Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: Brian on Political vs. Free-market Voting!

Expand Messages
  • Dave
    From: algae5636@aol.com [mailto:algae5636@aol.com] Sent: Friday, December 26, 2014 3:28 PM Subject: Re: Brian on Political vs. Free-market Voting! The
    Message 1 of 6 , Dec 26, 2014
      From: algae5636@... [mailto:algae5636@...]
      Sent: Friday, December 26, 2014 3:28 PM
      Subject: Re: Brian on Political vs. Free-market Voting!





      The characterization of buying stuff as "voting" is false
      and misleading.





      It may be a bit of a metaphor, but:


      Bob's meaning is clear as a bell.


      A metaphor might be a poor fit, but it can not be false.


      Were you misled?





      So is the characterization of voting as "appointing
      bureaucrats to steal".





      If taking from people against their will is stealing, then
      taxation is stealing. You might think the circumstance (this
      being a democracy needing lots of money) justifies taxation,
      but that doesn't take it out of the real of the definition
      of stealing. but maybe you define it differently.



      It fraudulently misrepresents people's political and
      economic activity.





      How so exactly?




      It's a shamefully immoral way to treat one's fellow human
      beings.





      Offering an opinion or conclusion of any kind, does not
      constitute treating people at all. Criticizing the way or
      reason why people vote is not treating people. The whole
      point behind free speech is to do such, especially when the
      speech cuts into sacred beliefs. Speech can be free exactly
      because it is NOT sticks and stones.








      -----Original Message-----
      From: Bob Wynman <bobalou@...>
      Sent: Fri, Dec 26, 2014 11:56 am
      Subject: Brian on Political vs. Free-market Voting!


      My point is that "economic democracy" (voluntarily voting
      with our dollars when we buy goods/services) is moral and
      non-coercive, while "political democracy" (voting in secret
      in a booth to appoint bureaucrats to steal property from
      your more productive neighbors) is immoral and coercive.





      I sorta assumed that you were attempting to disagree with or
      to debate that statement. No? Are you now agreeing with
      it, Brian?





      --bob





      From: cbhensler@... [mailto:cbhensler@...
      <mailto:cbhensler@...?> ]
      Sent: Friday, December 26, 2014 9:57 AM
      Subject: Re: Did you vote for how that organic produce got
      to that safeway?: Brian





      That has what to do with my response? The state did not
      force you to choose Safeway or force you to purchase any of
      the products in that store. YOU chose that store YOU chose
      whatever products you purchased and by making those
      purchases, by choosing that chain you may very well be
      contributing to the "coercion" and fraud that exists among
      the private and public sectors.





      You are not just voting for the products, but those who
      house and and sell it, advertise for it, create or grow it,
      transport it, ship it, etc, etc, etc. Lots of infrastructure
      involved.


      -----Original Message-----
      From: Bob Wynman <bobalou@...>
      Sent: Fri, Dec 26, 2014 11:31 am
      Subject: RE: Did you vote for how that organic produce got
      to that safeway?: Brian


      Correct, Brian . and therefore we somehow need your state
      bureaucrats to force us to buy what they want us to buy?





      Grand.





      --bob





      From: cbhensler@... [mailto:cbhensler@...]
      Sent: Friday, December 26, 2014 9:25 AM
      To: bobalou@...; algae5636@...; davidwin@...;
      Rightisright@yahoogroups.com; patriot451@...;
      dag_gano@...; worldwide_politics@yahoogroups.com;
      PoliticalForum@...;
      Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com;
      whateverreturns@yahoogroups.com;
      whatnowdebate@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: Did you vote for how that organic produce got
      to that safeway?: Brian





      No but yes and exactly. You don't know who exactly you are
      voting for when purchasing and your purchase IS a vote to
      keep them in business. So its the I don't know so it doesn't
      count approach? You have no idea what their beliefs are so
      could in fact be voting via your purchases for something
      completely contrary to what your beliefs are. Hell buying at
      Safeway could only go to insure that a VS never
      materializes. How do you know? This is what society
      represents Bob. A miss mash of millions upon millions.


      -----Original Message-----
      From: Bob Wynman <bobalou@...>
      To: cbhensler <cbhensler@...>; algae5636
      <algae5636@...>; davidwin <davidwin@...>;
      Rightisright <Rightisright@yahoogroups.com>; patriot451
      <patriot451@...>; dag_gano <dag_gano@...>;
      worldwide_politics <worldwide_politics@yahoogroups.com>;
      PoliticalForum <PoliticalForum@...>;
      Politics_CurrentEvents_Group
      <Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com>;
      whateverreturns <whateverreturns@yahoogroups.com>;
      whatnowdebate <whatnowdebate@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Fri, Dec 26, 2014 11:01 am
      Subject: RE: Did you vote for how that organic produce got
      to that safeway?: Brian


      No, Brian, my monetary vote for the market is only a signal
      that I like the produce that we purchased there. I don't
      know the owner's religion, race, political beliefs or
      whether or not they beat their spouses.





      From: cbhensler@... [mailto:cbhensler@...]
      Sent: Friday, December 26, 2014 8:10 AM
      Subject: Re: Did you vote for how that organic produce got
      to that safeway?: Brian





      Nope when buying their products you are indeed placing a
      vote for them. What do they represent? What kind of govt or
      society do the opt for?


      -----Original Message-----
      From: Bob Wynman <bobalou@...>
      Sent: Wed, Dec 24, 2014 6:44 pm
      Subject: Did you vote for how that organic produce got to
      that safeway?: Brian


      Nope, the owners/managers of the market placed those votes.





      From: cbhensler@... [mailto:cbhensler@...]
      Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 5:39 AM


      Did you vote for how that organic produce got to that
      safeway?


      -----Original Message-----
      From: Bob Wynman <bobalou@...>
      Subject: AL: "did you vote to have breakfast this morning? "


      I did not.





