neither make the claim nor defend it. You’re not even close to doing either for at least 10 or 12 years after conception … if you survive.

            And the idea that you “don’t” have a right to life before conception but do have it after death is really a ridiculous state of thought … or absence of same.

            At best, the right comes from a claim by your mother. The defense comes from republicans who use it as a wedge issue against the democrats to always deliver a close horse race at election time … so the election can easily be gamed.

            Wake up and smell the coffee … think!

          • Mark Baumann

            You really have no idea what Capitalism is.
            You have just described a fascist process in a society of forced fiat. THAT IS NOT CAPITALISM. Some call it crony capitalism, maybe that is your error.

          • MB: You really have no idea what Capitalism is.
            TBM: So give me the idea you think you have.

            MB:You have just described a
            fascist process in a society of forced fiat. THAT IS NOT CAPITALISM.

            TBM: You’re not going to give anyone a clue about what “you” thinking capitalism is by saying what it is not.

            MB: Some call it crony capitalism, maybe that is your error.
            TBM: All capitalism claims of instances are demonstrably crony. If you disagree, give a single instance where that is not the case. I make no error. And you make a worse than poor judge.

          • Mstrjack

            When I was a young boy on the farm, we grew crops, livestock, and a garden. The crops, livestock, and garden products we produced were the “capital” we earned from the fruits of our labor. We sold the excess on the market.

            We used some of our earnings to purchase coal mined from the nearby coal fields to fuel our furnace in the winter. We used some of our earnings to buy materials so Mom could sew some of our clothes. We bought equipment and vehicles to help us produce more efficiently.

            That’s Capitalism. Free voluntary exchange in the marketplace by growing, mining, and sewing (making things).

          • M: When I was a young boy on the farm, we grew crops, livestock, and a garden. The crops, livestock, and garden products we produced were the “capital” we earned from the fruits of our labor. We sold the excess on the market.

            TBM: More accurately, you traded the excess for “money” … “an in-process promise to complete a trade”.

            M: We used some of our earnings to purchase coal mined from the nearby coal fields to fuel our furnace in the winter.

            TBM: Again … with money, created by you or another trader (not by a bank, not by a government) to enable simple barter exchange over time and space.

            M: We used some of our earnings to buy materials so Mom could sew some of our clothes. We bought equipment and vehicles to help us produce more efficiently.

            TBM: So evidently there was none left to put under a rock for a rainy day? With a proper MOE process it would never lose value; with our purposely “improper” process it has lost 96%+ of it’s value in just 100 years.

            M: That’s Capitalism. Free voluntary exchange in the marketplace by growing, mining, and sewing (making things).

            TBM: Oh really? Boy do you have lots of introspection to do. In reality it’s just simple barter over time and space facilitated by money (invented by traders, the units of which should be the HUL … Hour of Unskilled Labor … a HUL has produced the same size hole in the ground over all history … that can’t be said for gold). In our “improper” MOE process with its goal of a 2% leak, and actuality of a 4% leak (it’s called inflation of the MOE itself) and capitalist imposed interest loads on “all” trades, you have been continually fleeced.

            If you run the numbers, 75% of the fruits of your labor now, you never see. Your freedom is just in the 25% that you yourself are free to deploy … and you better do it fast because there is a purposeful 4% annual leak in the bucket that “funds” governments. It’s caused by their perpetual counterfeiting. The 75% taken in taxes goes straight to capitalists as demanded tribute. They are parasites all.

            “Free voluntary exchange”? … surely you fantasize. It’s very very expensive exchange.

          • Don Duncan

            Everything voluntarily done to further the “business of life” is a form of capitalism. Violence, threat thereof, fraud, is not capitalism. It is anti-life, unsustainable, and self destructive.

          • DD: Everything voluntarily done to further the “business of life” is a form
            of capitalism.

            TBM: Oh really? So that’s the distinction you see between capitalism and communism? How about this comment from a communist: “They pretend to work and we pretend to pay them”. Sounds pretty voluntary to me.

            DD: Violence, threat thereof, fraud, is not capitalism. It is
            anti-life, unsustainable, and self destructive.

            TBM: Are you making this up as you go along? Is this a “normative” model you’re presenting in fits and starts? A figment of your own imagination? Would this exclude bankers and banks from the ranks of capitalists? Everything they do is overt constraint on “the business of life”. By your account, life as a hermit is not capitalism, right? How would I distinguish capitalism from a kumquat with this kind of help?

          • Don Duncan

            Yes, really. Communism starts out voluntarily, in all the experimental communal communes but quickly falls apart as people begin to argue about the details of execution. The theory does not fulfill the promise. At this point, the theory should be examined, especially its fundamental basis. That is rarely done. (The Plymouth Colony was an exception.) A ruler emerges (Our Glorious Leader?) who dictates using violence, threat thereof, fraud. Choice is sacrificed for the dream of a social utopia and individualism is sacrificed to collectivism. An elite of thugs enforces “the public will” as divined by “dear leader”. Conformity is rewarded, disaffection punished. All activity not mandatory is prohibited.

            Social activity in the private sector is either commercial or non-commercial. If choice is valued, non-commercial is marked by civil liberty, and commercial is free enterprise, capitalism. Private is not always non-violent, but where it is not, it is not tolerated, as seen by past private adjudication, shunning, banishment and various social mechanisms designed to minimize violence. In a statist (public sector) mentality, choice is eliminated or exists de facto. All capitalism is de facto (black/grey market). All regulated business is a form of socialism called fascism.
            This is accepted as a necessary evil and some criticism is allowed to give the false impression of democracy, but the reality is, rulers rule, the ruled obey regardless of injustice or unfairness or impracticality for them. But the vast majority do not acknowledge their self enslavement, in fact deny it. When informed of the hell of their own making they may say: “Are you making this up as you go along?…A figment of your imagination?” Most will perish before they will choose to acknowledge “the matrix”.

          • DD: Yes, really. Communism starts out voluntarily, in all the experimental communal communes but quickly falls apart as people begin to argue about the details of execution. The theory does not fulfill the promise.

            TBM: So it starts out voluntarily … when it starts out voluntarily. Profound. Doesn’t cover the Bolshevik revolution case though. Doesn’t cover the Amish. Doesn’t cover the Quakers.

            DD: At this point, the theory should be examined, especially its fundamental basis. That is rarely done.

            TBM: Was a theory asserted somewhere? Did I miss it?

            DD: (The Plymouth Colony was an exception.)

            TBM: So what you write next is the “rule”, not the case of the Mayflower Compact.

            DD: A ruler emerges (Our Glorious Leader?) who dictates using violence, threat thereof, fraud. Choice is sacrificed for the dream of a social utopia and individualism is sacrificed to collectivism. An elite of thugs enforces “the public will” as divined by “dear leader”. Conformity is rewarded, disaffection punished. All activity not mandatory is prohibited.

            TBM: And just how does that differ from the glorious capitalism we enjoy in the good ole USA?

            B: Social activity in the private sector is either commercial or non-commercial. If choice is valued, non-commercial is marked by civil liberty, and commercial is free enterprise, capitalism.

            TBM: As opposed to crony capitalism, right? Do banks of any kind exist in “free enterprise capitalism”? If so, how when they all are created and sustained through cronies?

            B” Private is not always non-violent, but where it is not, it is not tolerated, as seen by past private adjudication, shunning, banishment and various social mechanisms designed to minimize violence.

            TBM: You distinguished between commercial and non-commercial. I would expect discussion (implication) of that here. Does it come later? That one sentence you gave was full COIK.

            B: In a statist (public sector) mentality, choice is eliminated or exists de facto. All capitalism is de facto (black/grey market). All regulated business is a form of socialism called fascism.

            TBM: So no “regulated business” is found in capitalism … should we be referring to it as “proper” capitalism (which we can find no instance of anywhere … like the communists claim for their instances)?

            B: This is accepted as a necessary evil and some criticism is allowed to give the false impression of democracy, but the reality is, rulers rule, the ruled obey regardless of injustice or unfairness or impracticality for them.

            TBM: Wait a minute. What is a “true” impression of democracy. Democracy involving over 50 people is false on its face. Democracy can’t work with more than 50 people. Use your words carefully and thoughtfully. Don’t just regurgitate the myopic dogma.

            B: But the vast majority do not acknowledge their self enslavement, in fact deny it. When informed of the hell of their own making they may say: “Are you making this up as you go along?…A figment of your imagination?” Most will perish before they will choose to acknowledge “the matrix”.

            TBM: My reference to “making it up as you go along” was your strain in explaining just what “proper” capitalism is. I gave it a concise definition of “two years” and supported that … and proved it. What have you done in that regard? Reading you, my perception of what you think or know is totally mushy.

