CDZ Does this Analogy apply to Liberal Democrats view of Govt

[emilynghiem]

In discussing the two major veins of Govt:
* the social programs and "promotion of the general welfare through Govt"
compared with the view of the Constitution as
* limiting the authority and reach of Govt to maximize the freedom and liberty of the people
to lead the social and business development instead of depending on govt to initiate and manage everything

I came up with an Analogy I'd like to run past
both the Liberals and Conservatives on this Forum.

The Analogy is to Arranged Marriages, where if a woman has a lot of kids to take care of,
the family urges her to marry a rich man who will take care of her so she can manage all the kids.

What if this woman does NOT want to marry that man under the terms he or the family has spelled out. What if she wants to manage her kids herself, and be independent, even if it means struggling and getting private help from friends. She does not want to be dependent or under the wing of this man against her will.

Does this remind you of people pushing to have all health care managed through govt
in order to take care of more people, while half the nation is saying no we don't want to do it that way. We want to manage it freely through other means.

And people are fighting over who is going to prevent that many kids from suffering neglect.
Is it better to go along with the Sugar Daddy who is going to cover as many kids as possible until better plans can be worked out. Is it okay to marry for money just to have the stability to meet urgent needs, and then maybe divorce later when the family can be stabilized without depending on this man acting as the support, but in an UNWILFUL relationship where the woman does NOT want to be with him in that way, but would rather have support for the kids without depending on this man she does NOT want to BE FORCED INTO RELATIONS WITH.

What do you think of this analogy?

DEBATE question: Does it apply to Liberal Democrats who keep pushing to depend on Govt for social support, even if the people in the relationship say NO we don't want to be compelled against our will. What if America is the woman and the Govt is the man, and half the nation is saying no we don't want to be forced into that relationship. We want to be free to manage ourselves.

NOTE: If this Analogy is not perfect enough for you, to say yes or no, please clarify, please revise it to describe what you see going on with either the Democrats/Liberals if you think it applies there, or if you think it is the Conservatives/Republicans trying to force policies on people against their will. Please feel free to reply with your own adaptations if that helps.

And you can still answer yes or no, does this apply to Democrats/Liberals' view of Govt?
(or you can argue it applies more to Republicans/Conservatives and explain where). Thanks!

 

[william the wie]

Sounds right to me

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

In discussing the two major veins of Govt:
* the social programs and "promotion of the general welfare through Govt"
compared with the view of the Constitution as
* limiting the authority and reach of Govt to maximize the freedom and liberty of the people
to lead the social and business development instead of depending on govt to initiate and manage everything

I came up with an Analogy I'd like to run past
both the Liberals and Conservatives on this Forum.

The Analogy is to Arranged Marriages, where if a woman has a lot of kids to take care of,
the family urges her to marry a rich man who will take care of her so she can manage all the kids.

What if this woman does NOT want to marry that man under the terms he or the family has spelled out. What if she wants to manage her kids herself, and be independent, even if it means struggling and getting private help from friends. She does not want to be dependent or under the wing of this man against her will.

Does this remind you of people pushing to have all health care managed through govt
in order to take care of more people, while half the nation is saying no we don't want to do it that way. We want to manage it freely through other means.

And people are fighting over who is going to prevent that many kids from suffering neglect.
Is it better to go along with the Sugar Daddy who is going to cover as many kids as possible until better plans can be worked out. Is it okay to marry for money just to have the stability to meet urgent needs, and then maybe divorce later when the family can be stabilized without depending on this man acting as the support, but in an UNWILFUL relationship where the woman does NOT want to be with him in that way, but would rather have support for the kids without depending on this man she does NOT want to BE FORCED INTO RELATIONS WITH.

What do you think of this analogy?

DEBATE question: Does it apply to Liberal Democrats who keep pushing to depend on Govt for social support, even if the people in the relationship say NO we don't want to be compelled against our will. What if America is the woman and the Govt is the man, and half the nation is saying no we don't want to be forced into that relationship. We want to be free to manage ourselves.

NOTE: If this Analogy is not perfect enough for you, to say yes or no, please clarify, please revise it to describe what you see going on with either the Democrats/Liberals if you think it applies there, or if you think it is the Conservatives/Republicans trying to force policies on people against their will. Please feel free to reply with your own adaptations if that helps.

And you can still answer yes or no, does this apply to Democrats/Liberals' view of Govt?
(or you can argue it applies more to Republicans/Conservatives and explain where). Thanks!

but the people who need the help are not the ones opposing it. conservatives are opposing these beneficial reforms because if they can disenfranchise the poor and marginalized, it takes away voted from the democrats.

 

[william the wie]

The Ds deliberately destroy the poor and disguise their motives through the terms like the greater good I. e. applying lipstick to the use of concentration camps.

 

[emilynghiem]

In discussing the two major veins of Govt:
* the social programs and "promotion of the general welfare through Govt"
compared with the view of the Constitution as
* limiting the authority and reach of Govt to maximize the freedom and liberty of the people
to lead the social and business development instead of depending on govt to initiate and manage everything

I came up with an Analogy I'd like to run past
both the Liberals and Conservatives on this Forum.

The Analogy is to Arranged Marriages, where if a woman has a lot of kids to take care of,
the family urges her to marry a rich man who will take care of her so she can manage all the kids.

What if this woman does NOT want to marry that man under the terms he or the family has spelled out. What if she wants to manage her kids herself, and be independent, even if it means struggling and getting private help from friends. She does not want to be dependent or under the wing of this man against her will.

Does this remind you of people pushing to have all health care managed through govt
in order to take care of more people, while half the nation is saying no we don't want to do it that way. We want to manage it freely through other means.