      This day my first meal was around 2 PM. I had voted for the
      organic produce section of Safeway, in Parker, AZ a couple
      days ago for them to provide that "breakfast". And the
      voting was done voluntarily, with ZERO coercion.





      --bob





      From: algae5636@... [mailto:algae5636@...]
      Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 10:52 PM
      Subject: Re: Brian & Al on the Initiation of force by the
      State?





      Calling buying stuff "voting with your money" is
      understandable as a metaphor.


      Except for how many times a day people buy stuff.
      So tell me-- did you vote to have breakfast this morning?
      :-)





      -----Original Message-----
      From: Bob Wynman <bobalou@...>
      Sent: Tue, Dec 23, 2014 9:35 pm
      Subject: Brian & Al on the Initiation of force by the State?


      From: cbhensler@... [mailto:cbhensler@...]
      Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 7:08 AM
      Subject: Re: Al on the Initiation of force by the State?





      - Hardly, Al





      As aware as I am re the corruption exists within the
      political system I am also aware that at times our
      "representatives" bring in pork they feel is needed to
      benefit their constituents/state and actually will and do
      help their state.


      [Bo7b:] Well, yeah, Brian . and that is what they DO do .
      steal from us to help the State. They're politicians. --bob





      In other words there are some "pure" intentions/actions
      involved IMO and this is what our "representatives" are
      supposed to do, bring in monies and support that will
      bolster their states economy and well being. Now back to the
      corruption side, Al is spot on they do indeed put the needs
      of their backers first, because it is those same backers
      that get them into and keep them in office. They HAVE to put
      the backers desire first or else they don't get no bacon.
      You going to give big money to anyone not abiding by your
      needs? I don't think so. This is why the system is so
      corrupt. They HAVE to at this point or else they will simply
      be left off to the side and deemed irrelevant and
      irrelevance does not keep you in office. IMO you continue to
      frame the issue in such a way as to assure that maximum if
      not all blame can go to the politician. There are at least
      two dance partners here but for some illogical reason you
      only want to recognize one as a player in the corruption
      department. It is as if you almost have these "contributors"
      as victims. If you were a marriage councilor and that was
      your primary source of income you would IMO be not so well
      off because keeping the same mentality you would tend to
      blame only one side or the other when in fact most marriages
      are two way streets. This puppet/puppeteer thing that exists
      in DC is not one sided.


      [Bo7b:] -Why are you so obsessed with looking for someone to
      blame, Brian?





      The problem is the Win-Lose Paradigm that has caused people
      to believe that the force/theft-based State is somehow
      necessary in order for society to function. As soon as
      people delegate to the State the "legal" power to initiate
      the use of coercion (force &/or fraud) against innocent
      people, then, of course, people indoctrinated with the
      win-lose mentality will seek the low-risk, high-profit power
      of the State in order to do all those corrupt things for
      which you seek perpetrators to blame. --bob





      Perhaps you've initiated the force of the state, Al, we have
      not & do not intend to do so, in fact, we'll do whatever we
      can to minimize &'or eliminate the force of the state. -





      Hundreds of millions have "initiated the force of the state"
      over the years Bob, you included by your own admission and
      you reap what you sew.


      [Bo7b:] -Naah, we reap what we sow, but we rip what we sew.
      There's a difference, Brian. Careful wit dem wurds, barbs &
      needles! :-) --bob





      You want to exact change?


      [Bo7b:] -If you've got it, you can use the fast lanes on
      toll roads & bridges! :-)
      --bob





      Amass a group substantial enough to do so or get the ear of
      those who can truly benefit you and perhaps use the very
      system we are discussing against them. Turn the tables as it
      were. What is it you are doing now exactly? Not voting?


      [Bo7b:] --I've voted libertarian . & against every
      proposition that would increase the power of the State and
      for the VERY few that might decrease the power of the State
      in every election since 1972.





      Political voting is A, behind C's back, in secret,
      appointing B to seize the property of C for the benefit of D
      (& of course, A & B). It is immoral. Voting for candidates
      is simply the old thug-replacement program that never works.







      If voting could create peace, prosperity and freedom, it
      would be VERY illegal.


      Economic voting (voting with our money everytime we choose
      to buy a product from A vs. B) is completely voluntary,
      moral and the only sort of voting that facilitates lasting
      peace, prosperity and freedom.


      --bob


      You know the saying Bob, think globally, act locally. Start
      small perhaps and create a wave. A tough go to be sure, this
      system is pretty damn established. Just as a possible FYI,
      you might need some large amounts of cash or other goodies.


      there was little, if anything, the "we the people" could do,
      aside from armed rebellion





      Voting is what we can do Bob. "We" have the power we are
      just not aware or involved enough or care enough to realize
      it. You want change? Find a way to motivate voters in our
      current society to become more aware and more informed then
      watch these politicians and their puppet masters lose the
      control they have become accustomed to. I personally could
      not think of a more thorough way of getting to your. Inform
      the voters on our current system, see how they respond and
      if as newly informed voters they are still not getting what
      they want out of our system what would you think would be
      the next logical step? To find alternatives as I see it.
      Right now not many are looking for those alternatives, which
      is why your VS is still in the discussion phase and probably
      will be for a very long time. Information is not a one way
      street as I see it. Once that door is open who knows where
      it could lead.





      If on the flip side you can not see enough ppl able or
      willing to get informed then why would you expect them to
      get informed about a VS?


      [Bo7b:] -Most folks are apathetic 'bout voting 'cause they
      realize that it accomplishes nothing of significance & they
      therefore believe that their action can have no effect. As
      long as they believe that, they are quite correct. Our job
      is to help folks understand that their actions (not
      political voting actions but building the
      Win-Win Free-market society actions) CAN make a positive
      difference. -- bob





      that's a bit silly, Al, you already stated that those
      "representatives" don't represent us nor do they care what
      our interests might be. --bob & lou





      So thats it? Don't try to affect change? Sit and blame one
      side of the equation and throw your hands up as if you grasp
      the entirety of the issue? In order to get them to represent
      us in a way we might be comfortable with we have to address
      all sides of the issue and big money is a side as well as
      the corrupt pol's. Just going after one aspect is illogical
      and pointless as I see it. To blame one side means to me
      that you will forever be going around in circles, with or
      without your VS.