            Regarding freedom, I repeatedly make the point that one is not free when 75% of the fruits of their labor are taken from them without them ever seeing them … and in most cases used against their best interests. That is our case in the good ole USA. I ask, if 75% is still freedom, is 100% also freedom? As far as I’m concerned, I’m not satisfied to give up 10% to others choices. I prefer to pay for everything as I choose it and use it … period!

          • Mstrjack

            Who is “B”?

            At first you were replying to DD. Then you changed it to “B”. Are you working for the CIA?

            Your definition of “capitalism” reeks of CIA obfuscation.

          • M: Who is “B”?

            TBM: Binra.

            M: At first you were replying to DD. Then you changed it to “B”. Are you working for the CIA?

            TBM: DD is Don Duncan.

            No. I am retired. I would never take any work with a government … ever. What you have detected is a clerical error on my part. I copy the text I am replying to into an editor. I abbreviate the other party at the beginning of the copy, and then use that abbreviation (and mine) to separate the dialog thereafter. I evidently made a clerical error. I really pay little (actually no) attention to “who” I am responding to … I just pay attention to the “what”.

            M: Your definition of “capitalism” reeks of CIA obfuscation.

            TBM: The “two year” definition? It’s obvious and provable. How can it reek? Give me a link to an instance of the CIA obfuscation you refer to.

          • Don Duncan

            The Bolsheviks and Cubans are both examples of how a voluntary belief system can slowly change into a coercive one. The Amish/Quakers use early indoctrination to brainwash. These superstitions rely not on choice, but on ignorance of choice. Their victims become parents who in turn victimize their children, and are oblivious to the harm they do.
            The collectivist theory is based on the primacy of the group over the individual, as if the group was not an abstract but a concrete which has a superior moral standing, which could justify sacrifice of the individual. But the group is not a concrete, it is a fluid, changing abstract, made up of concrete individuals, e.g., the sacrifice of the individual is in principle to sacrifice the group. If the individual is not safe, the group is unstable, unsustainable.
            “…the glorious capitalism we enjoy…”??? Didn’t I say the state is violence, that capitalism is economic freedom? They can’t exist together, except in a mixed economy, where capitalism is de facto, not explicit, not sanctioned. “Crony capitalism” is as I said before, fascism, i.e., the state & business partnership, NOT economic freedom.
            Banking, if free, is an asset. If regulated, a scam, allowing exploitation. It’s the same with every sector of the economy. Since every sector varies in the amount of regulation it suffers, some produce better than others, the electronic sector being quite innovative and that is because it grows/changes faster than the bureaucrats can regulate.
            If by “proper capitalism” you mean pure capitalism, unregulated capitalism, then yes, it does not exist.
            “Democracy can’t work with more than 50 people.”? It can’t work, period. Truth is not a social convention, arrived at by voting.
            Definitions can’t be “proven”, only made concise and not contradictory. What part of economic freedom don’t you understand? If any violence, threat thereof, of fraud is present, then it’s not capitalism, it’s not voluntary. You don’t “perceive” that, you conceive it.
            “…when…fruits of their labor are taken…” the % is not relevant. It is a form of theft. If it is institutional, it is slavery. And that is the case worldwide. Our planet is a vast prison of our own making, except for the few of us who resist. From your last paragraph I assume we agree.

          • DD: The Bolsheviks and Cubans are both examples of how a voluntary belief system can slowly change into a coercive one. The Amish/Quakers use early indoctrination to brainwash. These superstitions rely not on choice, but on ignorance of choice. Their victims become parents who in turn victimize their children, and are oblivious to the harm they do.

            TBM: It’s hard to think of a household where that is not the case. I know of no kids who have been raised “right” yet!

            DD: The collectivist theory is based on the primacy of the group over the individual, as if the group was not an abstract but a concrete which has a superior moral standing, which could justify sacrifice of the individual. But the group is not a concrete, it is a fluid, changing abstract, made up of concrete individuals, e.g., the sacrifice of the individual is in principle to sacrifice the group. If the individual is not safe, the group is unstable, unsustainable.

            TBM: Ok, if you say so. It’s of no interest to me. I hate seeing this nonsense described as a “theory”.

            DD: “…the glorious capitalism we enjoy…”??? Didn’t I say the state is violence, that capitalism is economic freedom?

            TBM: If you did, it has no more meaning the second time than it did the first.

            DD: They can’t exist together, except in a mixed economy, where capitalism is de facto, not explicit, not sanctioned.

            TBM: “They”? What is they? violence and economic freedom? Or the state and capitalism? When did that become the issue we were talking about?

            TBM: Isn’t it about time you defined capitalism?

            DD: “Crony capitalism” is as I said before, fascism, i.e., the state & business partnership, NOT economic freedom.

            TBM: Are you making it up? There is a precise definition of fascism, and I stated it earlier. I’m still asking for an instance of capitalism without cronies. Why haven’t you yet presented one? Give me an instance of capitalism that didn’t institute the state. Give me an instance where the state existed before capitalism or communism or any other ism.

            DD: Banking, if free, is an asset. If regulated, a scam, allowing exploitation.

            TBM: Free as in “you don’t pay anything for it?” Or free in “you don’t have to do it if you don’t want to?” An asset in the accounting sense or in the “not a detriment” sense? Is a bank regulated if technology allows everyone to view in real time exactly what is going on within it? (i.e. traders creating money through promises; recording of promise; reporting of delivery on promises; reporting of defaults; reporting of default mitigation with interest collections; deliver on trading promises and destruction of money created … all in real time … all without anonymity … all with open history … real time proof DEFAULT=INTEREST … would you call that regulation?). In other words is “sunshine” regulation, or is dictating of knob twisting regulation?

            DD: It’s the same with every sector of the economy. Since every sector varies in the amount of regulation it suffers, some produce better than others, the electronic sector being quite innovative and that is because it grows/changes faster than the bureaucrats can regulate.

            TBM: The economy obviously comes before the regulation, right? And the government is the regulator, right? And our government was instituted and is maintained by the capitalists, right? So regulation is inevitable with maturity, right? Do you have the antidote?

            DD: If by “proper capitalism” you mean pure capitalism, unregulated capitalism, then yes, it does not exist.

            TBM: I know of only one form of capitalism, and it is crony by its very nature … by its very instantiation. I described it. I proved it … in unambiguous terms. It is “two years” and doesn’t start without cronies. You say pure (what is impure); you say unregulated (how can it be unregulated and be an ism of any kind?)

            DD: “Democracy can’t work with more than 50 people.”? It can’t work, period. Truth is not a social convention, arrived at by voting.

            TBM: So how do people agree to cooperate? If 49 agree and 50 are needed (e.g. to build a road), what do you do? Don’t build the road I guess. Surely you’re not going to get a different result going another way. Regardless, 800,000 voting in a beauty contest (actually best liars contest) can’t work on its face … yet we call ourselves a free democracy.

            DD: Definitions can’t be “proven”, only made concise and not contradictory. What part of economic freedom don’t you understand?

            TBM: I don’t know? What part of the Pythagorean theorem and the principle of proof don’t you understand? That’s not a definition … it is a reality. I “describe” a proper MOE process. I don’t define it. And I give proof of its workings … I don’t speculate on them. As described, it can deliver other result.

            DD: If any violence, threat thereof, of fraud is present, then it’s not capitalism, it’s not voluntary.

            TBM: So an attribute of capitalism is “it is voluntary”. Ice cream is too. Have you moved the ball down the field at all?

            DD: You don’t “perceive” that, you conceive it.
            “…when…fruits of their labor are taken…” the % is not relevant. It is a form of theft. If it is institutional, it is slavery. And that is the case worldwide.

            TBM: The smaller the %, the more likely less theft is involved don’t you think? You’re being evasive. You’re like squeezing on a wet bar of soap. Nothing can come of this conversation with you doing that. Is the alternative no taxes … pay for everything “I” use directly? Pay for nothing “I” don’t use? I’m ok with that. Are you?

            DD: Our planet is a vast prison of our own making, except for the few of us who resist.

            TBM: And when did we make it that? Cavemen do it? Are you and me part of the “we”?

            DD: From your last paragraph I assume we agree.

            TBM: I was genuinely looking for a way to agree. I came away empty. I got a lot of what capitalism is not … but I got none of what it “is”. I have asserted and proved what it actually is. It has nothing to do with fascism. It has everything to do with being rooted in cronies. It is just communism in a different uniform … playing for the same franchise. Go back and look at what you have written and see if I don’t correctly characterize this interchange.

            If you had a clean slate and a clean planet, would you institute capitalism? Would you have it institute government? If so, describe that capitalism (especially without cronies) and that government (especially with freedom). And if you can’t, wouldn’t, won’t what are you left with? It’s “your” clean slate. You can’t be evasive. You have no constraints. If you duck this one, you are a simple avoider like the rest.