And people are fighting over who is going to prevent that many kids from suffering neglect.
Is it better to go along with the Sugar Daddy who is going to cover as many kids as possible until better plans can be worked out. Is it okay to marry for money just to have the stability to meet urgent needs, and then maybe divorce later when the family can be stabilized without depending on this man acting as the support, but in an UNWILFUL relationship where the woman does NOT want to be with him in that way, but would rather have support for the kids without depending on this man she does NOT want to BE FORCED INTO RELATIONS WITH.

What do you think of this analogy?

DEBATE question: Does it apply to Liberal Democrats who keep pushing to depend on Govt for social support, even if the people in the relationship say NO we don't want to be compelled against our will. What if America is the woman and the Govt is the man, and half the nation is saying no we don't want to be forced into that relationship. We want to be free to manage ourselves.

NOTE: If this Analogy is not perfect enough for you, to say yes or no, please clarify, please revise it to describe what you see going on with either the Democrats/Liberals if you think it applies there, or if you think it is the Conservatives/Republicans trying to force policies on people against their will. Please feel free to reply with your own adaptations if that helps.

And you can still answer yes or no, does this apply to Democrats/Liberals' view of Govt?
(or you can argue it applies more to Republicans/Conservatives and explain where). Thanks!

but the people who need the help are not the ones opposing it. conservatives are opposing these beneficial reforms because if they can disenfranchise the poor and marginalized, it takes away voted from the democrats.

Hi PhilosphyBeforeParty
How much of the Conservative opposition is NOT to charity and helping people (which nonprofits, churches and individuals do without going through govt) but opposition to the use/abuse of "Federal Govt" to provide this social help
instead of using other means of providing services
that develop responsible relations with the recipients and community.

Depending on govt to provide the resources
removes the sense of social responsibility from the taxpayers and citizens who generate those resources.
People too easily get a sense of "entitlement" and expecting Govt to support them instead of understanding
those resources come from people working to pay that money into the budget.

I can't help but notice the people I am helping who have grown Accustomed to receiving subsidized help,
don't have a real sense of the TRUE cost of goods, housing, services and benefits they receive.

They are used to getting help, in their minds, they count on it and start factoring in that support as part of the base equation! This it skews their sense of how much work it really takes to pay for rent, transportation, health care, running a household, etc. WITHOUT any subsidized help.

This cannot be healthy.

It perpetuates "inequality" by having some classes of people working for all they have, so they
have direct knowledge and experience of what things are worth, and how much work it costs to raise the money.

While others get used to receiving help, where they think it is natural
to receive financial help and not owe anything in paying any of it back!

I even had a friend complain that trying to help a friend stay at his place for free
didn't work out, because that person took it for granted as if it was paid for and free to live there.

They did not have an equal sense of ownership and responsibility because only one person
was paying for the rent and bills.

As with charities, I helps to have direct communication with the person providing the help,
both for accountability, and for using the social connection as part of counseling and therapy
in cases where someone has other problems besides just financial. When Govt provides welfare, there is not that personal relationship or counseling to help recipients recover
to a stable state as there is with charities and nonprofits.that can work closely with clients one on one. Govt cannot work one on one or it will get bogged down in too much bureaucracy to work with each person individually. This is better done through private groups localized per community.

I see it as positive that both Obama coming from a liberal perspective and Ben Carson from a conservative approach BOTH support MICROLENDING as a more sustainable way to help people out of poverty without creating dependence on welfare.

So there is a better way to help that doesn't create an unhealthy overreliant relationship.

 

[Idadunno]

In discussing the two major veins of Govt:
* the social programs and "promotion of the general welfare through Govt"
compared with the view of the Constitution as
* limiting the authority and reach of Govt to maximize the freedom and liberty of the people
to lead the social and business development instead of depending on govt to initiate and manage everything

I came up with an Analogy I'd like to run past
both the Liberals and Conservatives on this Forum.

The Analogy is to Arranged Marriages, where if a woman has a lot of kids to take care of,
the family urges her to marry a rich man who will take care of her so she can manage all the kids.

What if this woman does NOT want to marry that man under the terms he or the family has spelled out. What if she wants to manage her kids herself, and be independent, even if it means struggling and getting private help from friends. She does not want to be dependent or under the wing of this man against her will.

Does this remind you of people pushing to have all health care managed through govt
in order to take care of more people, while half the nation is saying no we don't want to do it that way. We want to manage it freely through other means.

And people are fighting over who is going to prevent that many kids from suffering neglect.
Is it better to go along with the Sugar Daddy who is going to cover as many kids as possible until better plans can be worked out. Is it okay to marry for money just to have the stability to meet urgent needs, and then maybe divorce later when the family can be stabilized without depending on this man acting as the support, but in an UNWILFUL relationship where the woman does NOT want to be with him in that way, but would rather have support for the kids without depending on this man she does NOT want to BE FORCED INTO RELATIONS WITH.

What do you think of this analogy?

DEBATE question: Does it apply to Liberal Democrats who keep pushing to depend on Govt for social support, even if the people in the relationship say NO we don't want to be compelled against our will. What if America is the woman and the Govt is the man, and half the nation is saying no we don't want to be forced into that relationship. We want to be free to manage ourselves.

NOTE: If this Analogy is not perfect enough for you, to say yes or no, please clarify, please revise it to describe what you see going on with either the Democrats/Liberals if you think it applies there, or if you think it is the Conservatives/Republicans trying to force policies on people against their will. Please feel free to reply with your own adaptations if that helps.

And you can still answer yes or no, does this apply to Democrats/Liberals' view of Govt?
(or you can argue it applies more to Republicans/Conservatives and explain where). Thanks!