      [Bo7b:] -Those "representatives" will never represent us.
      The Win-win Free-market society, like any other product, is
      built using





      THE IDEOLOGICAL PROGRAM:





      1--Innovation (create the concept)--In the case of
      Volitional Science, this step is complete & contained in Jay
      Snelson's "Principles of Human Action Principles" now
      available on the MP3 drive at
      http://www.suscivinst.com/store/, as well as Galambos' V-50
      (secondary property) & V-201 (primary property, available
      free at www.CapitalismTheLiberalRevolution.com.





      2--Education--the hardest part (where we are now) -- we
      must":





      A: educate ourselves (HAP, CLR), then ...


      B: locate a small minority, perhaps 100,000 people, who are
      educable (intellectually curious, rationally-thinking, and
      willing to invest time & effort in order to learn).





      3--Image Building/Transfer (aka, advertising to reach the
      masses) -- NOT education; the masses are hopelessly
      uneducable.





      4--Maintenance -- the easiest part; the "Right Society" is
      perpetually self-maintaining because IT WORKS!





      Our job: Find those 100K thinking friends and help them
      access the info noted in step 2. Do you have any educable
      friends?





      --bob


      -----Original Message-----
      From: Bob Wynman <bobalou@...>
      Sent: Mon, Dec 22, 2014 4:29 pm
      Subject: RE: Al on the Initiation of force by the State?


      From: algae5636@... [mailto:algae5636@...]
      Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 1:29 PM
      Subject: Re: Al on the Initiation of force by the State?





      Regarding your first comment:
      In the interests of clarity-- our "representatives"
      generally put the desires of their financial backers first,
      not their own. Their personal desires, like their
      constituents' desires, run a poor second or third behind the
      wishes of their donors.


      [Bo7b:] -- Hardly, Al. The #1 desire of our
      "representatives" is to remain in power so that they
      continue to be in a position to collect bribes from their
      "supporters" in return for political favors (passing "laws"
      favoring their "contributors" and harming their
      "contributors'' competitors or potential competitors. ""
      are in second place & are the means to achieve the primary
      desires of those "representatives" who don't represent the
      desires of you, we or their constituents at all. -bob & lou





      Regarding your third comment:
      "Legally, we the people are the initiators of government
      force" is not an "argument". It's a semantically accurate
      and factual description of the "black letter" of the law.
      (Paraphrasing Pogo, we have met the "state"-- and it is us.
      :-) I made that point in reply to Bob's treatment of the
      government/state as a separate entity-- as if it wasn't
      ours.


      [Bo7b:] -Perhaps you've initiated the force of the state,
      Al, we have not & do not intend to do so, in fact, we'll do
      whatever we can to minimize &'or eliminate the force of the
      state. -- bob & lou




      One of the founding fathers said in effect, "We have given
      you a republic-- it's your problem to keep it."


      [Bo7b:] -That comment has been attributed to Franklin &
      perhaps he actually said it. It was immediately ignored and
      the Republic slowly deteriorated into a democracy, just as
      the founders feared & it's now deteriorating into a
      tyrannical dictatorship. Once the power was delegated to
      the State, there was little, if anything, the "we the
      people" could do, aside from armed rebellion (which, without
      a massive paradigm shift, would not have changed anything of
      significance) to limit it to anything near what was
      stipulated in the Constitution. -- bob & lou





      It's both common sense and legally recognized that a person
      is responsible for their failures to act as well as their
      actions. It's not only possible to "sin by omission"; it's
      a common human practice. Accordingly "we the people" are
      responsible for what we haven't done as well as for what
      we've done. If the government is out of our control, we
      share in the "blame" for that. Saying some "they" did it
      ends up being a denial and avoidance of one's responsibility
      as a citizen.


      [Bo7b:] -If you want to be responsible for the initiation of
      coercion (force/fraud) by your State, go for it, Al. We are
      NOT accepting that responsibility because it's not ours to
      accept. --bob & lou




      Psychologically, if we think a "they" did it, we
      automatically also think it's "they" who have to change (or
      be gotten rid of :-), instead of thinking we have to stop
      slacking off of our "civic duty". That's why so many people
      bitch and moralize on the internet instead of taking it
      straight to their "representatives" in their local, state
      and federal government


      [Bo7b:] -that's a bit silly, Al, you already stated that
      those "representatives" don't represent us nor do they care
      what our interests might be. --bob & lou





      , much less ever confronting the moneyed interests that we
      know have distorted the government to their own advantage.
      We think they're the problem, not us.


      [Bo7b:] -the problem is the Win-Lose Paradigm and the fact
      that our State-run society operates on the paradigm & the
      solution is to shift to the win-win Paradigm and build the
      Win-win Free-Market society . NOW. --bob & lou




      There's ancient wisdom in the Biblical admonition to look to
      one's own faults, not the faults of others. I guarantee
      you-- we won't come up with a solution to the present sorry
      state of the nation until we see ourselves as the problem.


      [Bo7b:] -If you see yourself as the problem, Al, then why
      not implement the solution & shift your paradigm from
      Win-Lose to Win-Win!





      --bob & lou





      -----Original Message-----
      From: Dave <davidwin@...>
      To: algae5636 <algae5636@...>; bobalou
      <bobalou@...>; Rightisright
      <Rightisright@yahoogroups.com>; cbhensler
      <cbhensler@...>; patriot451 <patriot451@...>;
      dag_gano <dag_gano@...>; worldwide_politics
      <worldwide_politics@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Mon, Dec 22, 2014 7:26 am
      Subject: RE: Al on the Initiation of force by the State?