      • FEEuser

        “little difference between capitalism and socialism (communism)”?

        Surely you jest! Have you read nothing by Mises? Try this:

        “A man who chooses between drinking a glass of milk and a glass of a solution of potassium cyanide does not choose between two beverages; he chooses between life and death. A society that chooses between capitalism and socialism does not choose between two social systems; it chooses between social cooperation and the disintegration of society. Socialism is not an alternative to capitalism; it is an alternative to any system under which men can live as human beings.” Human Action, p. 676.

        • FEE: “little difference between capitalism and socialism (communism)”?

          Surely you jest! Have you read nothing by Mises? Try this:

          TBM: I’ve read lots of Mises. If there is anyone who took the wrong fork in the road, it is Mises. One case in point: Mises agonizes over why traders make trades and at what price as he tries to describe money. A “proper” MOE process cares not at all about either. Money is “an in-process promise to complete a trade”. It is demonstrable. It is provable. It has always been so, is no, and forever will be. It comes “after” the negotiation phase of the trading process and cares not at all about the negotiation phase.

          FEE: “A man who chooses between drinking a glass of milk and a glass of a solution of potassium cyanide does not choose between two beverages; he chooses between life and death.

          TBM: Maybe not, but a man who chooses between alcohol and cocain does choose between two mind altering drugs. So what?

          FEE: A society that chooses between capitalism and socialism do es not choose between two social systems; it chooses between social cooperation and the disintegration of society.

          TBM: A fan who chooses to cheer for the Washington Generals to beat the Harlem Globe Trotters isn’t paying attention. They work for the same guy … it’s just a show.

          You have been dupped. The USA is far more socialistic now than when I started my career 50 years ago … with us paying over 75% in taxes (and all that going to capitalists in the form of tribute they call interest), we are now virtually socialists.

          Russia is far more capitalistic now than when I starterd my career. Communism tends toward capitalism … and vice versa … and both instituted the same kind of governments to sustain themselves. The trinity: communism, capitalism, government.

          FEE: Socialism is not an alternative to capitalism; it is an alternative to any system under which men can live as human beings.” Human Action, p. 676.

          TBM: Mises and his “Human Action” are irrelevant. Try reality to see what is really going on. Mises Monks think gold is money, yet there is only 1oz per person on earth … less than 2 month’s rent. How in the world can that be money … even if it did possess the absolutely necessary attribute of money, that being perpetual perfect balance between supply and demand for the money itself… theyby guaranteeing zero inflation. Gold can’t do that. If people buy into the Mises nonsense and get it instituted, we are quickly out of the frying pan and into the fire.

          • I see a concept of individualism being reinforced and reinforcing a concept of collectivism. A concept is not a true foundation – but is a derivative value that may or may not align with or embody its face value or represent a split or hidden agenda.
            I see such split thinking operates a substitution for a true intimacy of observation, discernment, recognition and acting from a shared sense of worth. In other words a currency of apparent communication that operates to block, limit or distort communication.
            Without a true currency of worth or indeed integrity – there is no foundation for communication – except as a struggle of power in ruse and deceits.
            Conceptual models of anything living by definition are not alive – and yet of course once baited into identifying in them, we give them our life.
            But a lie has to use something true to hide in or pass off as – and so there is a baby in the bathwater of this-ism or that-ism – but not as an idol to sacrifice life to – so much as a recognition of life in the movement of our being – which embraces all of these apparently competing polarities – and yet is more than any or all of them.
            The mind in conceptual identity becomes identified in tool – along with the original purpose that brought the tool into use. However, a tool can be re-purposed or serve a different purpose – and if we want to we can use concepts within a purpose of opening or restoring a quality of integrative communication – rather than persist in a segregative movement of oppositional identity – as defined fearfully or in negative terms.

            Our financial system works to dis-incentivize or deny true cultural expressions of humanity – as does our currency of thought or indeed the split-minded division of a false individualism – that can ONLY think in terms of Humpty-Dumpty Land – or the fragmented and conflicted struggle for the King’s men to fit a mistakenly conceptualized reality, together again. That there is Already a movement of being in which and of which communication, learning and growing can and does occur is lost to those who seek to manually replace life with systems of control – because they are in fear of and unconscious of the movement of their own being – except in very specific conditional limitations. For our true nature is generally accorded a negative or invalidated and even hateful value – while the ‘surface intentions’ grow the power to protect from or deny.

            Surface thinking is a mask. If living from and of such a masking – then it is the thinking that is protected against the self-conflicts that the thinking was called forth to override or coral within a narrative continuity. But of course such thinking is only a denial in form of presentation – and yet one we may have invested heavily in surviving in terms of, and so re-invest in the worthless as the scrap of life to cling onto – and therefore defend it as our life with whatever works.

            Identity-conflict is the point of leverage – because we use identity to leverage or conform our being and our experience of it to concepts and systems of control – with truth being the first ‘casualty’.

            But recognition of true is not coercive leverage – though it may be compellingly attractive because the restoration of a sense of connected or shared worth is a true foundation from which to be who you are. And that is partly why the true of us is so denied and defended against – because we WOULD align in it if we truly recognized ourself – and that is framed in terms of loss and fearful penalty by the thinking that disappears in – or yields to a genuine presence – and yet can be given the power to deny it. This is a choice – regardless if it is a hidden choice or unconscious habit.

          • B: I see a concept of individualism being reinforced and reinforcing a concept of collectivism. A concept is not a true foundation – but is a derivative value that may or may not align with or embody its face value or represent a split or hidden agenda.

            TBM: Double-talk. Individualism is not a concept. It is a fabrication for who knows what. We are “all” obviously individuals … and some need less binding with others and/or reality than the norm. So what!

            B: I see such split thinking operates a substitution for a true intimacy of observation, discernment, recognition and acting from a shared sense of worth. In other words a currency of apparent communication that operates to block, limit or distort communication.

            TBM: Double-talk.

            B: Without a true currency of worth or indeed integrity – there is no foundation for communication – except as a struggle of power in ruse and deceits.

            TBM: Double-talk. What are the “units” of your currency? How is it measured? How is it traded? You corrupt the word.

            B: Conceptual models of anything living by definition are not alive – and yet of course once baited into identifying in them, we give them our life.

            TBM: Double-talk.

            B: But a lie has to use something true to hide in or pass off as – and so there is a baby in the bathwater of this-ism or that-ism – but not as an idol to sacrifice life to – so much as a recognition of life in the movement of our being – which embraces all of these apparently competing polarities – and yet is more than any or all of them.

            TBM: Double-talk. Tell me about the “truth” the WTC7 collapse hides in. There was no truth so they had to keep the dupped from even knowing about it … and by my poll have been 94% effective at that. Quite a foundation for democracy isn’t it?

            B: The mind in conceptual identity becomes identified in tool – along with the original purpose that brought the tool into use. However, a tool can be re-purposed or serve a different purpose – and if we want to we can use concepts within a purpose of opening or restoring a quality of integrative communication – rather than persist in a segregative movement of oppositional identity – as defined fearfully or in negative terms.

            TBM: Double-talk. Demonstrate otherwise … please … without more double-talk.

            B: Our financial system works to dis-incentivize or deny true cultural expressions of humanity – as does our currency of thought or indeed the split-minded division of a false individualism – that can ONLY think in terms of Humpty-Dumpty Land – or the fragmented and conflicted struggle for the King’s men to fit a mistakenly conceptualized reality, together again.

            TBM: Double-talk. We obviously have an “improper” Medium of Exchange (MOE) process. It is by design. It would be trivial for us to institute a “proper” process that places zero interest load on traders and “guarantees” perpetual zero inflation of the MOE itself everywhere. Ask me how.

            B: That there is Already a movement of being in which and of which communication, learning and growing can and does occur is lost to those who seek to manually replace life with systems of control – because they are in fear of and unconscious of the movement of their own being – except in very specific conditional limitations. For our true nature is generally accorded a negative or invalidated and even hateful value – while the ‘surface intentions’ grow the power to protect from or deny.

            TBM: Double-talk … in its purest form.

            B: Surface thinking is a mask. If living from and of such a masking – then it is the thinking that is protected against the self-conflicts that the thinking was called forth to override or coral within a narrative continuity. But of course such thinking is only a denial in form of presentation – and yet one we may have invested heavily in surviving in terms of, and so re-invest in the worthless as the scrap of life to cling onto – and therefore defend it as our life with whatever works.

            TBM: Double-talk. What peculiar skill … and so totally refined, it’s beyond belief.

            B: Identity-conflict is the point of leverage – because we use identity to leverage or conform our being and our experience of it to concepts and systems of control – with truth being the first ‘casualty’.