Using your analogy:
What man would take on a woman with a lot of kids? One or two kids, maybe, but the man is going to expect her to have his kids too and if she's "spent", what good is she to him, or why would he want to spend all his money raising someone else's kids? This woman would fall through the cracks of that system.
The ACA created more debt on the poor, which probably pushed them into poverty but not official poverty. The people who do not qualify for Medicaid (unemployed) are still uninsured, and those who were barely over the poverty rate are paying for something they can never use because of the high deductibles. The people the ACA was supposed to help fell through the cracks, and some were buried under it.
The ACA is a government scam to make people pay more into the system so the government can continue to spend like QVC addicts. It does not lower other people's premiums nor does it lower the cost of pharmaceuticals or medical. Politicians, including Obama, are getting richer from it because they invested in big pharm and insurance companies.

 

[Josf]

The analogy does not work if the terms used are not spelled out so as to avoid confusion.

"I came up with an Analogy I'd like to run past
both the Liberals and Conservatives on this Forum."

Conservatives are as, if not more, effective at enforcing involuntary association, they do so through so called legal tender laws.

So your analogy would be changed in this way:

"What if she wants to manage her kids herself, and be independent, even if it means struggling and getting private help from friends whose "help" turns out to be as costly to her, if not more costly to her, compared to the raw deal offered by the potential husband."

You set up an involuntary association in the form of a counterfeit marriage that is described as a monetary exchange where sex appears to be sold for money. You say that is an example of what Liberals offer on this forum: assuming I get that right.

The classic meaning of a Liberal, on the other hand, were the patriots who agreed with the Declaration of Independence, so there are potentially two meanings for Liberals.

If you only mean the prostitutes on this forum, or the Johns who buy prostitutes on the forum, when you use the word Liberals, then that can be understood, clearly, if you clarify what you mean when you use the word Liberals.

If you then mean to suggest that Conservatives on this forum represent those people who are fully capable of offering a strictly voluntary association, as your words suggest in these words: "..getting private help from friends...," then that use of that word appears to suggest that you are not speaking about the Conservatives, you are speaking about Libertarians instead, if you mean to use the modern versions of words. If you mean to use the classical version of what is meant by Conservative, then that goes back to the possible meaning of the Loyalists, or those who were Loyal to the British Crown, and they were working to maintain an involuntary association, which points back to the false husband, who was working to buy a hooker hidden behind a false front of "marriage."

So, again, your analogy can be easily misunderstood, and then understood if changed to this:

"What if she wants to manage her kids herself, and be independent, even if it means struggling and getting private help from pimping friends whose "help" turns out to be as costly to her, if not more costly to her, compared to the raw deal offered by the potential pimping husband."

What you appear to be looking for is a possible analogy like this:

A struggling woman born into a world where trust among volunteers volunteering to create and maintain voluntary associations is replaced by ubiquitous distrust; therefore the opportunities for an honest living through earning are reduced to a few possible options including finding the least abusive pimp to work for and if at all possible, on the other hand, finding the rare fellows who appreciate the value of trust in voluntary associations based upon honesty, productive earnings, and equitable exchange, and if necessary, help in the form of charity without "strings" attached.

If that is the basis for an analogy, then all of that voluntary association stuff remains to be none of the business of government at all, and the only cause to act in a manner within the law would be to discover and deal with the pimps as the pimps use every trick in the book to inspire the prostitutes to work as slaves, and the only reason for people to volunteer to work in government is to defend the slaves from the pimps.

 

[I amso IR]

Whoa! I was under the impression the Supreme Court Of The United States recently awarded the Rite Of Marriage to any and all sexes of this nation. Why, might I ask is this topic limited to, "a rich man"? Are there no rich women? Were a "rich women" be added to the mix, pregnancies would become a moot point unless by mutual agreement, the sperm of a male is added to the mix, which is also accepted at this point in time. And why is pregnancy even considered in such a proposal as this. The rule of "cause and effect" has already been grossly violated by issue of "all the kids". I would think that there would be an abundance of wealthy charitable progressive females as opposed to wealthy charitable males.

 

[Josf]

"I would think that there would be an abundance of wealthy charitable progressive females as opposed to wealthy charitable males."

I'm not sure if I understand those words well enough to comment on them; other than to say that after reading the words offered I was reminded of an initial thought I had in mind when I first read the Original Post: aren't children worth all the money in the world and then some, are they not what has been known affectionately as posterity? Whose idea was it to trade in reproductive life, secured by parents making families, and generations carrying on the tradition, for an easily recognized counterfeit replacement, in the form of a legal fiction: and all the counterfeit money flowing from those who maintain it, for their own power to purchase slaves that are then abused for entertainment?


So, back to the competitive answer, the Liberals and Conservatives, so called, in modern times are one and the same thing: deception, two false fronts, two faces, on one counterfeit coin.

If the idea is to know friend from foe, those willing, able, and offering honest help, because they earn their power to help through honest productive economic activity, on one side, the good side, the right side, the liberated side, the economically productive side, and foe on the other side, to be avoided, to be defended against, to be secured outside the boarders of the friends, then it might be a good idea to avoid using duplicitous words when describing who, what, where, why, and how friends are friends, and how foes confess their evil intentions in time to afford the defenders the power required to effectively neutralize the criminal power to harm innocent people.

When the criminals take over, they have learned to avoid announcing the fact, they have learned very well how to effectively maintain a false, counterfeit, version of the good guys.

 

[I amso IR]

I amso IR responds;

For the sake of brevity, Huh?

 

[Josf]

"I was under the impression the Supreme Court Of The United States recently awarded the Rite Of Marriage to any and all sexes of this nation."