      From: algae5636@... [mailto:algae5636@...]
      Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 5:21 AM
      Subject: Re: Al on the Initiation of force by the State?





      Like I said, Bob, the government acts as the agent of "the
      people" in general, enforcing laws agreed upon by the
      people's representatives/agents in Congress.





      Well that is the theory, but does anyone here think it is
      the reality? It rests upon the premise that a politician
      will faithful put the desires of his constituents above his
      own. We should not laugh at the idea.





      That's why in criminal court, cases are presented as "the
      people" vs the accused, not the "state" vs the accused.
      Your federal and state congress men and women are acting as
      the duly elected representatives of the people in their
      district, not on their own behalf, when they make laws, ya
      know.





      Sometimes maybe. But other times they are deceitful and self
      serving. We might all put different percentages on which
      predominates.





      Thus legally, "we the people" are the initiators of
      government force.


      This seems like a foolish semantic argument. All is a
      function of causes and effect, and you can take that all the
      way back and claim the big bang is the initiator of
      everything. We could all reason, that extra sip of coffee at
      home, caused me to be a little later in arriving at the
      intersection, thereby hitting the other car.




      The US government has no Constitutional authority to act
      other than as an agency representing the citizens of the
      United States of America. Consequently, your portrayal of
      the government as our adversary is false.





      Your statement above would be true, if indeed our
      representatives, were true to the words and spirit of the
      Constitution. We know however, that is NOT the case.





      It's our agent, and some even say our servant.





      Some might foolishly say so, having spent way too much time
      in their room. Sure wish we could sue them all for
      malpractice.





      We, the citizens of the US and its various states and
      territories, as a group and/or singly, have the monopoly on
      its use of coercion/force.


      As long as one accepts the premise that representative
      government is true to the concept.





      [Bo7b:] -----------------------------





      "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one
      fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss
      all the other possible gods, you will understand why I
      dismiss yours"
      - Stephen Roberts





      When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in
      Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.


      --Thomas Jefferson





      I gave my life for freedom -- this I know; for those who
      bade me fight told me so.
      -- W.N. Ewer





      --bob & lou












      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Algae5636@...
      Lol. Bob s metaphoric meaning is clear, but his generalization is false. Not all purchases are votes with dollars for the item purchased and/or its
      Message 2 of 6 , Dec 27, 2014
        Lol.
        Bob's metaphoric meaning is clear, but his generalization is false. Not all purchases are "votes with dollars" for the item purchased and/or its supplier. Among other things, some purchases are necessity-driven, some are experimental, to try a product or service and see if the buyer thinks it's worth buying again, and others are driven by addictions and other irrational impulses. A junky is not "voting" for heroin, nor his dealer when he buys his next fix, and a diabetic is not "voting" for insulin or its supplier when he gets his prescription filled.


        And I'm curious-- please tell me when was the last time you know of that a tax collector was voted into office?


        We elect representatives to provide a range of services to their constituents. Characterizing it as all "to appoint bureaucrats to steal property from your more productive neighbors" is as stupid as it is false. Those "more productive neighbors" vote too. Are they voting to steal from their neighbors who are even more productive than themselves?


        And if "taking from people against their will is stealing", the United States is stolen property from coast to coast, the entire US real estate industry has been trading in stolen property from the gitgo, so has every domestic oil, mining, and lumber business among others, and so have all of their customers besides, just naturally including Bob and you.


        So I'm not impressed with your goody-two-shoes moralizing about how the government is "stealing" a percentage of your ill-gotten gains from trading in stolen property from you against your will. If you sincerely believed that "taking from people against their will is stealing", you wouldn't participate in the US aftermarket in stolen goods.


        And you'd be so poor the state would be offering you money instead of taking a cut.
        But you couldn't accept it, because that would be receiving stolen property.


        :-)



        -----Original Message-----
        From: Dave <davidwin@...>
        Sent: Fri, Dec 26, 2014 6:03 pm
        Subject: RE: Brian on Political vs. Free-market Voting!








        From:algae5636@... [mailto:algae5636@...]
        Sent: Friday, December 26, 20143:28 PM
        Subject: Re: Brian on Politicalvs. Free-market Voting!



        Thecharacterization of buying stuff as "voting" is false and misleading.

        It may be a bit of a metaphor, but:
        Bob's meaning is clear as a bell.
        A metaphor might be a poor fit, but it cannot be false.
        Were you misled?



        So is thecharacterization of voting as "appointing bureaucrats to steal".

        If taking from people against their willis stealing, then taxation is stealing. You might think the circumstance (thisbeing a democracy needing lots of money) justifies taxation, but that doesn'ttake it out of the real of the definition of stealing. but maybe you define itdifferently.

        It fraudulently misrepresents people's political and economic activity.

        How so exactly?


        It's a shamefully immoral way to treat one's fellow human beings.



        Offering an opinion or conclusion of anykind, does not constitute treating people at all. Criticizing the way or reasonwhy people vote is not treating people. The whole point behind free speech isto do such, especially when the speech cuts into sacred beliefs. Speech can befree exactly because it is NOT sticks and stones.




        -----OriginalMessage-----
        From: Bob Wynman <bobalou@...>
        Sent: Fri, Dec 26, 2014 11:56 am
        Subject: Brian on Political vs. Free-market Voting!




        Mypoint is that “economic democracy” (voluntarily voting with ourdollars when we buy goods/services) is moral and non-coercive, while“political democracy” (voting in secret in a booth to appointbureaucrats to steal property from your more productive neighbors) is immoraland coercive.





        I sortaassumed that you were attempting to disagree with or to debate thatstatement. No? Are you now agreeing with it, Brian?





