Pretty close to some really good KC Barbecue. Beyond that I'm stumped.Originally Posted by acptulsa
Oh wait, http://www.historicdowntownliberty.o...guing-history/
Last edited by Ronin Truth; 05-17-2015 at 12:14 PM.
Unity OF THE PEOPLE occurred before the constitution, the paper formalized the agreement between states to recognize central government.
The Declaration Of Independence (DOI) did more for the peoples unity than anything, which is why the war was won.
The loyalists sabotaged the inclusion of the same principles or doctrines of philosophy which empowered the DOI in the creation of the first amendment. Leading to the lack of unity today and that which allowed the civil war.
You are against those principles creating unity in the people today. The NWO loves you.
Last edited by Christopher A. Brown; 05-17-2015 at 02:49 PM.
Your reading of history is faulty. Tories were everywhere during the Revolution.
And your reading of the present is faulty as well. You don't listen to others well enough to have the first clue what anyone believes. You only care if someone hangs on every word you say. And since literally no one on earth does hang on every word you say, literally everyone on earth is an agent in your eyes.
Either that or the NWO pays you--to convince the world that the only people in the world who even mention the NWO have their heads so far up their asses they know nothing but what they had for breakfast...
Last edited by acptulsa; 05-18-2015 at 07:21 AM.
"The Patriarch"
Hah! Change the topic, invent a red herring, WTF? Did you happen to post in the wrong thread?
The people, meaning those that believed in rights and freedom not under English rule, Americans, separated by their beliefs in freedom and natural law, were united because the purpose of free speech worked in their communities at the scale, density and extent they existed. Therefore the war was successfully fought for independence.
The Declaration of Independence expressed the unity.
After that the constitution was created to attempt to unite the states with a similar unity, as if they were the people. They were not the people and as the abridging of the purpose of free speech has compounded, the states are less of the people.
Therein is the reason this strategy WILL work.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ful-revolution
Last edited by Christopher A. Brown; 05-18-2015 at 08:52 AM.
You chop a statement that illustrates my on-topic point, chop it off from the rest of my post, and say that, taken out of context, it looks like a red herring.
Why, yes. That is how to create a red herring. You have illustrated the process nicely.
The people were not united. There were Tories among the colonists.
The rest of that paragraph doesn't seem to mean anything, though it is composed of good English words. But if it logically follows from the assertion that all the colonists were united, then it's historically inaccurate too.
Last edited by acptulsa; 05-18-2015 at 08:43 AM.
Labeling, Tories were not Americans, they were colonists. The "people" used in the framing documents desctibes colonists who rejected that status and became Americans.
The Tories were not and are not Americans in spirit, still infiltrators amongst "the people" which derived a good deal of the principles of the republic from the original people of the continent. The native people.
See, there's your answer. Labeling.
All the non-agents are united. All one of you. And the world's 6,999,999,999 agents don't count. Not one of us.
So, you're all set. What are you bitching about?
You don't count because you do not want unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.
It's only online that I find those that do not agree and accept that free speech has the purpose of enabling unity. Otherwise, it's all acceptance.
Of course the infiltrations of government will fight hard to prevent unity on the web. That would be a disaster for their plan of tyranny, so your agenda is obvious as you oppose unity here.
You don't listen.
I do want unity adequate to that purpose.
I wish you were providing it, instead of blathering endlessly on about something that isn't providing it.
How loud do I have to scream it before you might condescend to hear it?
You need to learn a lesson from Rush Limbaugh before it's too late. If you don't use your ears once in a while, they'll atrophy and fall off.
Am I missing out on the audio version of RPF?
What?Am I missing out on the audio version of RPF?
I can't hear you. Try switching to bold.
You're thinking of the One True Path to Leavenworth (TM).
If you don't use your ears once in a while, they'll atrophy and fall off.
Don't tell me, tell Rush Limbaugh.
Oh, yeah, too late for him, isn't it?
I wasn't going to say anything, but....
"The Patriarch"
WHAT?
You contradict your own unaccountability.
Free speech has the purpose of enabling that unity, but only by Americans agreement upon the fact will our social structures realize it and know the purpose is abridged justifying unity to compel the manifestation of the purpose.
We often do not know what we had until it is gone. In this case we never had it, we had a facsimile. A fraud, half of a right.
Americans need to know what they really lost, before they'll demand its manifestation.
But you are against that unity and a lawful peaceful revolution, which is why you lost context on purpose in your reply.
A lawful and peaceful revolution requires unity. If people are too misled to realize that there are inherent agreements already made under natural law; not meaning they consciously know them from their mislead state of mind; so they cannot overtly make them, they need some criticism for their ignorant hypocrisy.I wasn't going to say anything, but....
Or maybe they are covert agents simply working in their group to confuse and mislead. My actions are designed to separate the sincere from the pretenders and educate to the simplicity of using our right to define constitutional intent to enforce the constitution.
Do you agree and accept that the purpose of free speech is to enable unity adequate alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights?
Last edited by Christopher A. Brown; 05-24-2015 at 08:40 AM.
Bump
Found this review of Occam's book on Amazon. 1/5 stars.