If the message is unclear, then someone can respond in a case where the message is unclear.

"For the sake of brevity, Huh?"

Is that a response to someone in particular?

An example of a response to a message that is unclear, can be a quoting of the unclear message, and then a few questions, and an example, of why the message is unclear to the reader or the message that is unclear to the reader. The writer may have a clear message intended.

"I was under the impression the Supreme Court Of The United States recently awarded the Rite Of Marriage to any and all sexes of this nation."

That message is unclear to me, since that message appears not to have anything to do with the topic, and if it did have something to do with the topic, then the possibility exists that the one writing the message is someone who claims that the so called "Supreme Court Of The United States" is an example of the government. So the possible (but unclear) connection is that the topic is a topic about the government and the quote in red above is a message intending to give credit to what the author thinks, in his mind, is an example of government.

Why does this individual think that the so called Supreme Court Of The United States is an example of government, if that is what the author claims?

AntiFederalist Papers Paper 83 Freedom Documents

That is a brief explanation as to why the so called Supreme Court Of The United States is contrary to the law of the land which exists in the form of trial by jury according to the common law, which was part of the Amending of the work of the criminals who called themselves, falsely, the Federalists.

An example of brevity in communicating a difficult subject exists in that link. An excerpt, or sound bite, for those who have a short attention span, can be extracted from the whole body of work in the link.

Thus, sir, jury trials, which have ever been the boast of the English constitution-which have been by our several state constitutions so cautiously secured to us-jury trials, which have so long been considered the surest barrier against arbitrary power, and the palladium of liberty, with the loss of which the loss of our freedom may be dated, are taken away by the proposed form of government, not only in a great variety of questions between individual and individual, but in every case, whether civil or criminal, arising under the laws of the United States, or the execution of those laws.

An example of brevity is one thing. A thinly veiled aggressive character assassination attack can be brief too. Constructive criticism can be welcome.

Did someone actually buy, hook, line, and sinker, the line about a Supreme Court Of The United States corporation rising above, and over, the very people who create and maintain said corporation?

Said corporate officers of said corporation can "awarded the Rite Of Marriage to any and all sexes" and that brief message conveys meaning to someone?

If the same corporate officers award licenses to other corporate officers to torture, mass murder, and exterminate the very people who create and maintain said corporation, does that constitute orders that must be obeyed without question?

If not, then by what process are the people who create and maintain said corporation afforded due process in their defense against such criminal orders issued by corporate officers pretending to be authorities of law?

 

[I amso IR]

In discussing the two major veins of Govt:
* the social programs and "promotion of the general welfare through Govt"
compared with the view of the Constitution as
* limiting the authority and reach of Govt to maximize the freedom and liberty of the people
to lead the social and business development instead of depending on govt to initiate and manage everything

I came up with an Analogy I'd like to run past
both the Liberals and Conservatives on this Forum.

The Analogy is to Arranged Marriages, where if a woman has a lot of kids to take care of,
the family urges her to marry a rich man who will take care of her so she can manage all the kids.

What if this woman does NOT want to marry that man under the terms he or the family has spelled out. What if she wants to manage her kids herself, and be independent, even if it means struggling and getting private help from friends. She does not want to be dependent or under the wing of this man against her will.

Does this remind you of people pushing to have all health care managed through govt
in order to take care of more people, while half the nation is saying no we don't want to do it that way. We want to manage it freely through other means.

And people are fighting over who is going to prevent that many kids from suffering neglect.
Is it better to go along with the Sugar Daddy who is going to cover as many kids as possible until better plans can be worked out. Is it okay to marry for money just to have the stability to meet urgent needs, and then maybe divorce later when the family can be stabilized without depending on this man acting as the support, but in an UNWILFUL relationship where the woman does NOT want to be with him in that way, but would rather have support for the kids without depending on this man she does NOT want to BE FORCED INTO RELATIONS WITH.

What do you think of this analogy?

DEBATE question: Does it apply to Liberal Democrats who keep pushing to depend on Govt for social support, even if the people in the relationship say NO we don't want to be compelled against our will. What if America is the woman and the Govt is the man, and half the nation is saying no we don't want to be forced into that relationship. We want to be free to manage ourselves.

NOTE: If this Analogy is not perfect enough for you, to say yes or no, please clarify, please revise it to describe what you see going on with either the Democrats/Liberals if you think it applies there, or if you think it is the Conservatives/Republicans trying to force policies on people against their will. Please feel free to reply with your own adaptations if that helps.

And you can still answer yes or no, does this apply to Democrats/Liberals' view of Govt?
(or you can argue it applies more to Republicans/Conservatives and explain where). Thanks!

I amso IR reponds

Might I suggest that you revise your above statement to include well to do women as well as "rich" men in as much as female to female marriage is an accepted form of marriage as well as male to male, female to male and male to female. This change would thereby increase the total number of marriages available to women with few or many children, that most precious of resources. Equality of available resources is simply a rational the normal citizen would expect in this day and age. Regression to former periods of time and the horrible and irrational thinking of those periods cannot be tolerated in with todays enlightened thinking. We have advanced so far beyond those male dominated periods and thankfully so. The voices of woman are now heard clearly. With a few simple changes to wording I fully support this idea you have proposed.

 

[emilynghiem]

Whoa! I was under the impression the Supreme Court Of The United States recently awarded the Rite Of Marriage to any and all sexes of this nation. Why, might I ask is this topic limited to, "a rich man"? Are there no rich women? Were a "rich women" be added to the mix, pregnancies would become a moot point unless by mutual agreement, the sperm of a male is added to the mix, which is also accepted at this point in time. And why is pregnancy even considered in such a proposal as this. The rule of "cause and effect" has already been grossly violated by issue of "all the kids". I would think that there would be an abundance of wealthy charitable progressive females as opposed to wealthy charitable males.