        --bob





        From: cbhensler@... [mailto:cbhensler@...]
        Sent: Friday, December 26, 20149:57 AM
        Subject: Re: Did you vote for howthat organic produce got to that safeway?: Brian





        That has what to do with my response? Thestate did not force you to choose Safeway or force you to purchase any of theproducts in that store. YOU chose that store YOU chose whatever products youpurchased and by making those purchases, by choosing that chain you may verywell be contributing to the "coercion" and fraud that exists amongthe private and public sectors.









        You arenot just voting for the products, but those who house and and sell it,advertise for it, create or grow it, transport it, ship it, etc, etc, etc. Lotsof infrastructure involved.




        -----Original Message-----
        From: Bob Wynman <bobalou@...>
        Sent: Fri, Dec 26, 2014 11:31 am
        Subject: RE: Did you vote for how that organic produce got to that safeway?:Brian






        Correct,Brian … and therefore we somehow need your state bureaucrats to force usto buy what they want us to buy?









        Grand.









        --bob









        From: cbhensler@... [mailto:cbhensler@...]
        Sent: Friday, December 26, 20149:25 AM
        To: bobalou@...; algae5636@...; davidwin@...; Rightisright@yahoogroups.com; patriot451@...; dag_gano@...; worldwide_politics@yahoogroups.com;PoliticalForum@...;Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com;whateverreturns@yahoogroups.com;whatnowdebate@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: Did you vote for howthat organic produce got to that safeway?: Brian









        No but yes and exactly. You don't knowwho exactly you are voting for when purchasing and your purchase IS a vote tokeep them in business. So its the I don't know so it doesn't count approach?You have no idea what their beliefs are so could in fact be voting via yourpurchases for something completely contrary to what your beliefs are. Hellbuying at Safeway could only go to insure that a VS never materializes. How doyou know? This is what society represents Bob. A miss mash of millions uponmillions.






        -----Original Message-----
        From: Bob Wynman <bobalou@...>
        To: cbhensler <cbhensler@...>;algae5636 <algae5636@...>; davidwin<davidwin@...>; Rightisright<Rightisright@yahoogroups.com>;patriot451 <patriot451@...>;dag_gano <dag_gano@...>;worldwide_politics <worldwide_politics@yahoogroups.com>;PoliticalForum <PoliticalForum@...>;Politics_CurrentEvents_Group <Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com>;whateverreturns <whateverreturns@yahoogroups.com>;whatnowdebate <whatnowdebate@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Fri, Dec 26, 2014 11:01 am
        Subject: RE: Did you vote for how that organic produce got to that safeway?:Brian








        No,Brian, my monetary vote for the market is only a signal that I like the producethat we purchased there. I don’t know the owner’s religion,race, political beliefs or whether or not they beat their spouses.













        From: cbhensler@... [mailto:cbhensler@...]
        Sent: Friday, December 26, 20148:10 AM
        Subject: Re: Did you vote for howthat organic produce got to that safeway?: Brian













        Nope when buying their products you areindeed placing a vote for them. What do they represent? What kind of govt orsociety do the opt for?









        -----Original Message-----
        From: Bob Wynman <bobalou@...>
        Sent: Wed, Dec 24, 2014 6:44 pm
        Subject: Did you vote for how that organic produce got to that safeway?: Brian










        Nope,the owners/managers of the market placed those votes.

















        From: cbhensler@... [mailto:cbhensler@...]
        Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 20145:39 AM








        Did you vote for how that organic producegot to that safeway?










        -----Original Message-----
        From: Bob Wynman <bobalou@...>
        Subject: AL:"did you vote to have breakfast this morning? "












        I didnot.





















        Thisday my first meal was around 2 PM. I had voted for the organic producesection of Safeway, in Parker, AZ a couple days ago for them to provide that“breakfast”. And the voting was done voluntarily, with ZEROcoercion.





















        --bob





















        From: algae5636@... [mailto:algae5636@...]
        Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 201410:52 PM
        Subject: Re: Brian & Al on theInitiation of force by the State?























        Calling buying stuff "voting withyour money" is understandable as a metaphor.












        Except for how many times a day peoplebuy stuff.
        So tell me-- did you vote to have breakfast this morning?
        :-)

























        -----Original Message-----
        From: Bob Wynman <bobalou@...>
        Sent: Tue, Dec 23, 2014 9:35 pm
        Subject: Brian & Al on the Initiation of force by the State?














        From: cbhensler@... [mailto:cbhensler@...]
        Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 20147:08 AM
        Subject: Re: Al on the Initiationof force by the State?

























        - Hardly, Al





























        As aware as I am re the corruption existswithin the political system I am also aware that at times our"representatives" bring in pork they feel is needed to benefit theirconstituents/state and actually will and do help their state.












        [Bo7b:] Well, yeah, Brian … and that is what they DO do …steal from us to help the State. They’re politicians. --bob

























        In other words there are some"pure" intentions/actions involved IMO and this is what our"representatives" are supposed to do, bring in monies and supportthat will bolster their states economy and well being. Now back to thecorruption side, Al is spot on they do indeed put the needs of their backersfirst, because it is those same backers that get them into and keep them inoffice. They HAVE to put the backers desire first or else they don't get nobacon. You going to give big money to anyone not abiding by your needs? I don'tthink so. This is why the system is so corrupt. They HAVE to at this point orelse they will simply be left off to the side and deemed irrelevant andirrelevance does not keep you in office. IMO you continue to frame the issue insuch a way as to assure that maximum if not all blame can go to the politician.There are at least two dance partners here but for some illogical reason you onlywant to recognize one as a player in the corruption department. It is as if youalmost have these "contributors" as victims. If you were a marriagecouncilor and that was your primary source of income you would IMO be not sowell off because keeping the same mentality you would tend to blame only oneside or the other when in fact most marriages are two way streets. Thispuppet/puppeteer thing that exists in DC is not one sided.