            TBM: Double-talk. Why can’t you say it in understandable terms: You think we should abandon those most necessary terms which are facts of nature: discrimination, profiling, segregation, racism, etc. They cannot be compromised where survival of “all” animal and vegetable species are concerned. It is nature.

            B: But recognition of true is not coercive leverage – though it may be compellingly attractive because the restoration of a sense of connected or shared worth is a true foundation from which to be who you are. And that is partly why the true of us is so denied and defended against – because we WOULD align in it if we truly recognized ourself – and that is framed in terms of loss and fearful penalty by the thinking that disappears in – or yields to a genuine presence – and yet can be given the power to deny it. This is a choice – regardless if it is a hidden choice or unconscious habit.

            TBM: Double-talk. Looks like you have your feet planted firmly in air. How do you live with yourself?

      • Webforager

        Please explain.

        • “Please explain.”

          My additional comments and replies in this thread do just that.

          Show me a single instance of capitalism that doesn’t contain a good dose of communism. Show me a single instance of communism that doesn’t contain a good dose of capitalism. Show be a single instance of either that hasn’t spent its whole existence wobbling toward one or the other … and back again.

          They are like republicans and democrats … a line drawn by the same people for the same purpose … to have a bogeyman to justify their intentions and actions and bring soldiers to their cause … which is self serving self dealing.

          They are, in fact, one and the same.

          • Webforager

            “They are like republicans and democrats … a line drawn by the same
            people for the same purpose … to have a bogeyman to justify their
            intentions and actions and bring soldiers to their cause … which is
            self serving self dealing.”

            Ok… yes, I see your point. I’ve reduced the politicos to group A and group B engaged in defending and imposing their values rationalizing the same authoritarianism. I never thought to apply this reduction to capitalism and communism. It makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.

          • “Ok… yes, I see your point. I’ve reduced the politicos to group A and
            group B engaged in defending and imposing their values rationalizing the
            same authoritarianism. I never thought to apply this reduction to
            capitalism and communism. It makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.”

            You’re welcome. As near as I can tell, at the top (New World Order / Global Warming / Moslem immigration … etc. is Rothschild — Soros is also a puppet).

            Solution: Iterative secession. Let them have their global empire. Let us have our own little space and employ discrimination, segregation, racism, and profiling as nature does throughout the animal and vegetable kingdoms.

            And institute a proper Medium of Exchange (MOE) process which naturally and competitively excludes capitalists, communists, and governments by making them noncompetitive … and has no central control (only central records for money creation and destruction by traders, perpetually open to all for scrutiny). Freedom and free trade abound. Money is in perpetual free supply. Inflation is perpetually zero everywhere. Interest load on responsible traders is zero. Deadbeats are weeded out by natural negative feedback system. Process can be described, with proof in about 300 words. Process can be instituted without authority. Want to see it?

            Defense? Arm and train everyone in our little space and repeatedly practice mobilization (Swiss model)… they may be able to hurt us a little bit … but they can never occupy us … they can never control us.

          • JohnnyZ

            An interesting discussion TBM. Although I find the way you “waged” it too aggressive or unpolite, I think you have some good or correct points:
            1. Capitalism and communism: communism was invented by masonic jews in order to have a controlled opposition to the West in the East. They knew it would not work (for the common people), but they knew it will work for the narrow circle of cadres (the Bolshevik jews). And they intend to use it for the NWO. Now to capitalism – it is clearly perverted and distorted by the above elements that invented communism (and other “fellow travelers”). The question is: did these same people invent the term as a myth or did it exist beforehand? The second question is whether “pure capitalism” can exist at all?(probably not, but a close approximation yes). Third, the latter ideal concept can still be useful as a direction of “travel” of society (we have constantly been moving away from it for 100+ years). But the current controllers are like you describe them – Demopubicans and Republicrats.
            2. Secession, defense: true. It is the opposite of the NWO globalization train.
            3. Money reform: absolutely needed. FRB is a fraud, guarded by the monopoly on force by the state. Now I do not see a problem with having 100% reserve banking with interest. Mises has this correct: interest does not originate in finance, but from a natural time preference of people. Central banks are a kind of insurers / fire brigade of the Ponzi FRB fraud. They are also private organizations.

          • JZ: An interesting discussion TBM. Although I find the way you “waged” it too aggressive or unpolite, I think you have some good or correct points:

            TBM: “Aggressive and impolite”. I’m direct, overt, and politically incorrect where warranted…. and absolutely exhausted by stupid rebuttal and red herring objections. I am disgusted with covert impolite behavior masked by overt politically correct behavior and courtesy. It is a skill I have not mastered (through lack of trying). It is revolting. If I hurts someones feelings … tough … buck up. And nothing is more obscene than a brain dead intellectual regurgitating memorized irrelevant and unworkable dogma and demanding scholarly references in rebuttal (i.e. claiming standing, and rejecting obvious demonstrable arguments for absence of standing).

            JZ: 1. Capitalism and communism: communism was invented by masonic jews in order to have a controlled opposition to the West in the East.

            TBM: As if the cavemen hadn’t tried it first? Nonsense! And there are lots of tribesmen out there that would take your comment as impolite, wouldn’t they … whether you unnecessarily limit them to masons or not. My grandfather and uncle were masons. They were clueless about this subject. They were just traders (e.g. merchants) … getting perpetually screwed by a process they never questioned … because the were educated not to question it.

            JZ: They knew it would not work (for the common people), but they knew it will work for the narrow circle of cadres (the Bolshevik jews).

            TBM: And you call me impolite? I actually don’t give them credit for that kind of cunning. I really think they are hopelessly stupid liars.

            JZ: And they intend to use it for the NWO. Now to capitalism – it is clearly perverted and distorted by the above elements that invented communism (and other “fellow travelers”).

            TBM: Yet I have failed to get any one here or at Zerohedge to give me an instance of capitalism in its pure form … or even a definition of it that stands minimal scrutiny. All have “crony” built in, yet they insist on adding the crony modifier as some kind of distinction. I can “prove” capitalism to be “two years”. What can you do? I can prove it requires cronies. Show where it exists without them.

            JZ: The question is: did these same people invent the term as a myth or did it exist beforehand?

            TBM: You had best define what you think it is before we proceed, don’t you think? I submit “all” these concepts go back to the caveman. The aboriginal Americans certainly represented a broad array of different mixtures of capitalism, communism (and that “never tried in my lifetime though second nature to those indians” … traderism).

            JZ: The second question is whether “pure capitalism” can exist at all?(probably not, but a close approximation yes).

            TBM: He says without mention of how the impurity is defined and detected … or the pure form to begin with. This is like squeezing on a wet bar of soap.

            JZ: Third, the latter ideal concept can still be useful as a direction of “travel” of society (we have constantly been moving away from it for 100+ years). But the current controllers are like you describe them – Demopubicans and Republicrats.

            TBM: And simultaneously communists and capitalists … instituting identical governmental forms. It’s not a direction of travel … it’s the position of at least two pendulums swinging on the same pivot in parallel planes.

            JZ: 2. Secession, defense: true. It is the opposite of the NWO globalization train.

            TBM: Agreement!!! And it worked better than what we have now. (since we have continuously aggregated, we were once at a point of actual secession … that had to be so wonderful). Make enough spaces for people to coalesce any way they choose … and exclude interlopers as they choose … and choose as they choose … and worship myths as they choose … and reject and expel missionaries as they choose.

            JZ: 3. Money reform: absolutely needed.

            TBM: We don’t need to “reform”. We need to “form” and institute in a proper MOE process which is obvious but has never been instituted. We don’t have to touch the existing improper MOE processes. They will wilt on the vine as traders reject them for something far more efficient, economical, scalable, predictable, tamper proof, and fair.

            JZ: FRB is a fraud, guarded by the monopoly on force by the state.

            TBM: Fraud … that’s a pretty charged word. Maybe a little too impolite don’t you think? What part of the FRB could be removed to eliminate the fraud. I know, do you?

            JZ: Now I do not see a problem with having 100% reserve banking with interest.

            TBM: You should if you had a clue about what money is. You would demand 0% reserve, not the 10% we entitle to the elite capitalist cronies now. A proper MOE process needs no reserves. It wouldn’t even know what to do with them. They would serve no purpose whatever.

            JZ: Mises has this correct: interest does not originate in finance, but from a natural time preference of people.

            TBM: Oh really? So inflation can never be zero? Every time I’ve read any Mises, he’s hung up on pricing and why and how people make exchanges. A proper MOE process has no interest in this whatever … nor do traders making the actual exchanges. What’s up with that?

            JZ: Central banks are a kind of insurers / fire brigade of the Ponzi FRB fraud.