Dear I amso IR
OK so to be PC and gender neutral
Let's call it a Sugar Spouse or Super Spouse!

And the point of the analogy is Liberals are ASSUMING
the "only way to pay for health care universally" is to depend on the Super Spouse

The problem is FORCING people into this relationship against their will.

Now some people may be in a stage of development where they need to be forced to follow laws.
Like how 6th Graders in school do not need a choice of whether or not to follow the classroom rules.

On the other hand, if you have people on the graduate student and post-doctoral level,
they may be doing research outside the regimen of classroom protocol which stifles the work they do.

Why can't we organize and manage people according to what relationship they have with govt,
and set up access to education and mentorship to work toward independence instead of punishing
people for wanting to work independently and rewarding people for staying depending on govt.

 

[I amso IR]

My initial post was with reference to the pool of resources available as the resource pool has grown with the inclusion of well to do women added to the overall mix of that pool. It seems only proper to consider them.

With respect to a person following their desired path of education to a goal which they consider a suitable end is another matter. However, as you suggest, a woman with children faces barriers which are unique. At that point, the idea of an arranged marriage, for the sake of convenience, on the one hand and a necessity to insure proper care of the unintended consequences, primarily children, on the other, is worthy of consideration and deserving of the stated consideration. That stated, there are, in my view, many problems associated with the proposal you suggest. And, of course, we cannot forget that the ultimate goal is, in some form or another, removing the role of government involvement. In an ideal world, utopia not withstanding, there would be an abundance of persons awaiting the call to help those unfortunate women, having been placed in the tragic position of being desired by the males of any given society and the equally tragic situation of not being able, for various reasons, to avail themselves of birth control measures available to them through city, county and state agencies. Another instance of government involvement. Time is another consideration to consider. Were an understanding and desirable person, willing to act as a Sugar/Super Spouse for an agreed period of time, available, would that person as well as the child affected person have the time needed to continue their personal ambitions and the education necessary for a positive completion of all required, related and established goals? That remains to be seen and studied in depth. Additionally who would assume responsibility for the incurred cost of education of the person affected? Not to mention how the child/children are cared for and fed and protected while the parent and quasi parent are pursuing education. Over all it, being the suggested topic, is worthy of consideration. I thank you for your response and thank you for your interest and concern in this unfortunate situation being thrust upon the unmarried, unsupported mothers of so many children, which is, of course, of primary importance in this entire and unjustified pattern of neglect. If I can be of further assistance in helping clarify this horrible situation, you need only ask. Again, thank you.
P.S. I might add, at this point, ANYONE with an idea as to how this suggestion might be further improved upon, should respond. I feel 'emilynghiem' would be appreciative of all considerations concerning this matter of importance. Children First!

 

[Josf]

The analogy simply does not work; unless the assumption is such that slavery is legal, right, good, worth investing into because some select members of a special interest group receive the benefits of slavery while the slaves pay the price of slavery. So if that is the assumption: slavery is good, then the analogy can work fine.

Government starts and ends at the effective defense is the innocent victims OF SLAVERY (in any form) and if instead there are those who invest in Sugar/Super (involuntary) relationships, then who is the one volunteering to invest in said criminal relationship? Who are among those who are sharing the one idea, that said Sugar/Super (slave relationship) are necessary, good, and good for all, benefiting everyone, or benefiting the slaves, and therefore everyone must invest into this arrangement? All for one criminal arrangement, and one for all?

1. Modern so called Liberals
People who are Marxist/Leninist Criminals seeking to repeat the example offered by Stalin and Bolshevism, the example offered in China by the Mao version of criminal Communism, the Pol Pot Killing Fields in Cambodia, on, and on, cruel and USUAL punishment examples offered time and again when people believe this type of fraud to a point that goes beyond turning back. These people depend upon a fraudulent extortion (extortion hidden behind a so called tax) which moves productive power out of the hands of the producers (slaves) and into the hands of the criminals.

2. Modern so called Conservatives
People who are Money Changers, also known as Monarchs, Aristocrats, Kings, Fascists, and Limited Liability Corporations, the most obvious examples including the Red Coat British Empire, and the Nazi Regime. These people depend upon the same fraudulent extortion combined with a very efficient central banking money monopoly power.

Both groups also depend upon extremely destructive weapons of mass destruction to Suppress Insurrection, Rebellion, and any other forms of efforts by which the slaves work to disconnect from the Sugar/Super Slave connection, so as to then be independent from it.

Both groups Liberal/Conservative also require extremely destructive addictive substances not limited to only Drugs, as the term Bread and Circuses suggest.

As if there were no alternative, both Modern versions of Liberal, and Modern version of Conservatives, invest all the stolen loot they can manage to steal from productive people into maintaining virtually the same thing, having only different people, and different labels, during their turn running the Sugar/Super arrangement which is simply "legalized" slavery, or crime under the color of law.

Within two very significant periods of American history there were people offering voluntary association as the alternative to the Final Solution known as crime under the color of law, or in allegory: Sugar/Super Arranged "Cooperation."

1.
The patriots agreeing with the Declaration of Independence and the written form known as federation. The proponents of voluntary federation were called "Anti" federalists by the Liberal/Conservative group of that time period who falsely called themselves the Federalist Party. The Federalist Party was made up of slave traders and central banking criminals.

2.
Just before the Civil War, after the Democrat-Republican Party worked to reestablish something similar to a true federation (unfortunately the fraudulent Constitution was in place to "legalize" slavery and thereby preventing much reform, and thereby ensuring a Civil War) a time existed that included what was called Wild Cat Banking; which is code for Free Market Banking, true capitalism, in Liberty. During that time period those who picked up where the falsely named Anti-Federalists left off were called Anarchists.