        [Bo7b:] –Why are you so obsessed with looking for someone toblame, Brian?

























        Theproblem is the Win-Lose Paradigm that has caused people to believe that theforce/theft-based State is somehow necessary in order for society to function. As soon as people delegate to the State the “legal”power to initiate the use of coercion (force &/or fraud) against innocentpeople, then, of course, people indoctrinated with the win-lose mentality willseek the low-risk, high-profit power of the State in order to do all thosecorrupt things for which you seek perpetrators to blame. --bob



























        Perhapsyou’ve initiated the force of the state, Al, we have not & do notintend to do so, in fact, we’ll do whatever we can to minimize&’or eliminate the force of the state. -





























        Hundreds of millions have "initiatedthe force of the state" over the years Bob, you included by your ownadmission and you reap what you sew.












        [Bo7b:] –Naah, we reap what we sow, but we rip what wesew. There’s a difference, Brian. Careful wit dem wurds,barbs & needles! J --bob

























        You want to exact change?












        [Bo7b:] –If you’ve got it, you can use the fastlanes on toll roads &bridges! J --bob

























        Amass a group substantial enough to do soor get the ear of those who can truly benefit you and perhaps use the verysystem we are discussing against them. Turn the tables as it were. What is ityou are doing now exactly? Not voting?












        [Bo7b:] --I’ve voted libertarian … & against everyproposition that would increase the power of the State and for the VERY fewthat might decrease the power of the State in every election since 1972.

























        Politicalvoting is A, behind C’s back, in secret, appointing B to seize theproperty of C for the benefit of D (& of course, A & B). It isimmoral. Voting for candidates is simply the old thug-replacement programthat never works.



























        Ifvoting could create peace, prosperity and freedom, it would be VERY illegal.


        Economic voting (voting with our money everytime we choose to buy a productfrom A vs. B) is completely voluntary, moral and the only sort of voting thatfacilitates lasting peace, prosperity and freedom.


        --bob












        You know the saying Bob, think globally,act locally. Start small perhaps and create a wave. A tough go to be sure, thissystem is pretty damn established. Just as a possible FYI, you might need somelarge amounts of cash or other goodies.


        there was little, if anything, the “wethe people” could do, aside from armed rebellion





























        Voting is what we can do Bob."We" have the power we are just not aware or involved enough or careenough to realize it. You want change? Find a way to motivate voters in ourcurrent society to become more aware and more informed then watch thesepoliticians and their puppet masters lose the control they have becomeaccustomed to. I personally could not think of a more thorough way of gettingto your. Inform the voters on our current system, see how they respond and ifas newly informed voters they are still not getting what they want out of oursystem what would you think would be the next logical step? To findalternatives as I see it. Right now not many are looking for thosealternatives, which is why your VS is still in the discussion phase andprobably will be for a very long time. Information is not a one way street as Isee it. Once that door is open who knows where it could lead.





























        If on the flip side you can not seeenough ppl able or willing to get informed then why would you expect them toget informed about a VS?












        [Bo7b:] –Most folks are apathetic ‘bout voting‘cause they realize that it accomplishes nothing of significance &they therefore believe that their action can have no effect. As long asthey believe that, they are quite correct. Our job is to help folksunderstand that their actions (not political voting actions but building the
        Win-Win Free-market society actions) CAN make a positive difference. -- bob





























        that’sa bit silly, Al, you already stated that those “representatives”don’t represent us nor do they care what our interests might be. --bob& lou





























        So thats it? Don't try to affect change?Sit and blame one side of the equation and throw your hands up as if you graspthe entirety of the issue? In order to get them to represent us in a way wemight be comfortable with we have to address all sides of the issue and bigmoney is a side as well as the corrupt pol's. Just going after one aspect isillogical and pointless as I see it. To blame one side means to me that youwill forever be going around in circles, with or without your VS.














        [Bo7b:] –Those “representatives” will neverrepresent us. The Win-win Free-market society, like any other product, isbuilt using

























        THEIDEOLOGICAL PROGRAM:

























        1--Innovation(create the concept)--In the case of Volitional Science, this step is complete& contained in Jay Snelson’s “Principles of Human ActionPrinciples” now available on the MP3 drive at http://www.suscivinst.com/store/,as well as Galambos' V-50 (secondary property) & V-201 (primary property,available free at www.CapitalismTheLiberalRevolution.com.

























        2--Education--thehardest part (where we are now) -- we must":

























        A: educate ourselves (HAP, CLR), then ...












        B: locate a small minority, perhaps 100,000 people, who are educable(intellectually curious, rationally-thinking, and willing to invest time &effort in order to learn).

























        3--ImageBuilding/Transfer (aka, advertising to reach the masses) -- NOT education; themasses are hopelessly uneducable.

























        4--Maintenance-- the easiest part; the "Right Society" is perpetuallyself-maintaining because IT WORKS!

























        Ourjob: Find those 100K thinking friends and help them access the info notedin step 2. Do you have any educable friends?


























        --bob














        -----Original Message-----
        From: Bob Wynman <bobalou@...>
        Sent: Mon, Dec 22, 2014 4:29 pm
        Subject: RE: Al on the Initiation of force by the State?
















        From: algae5636@... [mailto:algae5636@...]
        Sent: Monday, December 22, 20141:29 PM
        Subject: Re: Al on the Initiationof force by the State?





























        Regarding your first comment:
        In the interests of clarity-- our "representatives" generally put thedesires of their financial backers first, not their own. Their personaldesires, like their constituents' desires, run a poor second or third behindthe wishes of their donors.