            TBM: Are you suggesting insurance is fraud. Early in my career (40+ years ago when usable interactive computer financial models were just becoming practical … before VisiCalc, Lotus 123, Excel, and the rest) I built a model for one of the world’s largest casualty insurers for experimentation by an Executive VP. I’ll never forget: at the foundation of the model was CLAIMS = PREMIUMS. The money is made on the investment income. That is “not” fraud. With a proper MOE, DEFAULTs = INTEREST collections. There is no money to be made … only costs to be attempted to charge the traders (driven down by multiple competitors and minuscule compared to the volume of trading supported).

            JZ:They are also private organizations.

            TBM: A proper MOE process would also be a private organization (probably modeled after a farmer’s co-op or mutual insurance company). There would be innumerable instances of them and a quickly emerging common certification. The certification is simple. They either guarantee and prove DEFAULTS experienced are perpetually and immediately recovered by INTEREST collections or they are not. They either guarantee that all money creating promises are not anonymous, not syndicated, and precisely defined and open to perpetual real time scrutiny by everyone … or they are not..

            TBM: With refinement, “all” would come to see the HUL (Hour of Unskilled Labor) to be the proper unit of measure. It has never changed value in all time. It trades the same sized hole in the ground today as it ever did. You can’t say that about anything else … the dollar and gold for sure can’t say that … even in the last three years.

          • JohnnyZ

            FRB is state licensed counterfeiting for gathering interest on money created out of thin air without proper consideration brought by the bankers. Central banks are private for profit organizations owned by the above bankers who pretend to be public institutions and serve public interest, but they actually serve those former interests. Their major function is to protect the FRB pyramid scheme when it is too overextended. They help perpetrate the reverse Robin Hood scheme.

          • JZ: FRB is state licensed counterfeiting for gathering interest on money created out of thin air without proper consideration brought by the bankers.

            TBM: “All” money is created out of thin air. It is easily demonstrated and proved that “all” money is “an in-process promise to complete a trade”. “All” promises are created out of thin air. A proper MOE process makes all promises equal by “guaranteeing” perfect balance between supply and demand for money. It does this by monitoring for DEFAULTs and immediately recovering them with INTEREST collections of like amount. Otherwise, all money created is returned and destroyed as promised. None exists before the trade; none exists after the trade; period! In the interim, it exchanges as the most sought after object in every simple barter exchange. It enables simple barter exchange to span time and space efficiently and perfectly (i.e. no restraint of trade or loss of interim value).

            Regarding “tribute” demanded by bankers: This is enabled by laws instituted by governments created by capitalists for that and other purposes. It is easily demonstrated that anyone with crony assistance can be a capitalist in two years (after which time said capitalist need have no stake in the game whatever, yet still earns multiples on his two years investment exceeding 800 times (80,000%) in 20 years; 700,000 times in 40 years. That’s why the only model capitalism comes in is “crony”. Ask for proof.

            JZ: Central banks are private for profit organizations owned by the above bankers who pretend to be public institutions and serve public interest, but they actually serve those former interests. Their major function is to protect the FRB pyramid scheme when it is too overextended. They help perpetrate the reverse Robin Hood scheme.

            TBM: Taxation is crucial to the scheme. It “all” goes to capitalists. Governments live exclusively on counterfeiting.

            We can leave the CB and their member banks in place. We can institute a “proper” MOE process which will competitively steal all business from banks and CBs, and eliminate counterfeiting by governments. It requires no reserves whatever (the supposed reason for the CBs). It can happen in less than a year.

            Ask how.

  • Samarami

    This, to me, is incredibly good writing for liberty.

    “…People will settle their quarrels on their own or
    with independent, third-parties as they did for
    thousands of years…”

    Collectivists, however, will always urge individuals to mistrust their friends and fellow individualists. Thus gentlemen with guns to enter the marketplace — which is always the greater danger.

    Sam

  • Loulou

    And then I see this: © 2016 Blacksmith Pte. Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

    • It’s an editorial not a declaration.

      • John

        Can you elaborate please?

    • concerndcitizen

      In fact there’s a very good reason to do that. It keeps someone from taking your work, altering it, then masquerading as the original author. Copyright isn’t just for making money.

      • John

        Isn’t that exactly what it is? You don’t want others to claim your work and draw away your readership. You want the readers to come to your site so that your advertisers pay higher rates, and don’t advertise on a site that steals your writing.

        At the very least, you don’t want them taking credit for your copyrighted works thereby diluting your reputation, because your reputation has value(usually monetized where professional publishing is involved)

        • concerndcitizen

          It’s not so much about the money, it’s about the reputation and integrity of your message. That can be many times more valuable than money.

          • John

            So there is indeed a valid purpose for copyright?

  • To those interested in exploring the many fallacies the DB engages in regarding intellectual property, head here: https://strangerousthoughts.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/the-economic-principles-of-intellectual-property-and-the-fallacies-of-intellectual-communism/

    I have given up in trying to engage the DB in logical discourse, they simply refuse. Sad.

    • Mark Baumann

      @dnarby
      Do you really need to troll this site and make the same comment, pointing to the same statist pro-IP article?
      You clearly do not understand the anti IP perspective and probably will never.
      Shane made a great comment at your link worth repeating here,
      “You’re certainly entitled to the exclusive control of the thoughts inside your head (IP).
      You’re also entitled to invent “new” products and keep them for yourself.
      However, once you VOLUNTARILY share the thoughts and products (whether in pursuit of profit or for other reasons), they are no longer your property. You are VOLUNTARILY exchanging (presumably–if you market/sell the ideas/invention) property for property. By doing this you relinquish ownership of it all.
      Now, you can contract with purchasers of your products that they won’t “steal” your ideas and use them in turn. Good luck enforcing this contract, and good luck trying to enforce it against those who receive “your” IP from those who break aforementioned contract.”
      Well said Shane.
      @dnarby: please don’t bother trolling back with the comment that the (socialist) state has monopoly control of contract enforcement and are therefore obligated to enforce. That could only be true in a socialist state which I certainly do not advocate.

      • Webforager

        Actually, the blog dnarby links to is not pro statist although it is pro IP. Dnarby either hasn’t read it or doesn’t comprehend the DB’s position on IP.

        • Mark Baumann

          It is statist in regards to it’s IP position. I know they are trying, but, they just don’t get it.

      • John

        “…You are VOLUNTARILY exchanging (presumably–if you market/sell the ideas/invention) property for property…”

        The fact that you used “exchanging” instead of “selling”( tells me that you understand the weakness in your argument. I am not selling, I am giving you an exclusive license to use my work which use is specifically delineated by the contract you join into with me upon such “exchange”, or I am renting it to you for your non-shared use. Neither of those grants you any possession of property rights in my idea, nor any form of ownership rights, even forgetting the absurd idea that you should profit from my work without my express permission.

        • Mark Baumann

          Exchanging is selling, you exchange your ‘thoughts and/or products’ for money, time, advice, other products, other thoughts, precious metals, jewels, etc.
          You proposed 2 possible contracts that you would put in place in your voluntary exchange:
          (1) ” I am giving you an exclusive license to use my work which use is specifically delineated by the contract you join into with me upon such “exchange””
          (2) “I am renting it to you for your non-shared use.”
          Of course these are both perfectly reasonable and I would honor the contract. If I don’t than you would have to sue me and take me to court.
          I will re-phrase Shane’s comment to see if it can make more sense: Once you share your thoughts and/or products they are no longer exclusively your
          property, nobody has control over that. If you sell your thoughts and/or products for money you relinquish
          ownership, that’s life. Although you can attach a contract such as you describe above, but, very hard to enforce.

          • John

            “…If I don’t than you would have to sue me and take me to court….”

            You and anybody else putting my intellectual property to use just because you ‘gave’ them your copy.

            “…Once you share your thoughts and/or products they are no longer exclusively your
            property, nobody has control over that….”

            BS and BS

            “…Although you can attach a contract such as you describe above, but, very hard to enforce….”

            Apparently that’s what you hope, but the people who want all software (etc…) which gets licensed out in the world to be fair game for their personal appropriation are simply intellectual socialists. Furthermore, that mindset is never satisfied with only stealing intangibles. As soon as they convince the general populace that the “intellectual snobs” have no inherent right to their own work, they raise their sights to include real property as well, using the intellectual theft as precedent.

            What’s mine is not yours simply because you want it to be.

          • Mark Baumann

            Ok now you are just plain rude. Sorry you don’t have the mental capacity to understand this IP perspective. Your point is that If I create something I should get paid every time it is used for all eternity. That is hogwash. Most things are created out of need and there is nothing special about it, anyone could have been the creator. For example, a spoon. Should the inventor of the spoon get paid every time one is used? Do you know how many ‘idea’ patents are filed? There are millions. There are lawyers that monitor these paper inventions waiting for the unknown inventor to spend countless hours, dollars, and brain cells on the design, development, manufacturing, marketing, and selling of a device only to get sued because of a paper design [patent] that did nothing for mankind until the lawyer linked the two together. IP is not what YOU think it is.