The word choice "Anarchist" was as poor a choice of labels as was the poor choices to call the criminal slave traders and central bankers Federalists, and call the federalists "Anti." The power the criminals exercise on false advertising through controlled media is not new, it was the rule not the exception during the Revolutionary Period, and it was the rule, not the exception during the time period leading up to the so called Civil War (having nothing to do with civility, or civilization, or civil order).

So the idea (if this is the idea) that involuntary association (slave/master, or Sugar/Super) is as necessary, as inevitable, as beneficial, as air, so everyone must invest into such crime, is demonstrably false when looking at the obvious alternatives offered in actual history.

When people are not forced to give up their productive economic wealth, at the point of production, meaning those who produce are those who originally own, control, have, hold, save, command, for investment, for consumption, for themselves, or for charity, DO NOT have said wealth stolen and used by criminals (with false badges) to steal more, and that sets up what became known as free markets in Liberty, or the original ideas behind the word capitalism.

Those who then have that purchasing power are those then able to invest in producing more for less at their locations. That sets up a classification of people who are called entrepreneurs and a greater number of entrepreneurs are ensured when their wealth is not stolen from them by that classification of people known as "politicians" (Super). That sets up an increase in demand for another classification of people called laborers. The increase in entrepreneurs, each individual one demanding laborers who expand the productive capacity of the specific business started by the entrepreneurs, places our world back to a right-side-up world.

That was explained well enough in that time period during the Revolutionary War era, and that was also explained very well during that Wild Cat Banking era leading up to the so called Civil War: as the following example proves beyond a reasonable doubt for those seeking useful knowledge: NOT for those seeking a new lie to replace the old lies that have already worn out their effectiveness.

Benjamin Tucker - State Socialism and Anarchism

First in the importance of its evil influence they considered the money monopoly, which consists of the privilege given by the government to certain individuals, or to individuals holding certain kinds of property, of issuing the circulating medium, a privilege which is now enforced in this country by a national tax of ten per cent., upon all other persons who attempt to furnish a circulating medium, and by State laws making it a criminal offense to issue notes as currency. It is claimed that the holders of this privilege control the rate of interest, the rate of rent of houses and buildings, and the prices of goods, – the first directly, and the second and third indirectly. For, say Proudhon and Warren, if the business of banking were made free to all, more and more persons would enter into it until the competition should become sharp enough to reduce the price of lending money to the labor cost, which statistics show to be less than three-fourths of once per cent. In that case the thousands of people who are now deterred from going into business by the ruinously high rates which they must pay for capital with which to start and carry on business will find their difficulties removed. If they have property which they do not desire to convert into money by sale, a bank will take it as collateral for a loan of a certain proportion of its market value at less than one per cent. discount. If they have no property, but are industrious, honest, and capable, they will generally be able to get their individual notes endorsed by a sufficient number of known and solvent parties; and on such business paper they will be able to get a loan at a bank on similarly favorable terms. Thus interest will fall at a blow. The banks will really not be lending capital at all, but will be doing business on the capital of their customers, the business consisting in an exchange of the known and widely available credits of the banks for the unknown and unavailable, but equality good, credits of the customers and a charge therefor of less than one per cent., not as interest for the use of capital, but as pay for the labor of running the banks. This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently create an unprecedented demand for labor, – a demand which will always be in excess of the supply, directly to the contrary of the present condition of the labor market. Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after one employer, wages fall, but when two employers are after one laborer, wages rise. Labor will then be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product. Thus the same blow that strikes interest down will send wages up. But this is not all. Down will go profits also. For merchants, instead of buying at high prices on credit, will borrow money of the banks at less than one per cent., buy at low prices for cash, and correspondingly reduce the prices of their goods to their customers. And with the rest will go house-rent. For no one who can borrow capital at one per cent. with which to build a house of his own will consent to pay rent to a landlord at a higher rate than that. Such is the vast claim made by Proudhon and Warren as to the results of the simple abolition of the money monopoly.

That ties in with this topic in this way:

Sugar people (those wanting to be independent) are enslaved by the Central Banking Fraud (now The FED) combined with the Extortion Racket (now IRS) as potential entrepreneurs (who would then demand laborers) whose potential to be entrepreneurs is stolen by the Super people at the IRS/FED counterfeit government.

Sugar people knowable as laborers (who would command a capitalist price increase as more entrepreneurs fight over a diminishing supply of scarce laborers) are as enslaved by the criminal (Super) counterfeit government agents in that form knowable as Extortion and Fraud, or crime under the color of law, or involuntary taxation (creating a demand for) counterfeit money. The FED creates a counterfeit dollar, and the IRS demands payment in counterfeit dollars; thereby exposing the relationship required for both Super Modern Liberals and Conservatives feeding from the same criminal trough.

End the IRS, end the FED, and each State competes with each other State, for entrepreneurs, and laborers, for their business in their State, and the only job the voluntary federation has is ensuring the free flow of the people, so as to eliminate those Suger/Super slave/masters through voluntary market forces.

That is explained well enough in the following words:

Reclaiming the American Revolution The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy William Watkins 9781403963031 Amazon.com Books

Quote:______________________________________
Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely.
_____________________________________________

Those insisting on Master/Slave arrangements are criminals, the do not obey moral laws, they issue and enforce criminal orders. Expecting them to give up their criminal power, once they steal it, is precisely what they may want their slaves to think.