        [Bo7b:] -- Hardly, Al. The #1 desire of our“representatives” is to remain in power so that they continue to bein a position to collect bribes from their “supporters” in returnfor political favors (passing “laws” favoring their“contributors” and harming their “contributors’’competitors or potential competitors. “” are in second place& are the means to achieve the primary desires of those“representatives” who don’t represent the desires of you, weor their constituents at all. –bob & lou

































        Regarding your third comment:
        "Legally, we the people are the initiators of government force" isnot an "argument". It's a semantically accurate and factualdescription of the "black letter" of the law. (ParaphrasingPogo, we have met the "state"-- and it is us. :-) I made thatpoint in reply to Bob's treatment of the government/state as a separateentity-- as if it wasn't ours.














        [Bo7b:] –Perhaps you’ve initiated the force of the state,Al, we have not & do not intend to do so, in fact, we’ll do whateverwe can to minimize &’or eliminate the force of the state. -- bob& lou
















        One of the founding fathers said in effect, "We have given you arepublic-- it's your problem to keep it."














        [Bo7b:] –That comment has been attributed to Franklin & perhaps he actually saidit. It was immediately ignored and the Republic slowly deteriorated intoa democracy, just as the founders feared & it’s now deterioratinginto a tyrannical dictatorship. Once the power was delegated to theState, there was little, if anything, the “we the people” could do,aside from armed rebellion (which, without a massive paradigm shift, would nothave changed anything of significance) to limit it to anything near what wasstipulated in the Constitution. -- bob & lou





























        It's both common sense and legallyrecognized that a person is responsible for their failures to act as well astheir actions. It's not only possible to "sin by omission";it's a common human practice. Accordingly "we the people" areresponsible for what we haven't done as well as for what we've done. If thegovernment is out of our control, we share in the "blame" for that.Saying some "they" did it ends up being a denial and avoidance ofone's responsibility as a citizen.














        [Bo7b:] –If you want to be responsible for the initiation ofcoercion (force/fraud) by your State, go for it, Al. We are NOT acceptingthat responsibility because it’s not ours to accept. --bob & lou
















        Psychologically, if we think a "they" did it, we automatically alsothink it's "they" who have to change (or be gotten rid of :-),instead of thinking we have to stop slacking off of our "civicduty". That's why so many people bitch and moralize on the internetinstead of taking it straight to their "representatives" in theirlocal, state and federal government














        [Bo7b:] –that’s a bit silly, Al, you already stated thatthose “representatives” don’t represent us nor do they carewhat our interests might be. --bob & lou





























        , much less ever confronting the moneyedinterests that we know have distorted the government to their ownadvantage. We think they're the problem, not us.














        [Bo7b:] –the problem is the Win-Lose Paradigm and the fact thatour State-run society operates on the paradigm & the solution is to shiftto the win-win Paradigm and build the Win-win Free-Market society … NOW.--bob & lou
















        There's ancient wisdom in the Biblical admonition to look to one's own faults,not the faults of others. I guarantee you-- we won't come up with asolution to the present sorry state of the nation until we see ourselves as theproblem.














        [Bo7b:] –If you see yourself as the problem, Al, then why notimplement the solution & shift your paradigm from Win-Lose to Win-Win!





























        --bob& lou

































        -----Original Message-----
        From: Dave <davidwin@...>
        To: algae5636 <algae5636@...>;bobalou <bobalou@...>;Rightisright <Rightisright@yahoogroups.com>;cbhensler <cbhensler@...>;patriot451 <patriot451@...>;dag_gano <dag_gano@...>;worldwide_politics <worldwide_politics@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Mon, Dec 22, 2014 7:26 am
        Subject: RE: Al on the Initiation of force by the State?




















        From: algae5636@... [mailto:algae5636@...]
        Sent: Monday, December 22, 20145:21 AM
        Subject: Re: Al on the Initiationof force by the State?





































        Like I said, Bob, the government acts asthe agent of "the people" in general, enforcing laws agreed upon bythe people's representatives/agents in Congress.

































        Well that is the theory, but does anyonehere think it is the reality? It rests upon the premise that a politician willfaithful put the desires of his constituents above his own. We should not laughat the idea.

































        That's why in criminal court, casesare presented as "the people" vs the accused, not the"state" vs the accused. Your federal and state congress men andwomen are acting as the duly elected representatives of the people in theirdistrict, not on their own behalf, when they make laws, ya know.

































        Sometimes maybe. But other times they aredeceitful and self serving. We might all put different percentages on whichpredominates.

































        Thus legally, "we thepeople" are the initiators of government force.
















        This seems like a foolish semanticargument. All is a function of causes and effect, and you can take that all theway back and claim the big bang is the initiator of everything. We could allreason, that extra sip of coffee at home, caused me to be a little later inarriving at the intersection, thereby hitting the other car.


















        The US government has noConstitutional authority to act other than as an agency representing thecitizens of the United States of America. Consequently, yourportrayal of the government as our adversary is false.


































        Your statement above would be true, ifindeed our representatives, were true to the words and spirit of theConstitution. We know however, that is NOT the case.

































        It's our agent, and some even say ourservant.

































        Some might foolishly say so, having spentway too much time in their room. Sure wish we could sue them all formalpractice.


































        We, the citizens of the US and itsvarious states and territories, as a group and/or singly, have the monopoly onits use of coercion/force.


















        As long as one accepts the premise thatrepresentative government is true to the concept.

































        [Bo7b:] -----------------------------





























        "Icontend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you willunderstand why I dismiss yours"
        – Stephen Roberts





























        When weget piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become ascorrupt as Europe.














        --ThomasJefferson





























        I gavemy life for freedom -- this I know; for those who bade me fight told meso.
        -- W.N. Ewer





























        --bob& lou




















































































        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Dave
        From: algae5636@aol.com [mailto:algae5636@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2014 5:53 AM To: davidwin@tds.net; bobalou@wynman.com; cbhensler@aol.com;
        Message 3 of 6 , Dec 27, 2014
          From: algae5636@... [mailto:algae5636@...]
          Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2014 5:53 AM
          To: davidwin@...; bobalou@...; cbhensler@...;
          Rightisright@yahoogroups.com; patriot451@...;
          dag_gano@...; worldwide_politics@yahoogroups.com;
          PoliticalForum@...;
          Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com;
          whateverreturns@yahoogroups.com;
          whatnowdebate@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: Brian on Political vs. Free-market Voting!