          • John

            “…Ok now you are just plain rude…”
            …”What the hell are you talking about. I’ve been nothing but civil, and have answered you in an educated manner. If I stepped on your pet whatever, maybe you should leave it home where strangers can’t hurt it, or its feelings.

            “…Sorry you don’t have the mental capacity…”
            AdHom, the first response of a lib whose argument has been unexpectedly spanked. Save it for DU.

            “…Your point is that If I create something I should get paid every time it is used for all eternity….”
            No, that’s your paraphrase, and it’s wrong. You’re conflating the material with the intellectual, and then by unwarranted stretch of the imagination comparing an original idea with a piece of something shaped in such a way as to be able to hold some liquid in such a way as to allow one to bring the liquid to one’s mouth; the very specific compared to the utterly abstract.

            Firstly, something as trivial and utilitarian as a spoon will have been discovered by many people, and in many forms. No one can patent a thing of nature or of prior ubiquitous common use.

            Secondly, anything developed today will be obsolete in no more than 10 years(probably five), so if you’ve got an idea that supersedes or replaces it, you are welcome to write and distribute it for free to anybody you choose. Sadly for your position, that’s exactly what open source has been trying for almost two decades now and, despite that, they have less than 20% of the market share. Why? Because any time there’s a dollar on the table, the nearest guy to it grabs it and runs behind closed doors so that no one can steal HIS idea.

            Also, since there is no incentive to invest years of ones time in developing a system of applications which correctly and completely interact together, everything is an ad-hoc mess waiting to be cobbled together into still another incomplete, incoherent, larger mess. No two things work together fluidly, unless you have my level of experience and knowledge, and are capable of figuring out for yourself the configuration settings that the writers couldn’t afford to take the time to automate .

            Thirdly, where do you draw the line along the axis of growing complexity to demarcate the change from piece of wood with a very amorphously defined shape, to an algorithm using advanced scientific, math, and data knowledge concepts(think of something like one of the SQL servers).

            What you want is for Microsoft and Oracle to make it ALL open source so that smaller companies who don’t have the resources or training to develop it on their own can have a chance. Boo Hoo. When you’ve invested 20 years in learning a very demanding, difficult trade/craft, come back and talk to me about how you give your work away for free, and I’ll listen.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman
            If you want to be one of this guy’s disciples, have at it, and I’ve contributed some work to open source under the copy left where I thought I could help with reasonably metered effort, but don’t try to force me to give it away just to fit your ideology, and don’t impugn my intelligence because you don’t like my objections to your pseudo-religion.

            “…Do you know how many ‘idea’ patents are filed?…”
            Yup. I wrote three of them for Lucent Technologies in the late 90’s. I’m every bit against that type of abuse of the system as you are, but as I said… Baby-Bathwater. You can’t do away with public roads just because the toll authorities are corrupt and out of control. Fix the problems, don’t scrap the the system en masse

            I repeat:

            “…If it fails the scarcity test, then you should be able to create your own purchase list and wire it up without my help, no?”

            “…would you prosecute the theft of my laptop, but not the
            unauthorized publication (by the thief) of some invention that was on it?

          • Mark Baumann

            First to market is the best anyone should expect. Anything
            else is price fixing and a distortion of the market as the DB has pointed out.
            You haven’t addressed the crux of the issue, which is enforcement.

            I will not condone any policy that uses my money [taxes] to enforce a contract
            that someone may have with another party. That is the slippery slope that needs
            to be avoided at all costs. Civil court
            is where it belongs, not criminal court.

            Let me just point out a few inaccuracies in your diatribe:

            1. “anything developed today will be obsolete in no more than 10
            years” Hey Jude is still being played, my Kitchen Aide mixer is the same
            design my grandmother used, I can still do DOS commands on Windows 7, must I go
            on?

            2. “…open source has been trying for almost two decades now and, despite
            that, they have less than 20% of the market share” Do you not
            understand how MSoft has monopolized this market with the cooperation of the
            Fed? [can you see Fascism?]. Open source is doomed in our current political
            realm. [ all schools get free MS
            s/w! ]

            3. “Also, since there is no incentive to invest years of ones time in
            developing a system of applications which correctly and completely interact
            together” I have in invested years in integrating ground systems with
            launch vehicles and satellites. Am I re-paid every time my ideas are
            utilized by Boeing, Lockhead, Spacex, and ULA? No… But I was incentivized by
            my pay check and bonus potential! They paid me when I first brought it to
            market, that’s it, you get paid when you bring it to market, make the sale and
            move on. You have no right to get paid over and over for your SPOON! Yes that
            is a great example!

            4. ” No two things work together fluidly, unless you have my level of
            experience and knowledge, and are capable of figuring out for yourself the
            configuration settings” The graveyards are full of people the world could
            not do without. [famous quote] I am sure you are talented, but there are many
            like you.

            5. “Thirdly, where do you draw the line along the axis of growing
            complexity…” No need the spoon example tells the tale. Just because it
            is complex does not give it more importance. The pet rock comes to mind….
            let’s spend billions in taxpayer dollars to save this guys IP! Do you see it
            yet?

            6. “What you want is for Microsoft and Oracle to make it ALL open source
            so that…” Not true why assume something about me that you are clueless
            about? I don’t want to spend billions on taxpayer dollars to DA’s and their
            entourage to protect these large companies in their insane lawsuits… Do
            really think that a word processor, spreadsheet, database, etc. are inventions
            that should be protected by taxpayer dollars? Do you see it yet?

            7. “When you’ve invested 20 years in learning a very demanding, difficult
            trade/craft, come back and talk to me about how you give your work away for
            free” Like I said, I already have. If you didn’t get paid for your work,
            that is on you. Sorry, but that is what it is like in a world with 7.4 billion
            people, you are just not that special, neither am I.

            8. “…If it fails the scarcity test, then you should be able to
            create your own purchase list and wire it up without my help, no?” like
            the other guy said, this was on you. You gave too much information in your
            quote.

            9. “…would you prosecute the theft of my laptop, but not the
            unauthorized publication (by the thief) of some invention that was on it?”
            Your a s/w guy, I get it, I spent more than a decade in cyber world. It is hard
            work and sometimes not very rewarding. In the end, it is a commodity and there
            are many means to the end. Again you are not special and there is nothing on
            that lap top hard drive that you could claim as stolen, at least where a DA
            would or should help you.

          • John

            …First to market is the best anyone should expect. …

            If that were the case, people would stop developing (material or intellectual). It’s just too expensive to make something that someone else with greater resources can then bring to market on a scale you can’t hope to match.

            …Anything else is price fixing and a distortion of the market as the DB has pointed out…..

            Thats like saying that if you grow a garden that the produce is fair game for anybody who’s hungry. One is always entitled to the fruits of one’s labor free of other’s taking ACCORDING TO THEIR NEED what he has produced ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY Dah comrade?

            …You haven’t addressed the crux of the issue, which is enforcement. I will not condone any policy that uses my money [taxes] to enforce a contract that someone may have with another party. That is the slippery slope that needs to be avoided at all costs. Civil court is where it belongs, not criminal court….

            And there is where we agree, yet even here, the government is directly involved. Private courts are called mediation, and no mediator has the power to compel where there is no contract, such as in the case of theft. Absent anarchy, the government must be involved. I don’t like it either, but Christ has not yet returned.

            …Let me just point out a few inaccuracies in your diatribe:…
            1. “anything developed today will be obsolete in no more than 10
            years”
            …Hey Jude is still being played, …

            And the copyright is limited in time. I think that’s reasonable. Frankenstein is in the public domain, yet if it were written today, you suggest that it should immediately belong to the common society. Mary Shelly will just have to make her money on the first publication, and if Dutton Publishers finds someone to write a book which is substantially the same, but named Frankensteeen, then she will just have to write another book which is not quite so worth plagerizing.. Do I have that right?

            …my Kitchen Aide mixer is the same design my grandmother used…,

            And yet there are dozens of other manufacturers who saw the idea and produced something using their own designs for the internal workings. This is your “spoon” written more technically, but the individual manufacturers didn’t use Kitchen Aide’s blueprints. They took the general idea and developed their own version. This is not a unique idea, it is ubiquitous and in common use. As for obsolescence, the work it does is essentially unchanged, but the motor and drive train, as well as the accoutrements are not the same as 50 years ago, so you’re making my point for me.

            …I can still do DOS commands on Windows 7…

            But how often do you, and if you do it’s because you’re not using more modern tools which have indeed superseded the DOS command line. BTW, mainstream support for Win 7 expired a year ago, and even security support will expire in 4 years.