So...the prostitutes no longer have a pimp forcing them into having only two evil "choices," to sell their soul to pimp A or pimp B based upon which pimp abused them less. Instead of that (might makes right) relationship there are voluntary relationships instead as former prostitutes command their own choice among entrepreneurs who fight over each other to pay the former prostitutes a higher wage if the former prostitutes would pick the higher paying entrepreneur to work along side, rather than having a counterfeit employer treat the laborer as if the laborer where his, or her, prostitute.

This is not that hard to grasp. Anyone running a business right now, or any laborer running a labor-for-sale business right now, can look at their so called tax liabilities closely, add the sales tax, the excise tax, the import tax, the export tax, the inflation tax, the city tax, the county tax, the state tax, and the big old' IRS extortion racket tax, and imagine how many people you would employ, inspire, fund, give, were those units of purchasing power yours to invest, save, squander, gamble, consume, enjoy, employ, or burn, rather than having the same units you earned used to steal more from you. Now add your "contributions" to the 300 million or so other "contributors" in these states united federally (voluntarily) and what picture comes to mind?

U.S. National Debt Clock Real Time

Why are so many people turning to this or that form of prostitution?

Do you need a map?

 

[Josf]

How about some effort invested into effectively communicating the stark difference between true Liberty maintained by true proponents of voluntary association, and the precise opposite which can arrive in many forms such as Modern Liberal dogma and Modern Conservative forms which are essentially the same involuntary associations?

Henry James Sr. Horace Greeley and Stephen Pearl Andrews - Love Marriage and Divorce

While on the allegory, or analogy, of marriage, or whatever a fictional example can be called when the fictional example intends to explain, in an understandable way, the actual situation in time and place as people relate involuntarily, whereby the allegory involves the subject of human reproduction enforced under threat of harm to be done to anyone failing to obey criminal orders without question, which are ideas shared, and manifested into fictional forms known as The Church, The State, Society, and now The Corporation.

The name Stephen Pearl Andrews represents the viewpoint that became known (poor labeling) as Anarchism.

The names Henry James and Horace Greeley represent early examples of new ideologies, dogmas, which became known as Liberal and Conservative PARTIES.

Choice examples:

"No man has a more cordial, nor, as I conceive, a more enlightened respect for marriage than I have, whether it be regarded, 1st, as a beautiful and very perfect symbol of religious or metaphysic truth, or, 2d, as an independent social institution. I have fully shown its claim for respect on both these grounds in a number of The Tribune which you quoted at the time, but which it serves your dishonest instincts now to overlook. You probably are indifferent to the subject in its higher and primary point of view, but your present article proves that you have some regard for it in its social aspects. If you regard marriage, then, as a social institution, you will, of course, allow that its value depends altogether upon the uses it promotes. If these uses are salutary, the institution is honorable. If, on the contrary, they are mischievous, the institution is deplorable..." I am yours, etc., HENRY JAMES

Within that opening salvo the color (Liberal or Conservative) is not yet (at least to me) confessed conclusively as Left or Right.

From Andrews:

"As Mr. James professes himself ready and apt to instruct the public, and desirous withal to forward “the good time coming” by reforming the abuses of the institution of Marriage, I flatter myself that he can not object to relieving a few doubts and honest difficulties which perplex my understanding of his doctrine upon the subject."

Above Stephen Pearl Andrews offers information that clarifies the positions at odds in these forms knowable as Right and Left, whereby Henry James is on the Left, and as yet to be offered are the viewpoints of the Right by Horace Greeley. I can skip the Right side, leave the Left side briefly referred to above, and I can find a very concise explanation offered by the so called (very poor label) Anarchist viewpoint in the words of Stephen Pearl Andrews at the time when Modern Left/Right was forming and forming specifically concerning this idea of "legal" Marriage. Note: (a license is said to be permission to do something that is illegal without said license)

"My doctrine is simply, that it is an intolerable impertinence for me to thrust myself into your affairs of the heart, to determine for you what woman (or women) you love well enough or purely enough to live with, or how many you are capable of loving. I demand that you simply let me alone to settle the most intimate, and delicate, and sacred affairs of my private life in the same manner. You publicly notify me that you won’t. Another generation will judge between us as to the barbarism and the culture of these two positions. At present it is enough to say that my course leads to peace, and yours to war. Judge which is best."

 

[emilynghiem]

How about some effort invested into effectively communicating the stark difference between true Liberty maintained by true proponents of voluntary association, and the precise opposite which can arrive in many forms such as Modern Liberal dogma and Modern Conservative forms which are essentially the same involuntary associations?

Henry James Sr. Horace Greeley and Stephen Pearl Andrews - Love Marriage and Divorce

While on the allegory, or analogy, of marriage, or whatever a fictional example can be called when the fictional example intends to explain, in an understandable way, the actual situation in time and place as people relate involuntarily, whereby the allegory involves the subject of human reproduction enforced under threat of harm to be done to anyone failing to obey criminal orders without question, which are ideas shared, and manifested into fictional forms known as The Church, The State, Society, and now The Corporation.

The name Stephen Pearl Andrews represents the viewpoint that became known (poor labeling) as Anarchism.

The names Henry James and Horace Greeley represent early examples of new ideologies, dogmas, which became known as Liberal and Conservative PARTIES.

Choice examples:

"No man has a more cordial, nor, as I conceive, a more enlightened respect for marriage than I have, whether it be regarded, 1st, as a beautiful and very perfect symbol of religious or metaphysic truth, or, 2d, as an independent social institution. I have fully shown its claim for respect on both these grounds in a number of The Tribune which you quoted at the time, but which it serves your dishonest instincts now to overlook. You probably are indifferent to the subject in its higher and primary point of view, but your present article proves that you have some regard for it in its social aspects. If you regard marriage, then, as a social institution, you will, of course, allow that its value depends altogether upon the uses it promotes. If these uses are salutary, the institution is honorable. If, on the contrary, they are mischievous, the institution is deplorable..." I am yours, etc., HENRY JAMES

Within that opening salvo the color (Liberal or Conservative) is not yet (at least to me) confessed conclusively as Left or Right.