          Lol.
          Bob's metaphoric meaning is clear, but his generalization is
          false.





          But it is the nature of a metaphor to simplify, which will
          necessarily generalize. There is something else that bothers
          you about it. Out with it man!





          Not all purchases are "votes with dollars" for the item
          purchased and/or its supplier.





          Being voluntary deals, they seem to express approval of the
          item and supplier at that moment, unless there was
          absolutely no alternative. This is an effective endorsement,
          at the moment. Close enough to be metaphorically called a
          vote. You seem to be picking at this.





          Among other things, some purchases are necessity-driven,





          How does that not still represent a user choice being made
          as in a vote?





          some are experimental,





          Yes.





          to try a product or service and see if the buyer thinks it's
          worth buying again,





          And we do not have millions of people in the political
          middle voting this way and that in the hope that the other
          might be worth voting for again?





          and others are driven by addictions and other irrational
          impulses.





          I certainly see those who vote in hopes of receiving more
          free stuff as an addictive dependence or one in the making.





          A junky is not "voting" for heroin,





          Of course he is. He is making a decision, choosing one
          course of action over another, and his choice impact the
          entire body just as voting does (or attempts to do. Why are
          you quibbling even after admitting that his metaphoric
          meaning is clear.





          nor his dealer when he buys his next fix, and a diabetic is
          not "voting" for insulin or its supplier when he gets his
          prescription filled.





          Of course he is. There are always alternatives to all things
          we do, including a choice of docs and involvement with ones
          medical treatment, choice of drug store, etc. Seems to me
          every choice we make can be seen as a vote for that
          approach.



          And I'm curious-- please tell me when was the last time you
          know of that a tax collector was voted into office?





          Irrelevant strawman. Are there even people in the IRS called
          tax collectors? We all understand that congress makes the
          laws, the executive branch executes them. Bob nor I find it
          necessary to spell out which branch is most responsible for
          stealing money (or just taking it if you prefer) from
          people?




          We elect representatives to provide a range of services to
          their constituents.





          Nom "we" do not. some vote, and the majority of those who do
          elect representatives of their political ideas which are
          then forced upon all others. Neither Bob nor I or many
          others accept any aspect of democracy or majority rule.
          Neither did our founders.





          Characterizing it as all "to appoint bureaucrats to steal
          property from your more productive neighbors" is as stupid
          as it is false.





          The above is an empty reiteration of your position, with no
          added logical evidence of your position. At this point I DO
          see what you have in mind, I can rationally infer what you
          are implying. You actually believe it is right and fair for
          the majority of voters to empower a politician to take from
          some to give to others. So why do you not directly argue
          that rather than picking semantic battles with Bob's
          metaphors?





          Those "more productive neighbors" vote too.





          So what? Do you believe voting somehow morally sanctifies
          anything? People once voted so as to retain slavery too.





          Are they voting to steal from their neighbors who are even
          more productive than themselves?






          They are voting immorally to benefit themselves. By
          immorally, I mean in a less than cooperative way, to use
          force, to take from some to benefit others. I don't mean
          anything religious or sentimental by use of the term.




          And if "taking from people against their will is stealing",
          the United States is stolen property from coast to coast,





          That can be logically argued I think. but it was long ago,
          and victimized long dead Indians and a few Mexicans. that
          makes it a dead and therefore, irrelevant point today.





          the entire US real estate industry has been trading in
          stolen property from the gitgo,





          The statute of limitations has run out. Even today, if I use
          another's land without any complaint by that owner, I can
          eventually own it, by law.





          so has every domestic oil, mining, and lumber business among
          others,





          You POV already includes every human in the nation, no need
          to go on. But who gives a shit what might have been "stolen"
          centuries ago, those living today own legitimately, and have
          not stolen.





          and so have all of their customers besides, just naturally
          including Bob and you.


          So I'm not impressed with your goody-two-shoes moralizing
          about how the government is "stealing" a percentage of your
          ill-gotten gains





          Taking your premise that all was originally stolen centuries
          ago, does not make our gains today ill gotten. Our gains
          today were obtained by fair trade.





          from trading in stolen property from you against your will.





          If the government were recovering stolen goods, on behalf of
          some long dead ancestors, we would not call it steeling. But
          that is not what government is doing. It is instead telling
          us to go out and obtain this once long ago stolen property
          by hard work and fair trade, then taking it from us on
          behalf of those who have voted for such a deal.





          If you sincerely believed that "taking from people against
          their will is stealing", you wouldn't participate in the US
          aftermarket in stolen goods.





          You can't very well tell me what I would do. I can tell you
          however, Here is how the law works actually, and it is a
          fine moral way. If you buy from me a car that has been
          stolen, you can sue and have the deal reversed. I can then
          sue the guy I bought it from, and it can daisy chain back to
          the original thief. No one living and participating in the
          chain of events is hurt, other than legal expenses. But in
          your example, since the original thieves and their victims
          are dead, we need not. our current assets where obtained by
          fair trade, and you are desperately reaching it seems to me.






          And you'd be so poor the state would be offering you money
          instead of taking a cut.
          But you couldn't accept it, because that would be receiving
          stolen property.





          Who is to say property that was generally not owned per se
          by the Indians, was stolen? Lots of questionable semantics
          in this kind of retro hypothesizing. And what right of
          ownership did individual Indians enjoy anyway. Maybe we won
          the land in war, or maybe other nations did, and then sold
          it to us. The fact that there is centuries old blood
          everywhere, need not nullify anything about property
          ownership today, and certainly does not justify it being
          taken by government and given to others who have no greater
          right to it.









          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.