            …must I go on?
            No, you’ve proved my point nicely, thanks.
            +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

            2. “…open source has been trying for almost two decades now and, despite
            that, they have less than 20% of the market share”
            …Do you not understand how MSoft has monopolized this market with the cooperation of the Fed? [can you see Fascism?]. ..

            After the unfair and unwarranted attacks on MS (for whom I have no excess love btw) in the late 90’s? You’re either kidding, or just as much a unix disciple as I accused you of being. No, I see Fed overreach trying to placate a loud and crybaby loser in the marketplace. In the end, and after a very drawn-out and costly trial the courts threw them out, remember?

            …Open source is doomed in our current political realm. [ all schools get free MS s/w! ]…

            Again with the Boo Hoo. Open source is premised on the idea that the world will come to its senses and embrace the socialism you’re proposing. Meanwhile, as I pointed out, the reason open source is failing is that their own membership can’t abide all this free love and software when there is a suddenly real profit to be made.
            As for schools and free software, are you pissed that even though Apple started that particular propagandist pile of crap, Microsoft has won in giving free stuff away too? Or is it that you’d like to see open source mandated for K-6?

            3. “Also, since there is no incentive to invest years of ones time in developing a system of applications which correctly and completely interact together”

            …I have in invested years in integrating ground systems with
            launch vehicles and satellites. Am I re-paid every time my ideas are utilized by Boeing, Lockhead, Spacex, and ULA? No… But I was incentivized by my pay check and bonus potential! …

            You signed a contract that said that your work was actually theirs from the start. I bet you even needed permission to bring your own ideas, developed and manufactured in your own house on your own time, to market. I’m sorry you got taken advantage of, but you agreed to letting them take your work, just like I trusted my client to be fair without a contract. Sophomoric mistakes, both, but live and learn eh?

            …They paid me when I first brought it to market, that’s it, you get paid when you bring it to market, make the sale and move on. …
            If you signed a contract agreeing to those terms, yes, but not unless you did. I certainly haven’t.
            BTW, I said I’d listen if you were giving it away fro free. This isn’t that. You traded it or a paycheck.

            …You have no right to get paid over and over for your SPOON! Yes that is a great example! …
            I already pointed out the fallacy in your comparing a spoon to a highly sophisticated piece of software, and how a spoon is not patentable, and so has no standing in this debate.

            4. ” No two things work together fluidly, unless you have my level of experience and knowledge, and are capable of figuring out for yourself the configuration settings”
            …The graveyards are full of people the world could not do without. [famous quote] I am sure you are talented, but there are many like you….

            I don’t get your point here. I wasn’t saying I’m indispensable, I was commenting that open source is unusable without a large level of skill, and that even at my level, it’s a royal pain in the butt. The reason is that nobody can afford to invest the time necessary to develop a truly professional application, and then give it away for free, and they never will.

            5. “Thirdly, where do you draw the line along the axis of growing complexity…”
            …No need the spoon example tells the tale. …
            No it doesn’t See above.

            …Just because it is complex does not give it more importance. …
            Complexity equates to the investment of time in the application and the education/experience needed to architect, program, and debug it professionally. You bet your ass it gives it more importance.

            …The pet rock comes to mind….
            Really, and I thought the spoon was about as wrong as you could get.

            …let’s spend billions in taxpayer dollars to save this guys IP! Do you see it yet?…

            Are you trying to tell me that there’s a copyright on calling a rock by a certain name, and that THAT makes it impossible for others to make a living doing the same thing?

            6. “What you want is for Microsoft and Oracle to make it ALL open sourceso that…”
            …Not true why assume something about me that you are clueless about? I don’t want to spend billions on taxpayer dollars to DA’s and their entourage to protect these large companies in their insane lawsuits… Do really think that a word processor, spreadsheet, database, etc. are inventions that should be protected by taxpayer dollars? Do you see it yet?…

            Again, I agree that it should be civil not criminal, but also again, you are conflating two different things in an irresponsible manner. The specific copyrighted code that makes up their versions of SQL are definitely privately owned, but look at all the SQL type databases there are in freeware, shareware, and open source. It’s not the concept which is copyrighted. You are welcome to write your own and give it away, sell it, or burn all copies when you are done. What is not allowed is for you to take a whole code module from the copyrighted source which you have obtained by fair means or foul, and to publish it either for free or for fee. You must write your own.

            7. “When you’ve invested 20 years in learning a very demanding, difficult trade/craft, come back and talk to me about how you give your work away for free”
            …Like I said, I already have. If you didn’t get paid for your work, that is on you. Sorry, but that is what it is like in a world with 7.4 billion people, you are just not that special, neither am I….

            And as I said, you got paid, and nobody forged your signature on the employment contract. As for me getting paid, that was just an example of intellectual property theft to make the point that theft is theft. I don’t make such mistakes very often, and never the same one twice.

            8. “…If it fails the scarcity test, then you should be able to create your own purchase list and wire it up without my help, no?”
            …like the other guy said, this was on you. You gave too much information in your quote….

            Agreed, but that doesn’t answer the question. If my work doesn’t meet the scarcity requirement, then you don’t really need to steal it, do you. You could simply write your own system and implement it without my help, right? I’ll save you the brain strain. The answer is no, because you wouldn’t have a clue where to start, no matter how smart you are in your own field. My IP does meet the scarcity req.

            9. “…would you prosecute the theft of my laptop, but not the
            unauthorized publication (by the thief) of some invention that was on it?”

            Your a s/w guy, I get it, I spent more than a decade in cyber world. It is hard work and sometimes not very rewarding. In the end, it is a commodity and there are many means to the end. Again you are not special and there is nothing on that lap top hard drive that you could claim as stolen, at least where a DA would or should help you.

            I do see that you get the sweat equity I’m talking about, and so I don’t understand how you can say that something that it took months to write could not be considered stolen. Perhaps if you had ever written something that you were allowed to keep…

            Do you really mean to say that if you spent a year writing a non-trivial application now and sold it to me that I would then be entitled to make copies and give or sell them to my friends?

            If that’s not so, then what am I missing about your argument?

            If I do understand that correctly, then I think we’re done here.

          • Mark Baumann

            You still don’t get it. You dismiss my points without warrant. I guess you just want to have a large gubbermint instead a smaller one based on the ideas of liberty as defined in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. fyi I have worked on hundreds of projects that took thousands of hours of time and never got paid. That is the risk I was willing to take in the hopes of trading the results for money. If you don’t have a contract to get paid, just for doing the work, than you take the risk of not getting paid. C’est la vie.
            Forcing a psuedo contract on an unsuspecting citizenship is the exact opposite of liberty.

          • John

            …You dismiss my points without warrant…

            Anybody who reads our back and forth in full
            will see that that is simply a lie. Notwithstanding whether you agree with my arguments, I have indeed made them in a reasoned and educated manner,and at length.

            Claiming that whats mine is yours as soon as I rent it to anybody is stupid, crazy, anarchistic, and socialist. I am
            deeply opposed to big government, and especially the corrupt
            machinations that are the focal point of what we are discussing here, but the alternative is that people of your opinion will try to steal my work and I will have to resort to violence to stop you and deter others.

            I can’t repeat often enough… Baby-Bathwater.

            Thanks for your time and sincerity.

  • Praetor

    You only have a right to Life Liberty and the pursuit of and happiness.

    The other rights are meant to keep you enslaved, and under the allusion, you will gain you’re freedom if you follow the rules, set down by the monarchs of fiat.

    Have man made rights (Laws), create a civil society, all you have to do is look at the U.S. today. Do all these so called rights imposed on the U.S. citizenry, have they created a civil society? No, the evidence is in plain view.

    There is nothing civil about it!!!

  • John

    I was asked by a long time (though whiny and problematic customer) to work up a detailed proposal for an IT system for her store which was complex to say the least. After providing her with the document(nearly 14 hours work) she then(to make a long story short) got another vendor to purchase, install, and configure the system for far less than I quoted, even though I had cut markup for the hardware to the bone. How you ask. Because they didn’t have the experience to draw on to create the system and didn’t have to spend the 14 hours to design it, nor any time at all to research it. They only had to purchase what I had listed, and wire it up.

    I was foolish enough to trust my client, as some of you would insist we should all do, and – insult on injury – the way I found out was that the system was in place when she called me to fix the mis-configurations the other group had put in place. It was the last business I conducted with her, and she had the nerve to be pissed that I wouldn’t maintain the system she had cheated me on when the other company took the money and ran.