From Andrews:

"As Mr. James professes himself ready and apt to instruct the public, and desirous withal to forward “the good time coming” by reforming the abuses of the institution of Marriage, I flatter myself that he can not object to relieving a few doubts and honest difficulties which perplex my understanding of his doctrine upon the subject."

Above Stephen Pearl Andrews offers information that clarifies the positions at odds in these forms knowable as Right and Left, whereby Henry James is on the Left, and as yet to be offered are the viewpoints of the Right by Horace Greeley. I can skip the Right side, leave the Left side briefly referred to above, and I can find a very concise explanation offered by the so called (very poor label) Anarchist viewpoint in the words of Stephen Pearl Andrews at the time when Modern Left/Right was forming and forming specifically concerning this idea of "legal" Marriage. Note: (a license is said to be permission to do something that is illegal without said license)

"My doctrine is simply, that it is an intolerable impertinence for me to thrust myself into your affairs of the heart, to determine for you what woman (or women) you love well enough or purely enough to live with, or how many you are capable of loving. I demand that you simply let me alone to settle the most intimate, and delicate, and sacred affairs of my private life in the same manner. You publicly notify me that you won’t. Another generation will judge between us as to the barbarism and the culture of these two positions. At present it is enough to say that my course leads to peace, and yours to war. Judge which is best."

Hi Josf I deeply appreciate your thoughtful posts, not sure where you came from, but glad you are contributing here.

I think because this concept of free will is INHERENT in our nature as human beings,
everyone has a different TERM for it.

if we align the TERMS then it isn't so foreign. It isn't a big leap to get us all on the same page,
even though our VERSIONS of free will are spelled out differently in political application and real life experiences.

Some examples
* what some people call anarchism or autonomy
* others call FREE CHOICE
* or CIVIL LIBERTIES
* Free will or self-determination
* sovereignty of individuals or states
* free enterprise or free market

We have different names and different expressions in real life for the SAME concept of
FREE will, free choice, voluntary compliance.

The groups that use "gun rights" as a symbol of personal power and sovereignty
are coming from a different angle from those who use "voting rights" or "abortion rights"
to represent their ability to be free from outside authority dictating or mandating for them.

The challenge is how we can ALIGN, when frankly the expressions of other people or groups,
SCARE the other group. Gun rights sounds like lawlessness or 'anarchy' to have that much power unchecked.
and in turn the other group freaks out over free choice of abortion, which is like letting people have the choice to MURDER.
This sounds lawless to the prolife person.

How can we come to the understanding that these acts of free will and choice
are going to be checked by the collective process, and not run amok?

How can we assure each other we can still have individual freedom AND democratic due process
and equal protections to guard against ABUSES of the FREE WILL.

What I've said about Justice, is that it is the balance between Peace and Freedom.
We want Free Will but can't abuse freedom to abridge the same freedom of others and cause a breach of the Peace.
We want Peace and Security but can't mandate restrictions to the point we suffocate human free will.
We need a balance of both, by CONSENT of the people forming the social policies, so that
we AGREE what are the limits to freedom and how much peace and order can be imposed by govt,
and still represent the population and what we AGREE to as fair, law and order in society.

Like the married couple who AGREES to remain loyal to each other and restrict themselves to what is consensual
between the two, we CHOOSE to abide by this agreement, we don't FORCE terms on each other without consent.

How can we have both free choice in the contract, and enforce the contract by law which we agree is REQUIRED
to follow. How can we have both, and not this bullying game we have now of trying to FORCE terms on the other party.

 

[Josf]

"How can we have both free choice in the contract, and enforce the contract by law which we agree is REQUIRED
to follow. How can we have both, and not this bullying game we have now of trying to FORCE terms on the other party.
can we have both free choice in the contract, and enforce the contract by law which we agree is REQUIRED
to follow. How can we have both, and not this bullying game we have now of trying to FORCE terms on the other party."

The problem boils down to processing information accurately. Take any questions asked by anyone, and understand that the desire, the demand, is for an accurate answer. Which question is most vital?

How about a competition to figure out which question is most vital?

1. Can I answer any question at all, by myself?
2. Will someone help me answer the question I ask, or will someone willfully - and with malice aforethought - choose to injure me instead of helping me?
3. Will someone other than me benefit from the question I ask, and the competitive answers I find?
4.

I end at 4 because the constant questioning and answering I do, since as far back as I can remember (where I come from), almost always returns to the dilemma known as friend or foe.

Even if we want to be alone, that demand for that supply, which can be a question such as "How do I end all contact with everyone else?", may not be possible; even for those who choose suicide. So we the people will, even if we do not agree to, we will connect to other people.

The answer then is simple.

Friend = those offering voluntary association
Foe = those who target you, connect to you, and they impose their will upon you, and they impose their will against your will

Another competitive way to answer the same question has to do with a principle that can be called the principle of agreement.

Friend = those who help find agreement
Foe = those who create and maintain disagreement

Now, having said all that, the question immediately arriving reasonably, has to do with creating and maintaining voluntary associations which answer a similar question (or the one answer agrees with both questions) having to do with avoiding, and disconnecting from, involuntary associations.

I can offer the idea that rule of law, expressed so well in Matthew 7:12, accomplishes both questions with the same answer.

Thanks for the welcome topic and the opportunity to solicit your help in asking vital questions and competing to find the most agreeable answers.