    I say all that to say this. The goverment has abused the copyright/patent systems, but that doesn’t mean the systems don’t have legitimate raison d’etre. Just like the abuse of taxation doesn’t invalidate the proper implementation of an uncorrupted tax system, the abuse of copyright and patent law does not make them the problem per se. Having government examine medicine and food for safety and efficacy is not the problem. That the agencies tasked with doing it take bribes from large corporations and that they have their own agenda to control commerce beyond their mandate is the problem.

    If a company legitimately spends thousands of dollars to discover or invent something, thieves shouldn’t be allowed to take their work and undercut the price simply because they didn’t have to put up any money or time or labor up front.

    Destroy the corruption of law, not the proper protections those laws afford to the creators.

    • People who claim to be involved in something called “government” are either telling you do something or actively threatening that if you don’t do it you will be punished. How this qualifies as “protection” is puzzling to us, theoretically speaking anyway. All laws are price fixes. Price fixes always distort markets and make things worse. They come with unintended consequences. Let people work out their own arrangements individually or in a group context. But history shows us that applying force does not work, long-term on any level. The damage just grows worse …

      • John

        Theft is theft, whether of material or idea. If the government has no role whatsoever in protecting the weak from those who will take
        advantage of that weakness in order to take what doesn’t belong to them without fear of reprisal, then there is anarchy and chaos.

        Please don’t try to force me in to the position of defending the out-of-control mass thievery that we call government today. I’ve always thought that those arguing that “ideology is great, but then the reality is…” are always justifying a point of view that they don’t really have an argument for without invoking the need for violence. I always call BS. Also, don’t think that I’m against either anarchy or chaos as such. (Can you say Revolutionary war. Yes, I knew you could.)

        I think that you’re right about government distorting markets, but I reject your attempt to create and further a new meme about how government is always a distortion to the Free Market System. It obfuscates by dilution the areas where tax dollars are used to subsidize one section of the economy to the detriment of that section’s competition and to the detriment of the taxpayer. (farm subsidies for instance)

        The first thing which must be acknowledged in this discussion is that there will always be
        some form of final authority at whatever level one wishes to discuss, from Mommy making the big brother give his little sister back her doll, to the strongest country telling the second strongest to get out of Crimea. Yes I know that didn’t happen. Nothing works perfectly. Implementation is always the sticky part.

        When I first heard the Unix crowd (20 years ago) calling for all software to be free to everybody I laughed. Now I don’t laugh because, it turns out that they’re serious.

        As someone who puts in months of work to create a professional, commercial-grade software package, I say **** you, write your own and give it away. As it turns out, they try to do just that, but every time there’s a real dollar on the table, the closest guy to it grabs it and runs behind closed doors so that nobody can steal HIS idea. Why do you think open source software and (Unix/Linux) still only have less than 20% of the commercial professional market after nearly 25 years of trying to displace Microsoft in a field where it’s almost impossible to be convicted of infringing a software patent with work that you have created from scratch on your own?

        I can’t delineate the borders of exactly what comprises a proper authority to enforce copyright/patent, but I’m certain that their are such delineations given a wider panorama of research and exposition than an internet forum.

        I usually agree with almost everything DB says, but in this case… Baby-Bathwater.

        Also,
        “Let people work out their own arrangements individually or in a group context.”

        What ‘group’ would you suggest to mediate between strangers when one accuses the other of theft, and the opposing parties are not local to one another; private armies?

      • John

        “…or in a group context…”

        Which group would you suggest to mediate between strangers who don’t live in the same area, and have nothing in common except the theft? Again, I agree that the corruption in place should be cleaned up, but how, and what does it look like afterward.

        Also, would you prosecute the theft of my laptop, but not the unauthorized publication (by the thief) of some invention that was on it?

      • I am involved in true governance as I seek, find and live from the balance point of a relational honesty. In the absence of such responsibilities assumed – others fill the vacuum – and their nature will generally be a correspondence with the qualities of the causes behind not embracing and embodying the life one is in receipt of – and instead seeking narrative justifications or identities of opposition to such freedom. A tyrannous will operates from an attempt to force ‘balance’ from a non-relational identity – regardless its masking strategies.

        Insofar as you accept responsibility in relationship you have freely entered obligations within such relationship. First of which is to bring the true of you TO your relationship(s) – while being open to a like quality in others. Of course in any given situation, this may be buried or denied by what is being presented – as strategies of power or protection to a different set of personal specifics.

        Force is a part of the range of legitimate communication but this is not inherently violent in intent if expressing an integrity. There are various ways to say NO! – that are appropriate to a persistence of others in seeking to undermine your integrity – which can include being witness to the attack on the integrity of others.

        The word integrity here is for something more akin to a ground zero here – because it is that without which you have no will or life to recognize or share as your own – until you awaken from such a negatively defines sense of self to re-assert your integrity on behalf of all – for so it is and does.

        Because we are entangled in personal entanglements of grievance or unforgiveness the emergence of awakened integrity is a messy process but of an inner sense of unconflictedness or peace – despite the mess that may in all sorts of ways persist and continue to bait back into the ‘old habit’. Persistence in freedom from being framed by driven conflict, grows awareness of freedom. Whatever our beliefs, they become more open to the felt qualities of our whole spectrum of experience.

        The authority problem arises from confusion as to authorship. I don’t need to paint this in archaic religious terms – but they can also serve to connect to a quality of Silence that is in fact Full. Yet to the driven mind seems empty and immediately filled or rather evaded with thinking that does not rise spontaneously and uncoercively from one’s being – but is running as an official narrative upon its otherwise freedom to communicate through you. I posit no belief in God here – but I do say that any belief held against the release of such thinking to a simple curiosity or willingness to know is an active inhibitor of such native freedom of being.

    • Steve

      There is no such thing as an “uncorrupted tax system”. To enforce a tax is to initiate violence, which is the essence of corruption. If your purchase list was a valuable product of your work then why did you disclose it to them for free?

      Information fails one of the basic tests for property: scarcity. It may be almost endlessly replicated at a near zero cost.

      • John

        Entirely agreed about the tax system, but how can we change that and what does the society look like when we do?

        The purchase list wasn’t supposed to be a blueprint; it was an estimate. See my reply to henrybowman above.

        If it fails the scarcity test, then you should be able to create your own
        purchase list and wire it up without my help, no?

        • Steve

          Here are some suggestions: do web searches of “Free market defense”, “Free market security”, “Free market adjudication”, and start reading. Freedom promotes innovation, so it is difficult to predict the exact forms a free society will take, but it will be more efficient, and will tend toward continual improvement as the force of competition drives the process. Best of all, you the buyer of the service maintain your “power of the purse” and power to end agreements with those who do not meet your standards of quality. Discover corruption? In the free market you are fully empowered to change providers.

          For now, as an individual I suggest you do anything you can to minimize taxes you pay. Get out of paper currencies, and globalist banks and institutions. Try to conduct your affairs in a private way that protects you from interference by the government mafias. Place yourself next to quality neighbors who also prefer cooperation to thuggery as a basis for society. And get prepared for the storm! The internet reformation continues to build and change is here and ongoing, depending on how many become awake to the truth.

          • John

            You’re preaching to the choir, unless I’ve missed something, but one of the rightful purposes of government is to protect the weak from theft by the strong, and to keep the peace by adjudicating disagreements over possession of property, rather than letting the parties duke it out.

    • henrybowman_az

      Next time, you’ll charge for the design work up front, is my guess.

      • John

        It’s a balancing act. Charging new customers is easy, and I’ve always
        done that. The alternative with established clients is to charge and
        then apply it to the work if they have me do it. I’ve got the business
        model under control. I just got lax with an established client. My only
        real point is that theft is theft, whether material or intellectual, and there must be some mechanism for forcing remuneration. In this case, ostensibly, I could have sued her. I had all the proof for a proper case. Instead I dropped her because this was the last straw, and she wasn’t worth it.

        This could just as easily have been her having me do the work and then refusing to pay. At that point the enforcement path is clear, and followed every day. Would anyone argue against a lawsuit to gain recompense in that case? If not, then why argue against laws to prevent theft of unique work or ideas in the first place? There must be an authority to enforce property rights at every level, even if it’s only mommy telling junior to give back his little sister’s doll.

        Please don’t mistake this as a defense of the corrupt, overreaching government and its abusive policies. I’m only saying Baby-Bathwater.

      • Tom_Arnall

        my sales method is to spend two hours free with the client working on the design of their system. after that, if they want my services, they pay me by the hour, billed weekly until i trust them enuf to bill them monthly. works pretty good. trust is something which must be built step by step.

  • henrybowman_az

    So, as a devout free-marketeer, what do you think is going to happen when you pass a law saying that educational institutions can copy textbooks all they want with no penalties? Correct answer: people who write educational textbooks will find other jobs rather than work for free, and no more educational textbooks will be written. Next solution, please.

loading