Occam's Banana's argument within One True Path to LibertyŽ has little relevancy to the failings of 'central planning', nor does his definition and treatment of socialism as such seem to be anything other than an apologetic reaction. This is not because central planning itself was not a failure, but instead because the theoretical framework which he holds to deduce this failure is untenable. Occam's Banana holds fundamental assumptions, the pivot around which his greater critique rests, that are found to be deeply wanting. The first, which is a mere prelude to the second, is his assumption of the role and function of money. Occam's Banana holds to the notion that money can only arise and function through 'the free interaction of individuals'. This single statement is riddled with complexity and means nothing in and of itself - however at the same time it is the general key to understanding the entire method employed by Occam's Banana in examining questions of political economy.
After deconstructing it to the appropriate level, it simply means that money in a society not based on 'free exchange' will be arbitrary; i.e. will not represent price in accordance with an aggregation of individual choices. This begs the question, however - are prices formed on the market reflective of individual choice? Is the market mechanism the independent variable in price formation? Thus the problem has nothing to do with whether the state of the economy is in 'equilibrium' at any point in time - an argument that takes place between the Neoclassical tradition and everyone else - but whether prices are reflective of an aggregation of information of individual choices which takes its shape on the market. This cannot be true because the 'price mechanism', by which he means supply and demand relations on the market, is itself derivative of the accumulation and distributive process in capitalist production. Market relations, that is price relations, derive their shape at any point in time from the quantity of surplus value actually produced and its distribution. What appears to be the regulating force of individuals by virtue of their own self interested actions, i.e., the market mechanism of supply and demand, is in reality the superficial appearance that conceals the fact that the market mechanism itself is regulated by the capitalist class as a whole through their unique control of the process of accumulation. The distribution of surplus value is in turn conditioned on the mutual relations of economic classes and their relative economic positions. As these are socio-political relations, i.e., a they do not take place not on the market through marginalist 'analysis', it follows that whatever takes place on the market can take place only within the boundaries which events in the sphere of production (accumulation) and the peculiarities of the distribution of the social product (socio-political) establish.
The classicsts in general, Adam Smith and David Ricardo, and their destructor, Karl Marx, shared in common this notion that distribution was something that happened not on the market but as a result of socio-political factors within their own historical context. Thus. the degeneration of economic theory finds its height in the attempted micro-aggregation of phenomena that are rooted in social relations, such as the determination of wages by the marginal disutility of labor interacting with the marginal productivity of capital, that this tradition represents. The main issue I see with this text is the audacity of basing an argument on the complexity of the price mechanism on the market without having an adequate description of the functioning and determinants of the price system itself. Of secondary importance is the fact that the problem was and is dynamism - the capitalist system, for all its faults, has proven to be extremely capable of espousing change. Planned economies could easily function as a refined form of redistribution, of simple reproduction or even reproduction with a surplus, which would be built off of the form of redistribution that lasted far longer than any form of capitalism has - Feudal societies allowed for reproduction, else we would not be here. What is in question here is not if they can exist or not based on some immutable laws, and not even so much the extent to which the technical structure allows for it, but whether or not the political structure is able to handle such responsibility without degenerating. This tradition not only opposes any political progression but hinders it because they consistently attempt to strip it of its legitimacy by contrasting a perfectly functioning economic system derived from the interaction of 'free' (by which they mean isolated) individuals with our own real social existence. This is called a self-fulfilling prophecy. This book is ultimately the basis for this line of thinking - in terms of immutable laws in the abstract that contrast the very existence we see in front of us. Ultimately, Occam's Banana's fiction is a far shot from the essence of not only socialism, but our material existence as well. His depiction of the former seems far more inline with state-capitalism, which is not only 'possible' but is an adequate first description of most of the twentieth century. In this indirect sense, his philosophical opposition to the centralization that capital had produced, and its constraining effects on freedoms, were quite correct. It is a shame he did not apply his critical mind to his own theology. The point which his entire argument within this book pivots, that central planning would fail because of the lack of a price system, reflects his methodology of simple cause and effect relationships on the individual level from which he believes all economic phenomena are derived.
What I find ironic from this forum, however, is that Occam's Banana has built a following of zealots that rivals the radical Marxists. If you are a follower and this offends you, I assume you recognize that your dashing and simplistic categorizations of 'socialists' offends them just the same. Perhaps you should actually read Capital or many of its offspring's before you come to dangerous conclusions. Capital is about capitalism, not socialism. For those of you not willing to read Marx, I would recommend Schumpeter's Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy - specifically his section on Capitalism, as the rest of the book is superfluous (also for those not simply under the constraints of time). Schumpeter was an adamant defender of capitalism and a lousy horseman. His work gets to the heart of the virtues and strengths of Capitalism, center stage for him being the entrepreneur's role in innovating the means of production. If you are serious and not only interested in the defense of your ideology, I recommend it over this. Of course, I recommend Capital over both...I simply am under no illusions that anyone on this thread will actually take me up on that.
So, in conclusion I do recommend that everyone who plans to read this also challenge their mind and conventional wisdom with reading its counterparts, some of which I recommended above, to get a clear idea of what the real issues with both are. As for many of the other reviewers on this book, I find all these five star reviews very one sided. I would wager that they are all in one way or another affiliated with the Occam's Banana institute or the Austrian school in general. The plain fact is that Marx's socio-historic basis for his argument, whether one agrees with it or not, goes far beyond what Occam's Banana even touches in this text. The Socialist critique has no quarrels with markets or 'freedom', but the perversion of those elements when confined to the capitalist mode of production in which their product is concentration and centralization of power.
Last edited by TheTexan; 01-10-2016 at 11:12 PM.
- Kim KardashianIt's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!
My pronouns are he/him/his
Damn. It's been almost three years ... where the hell did the time go ... ?
Bull$#@!! I have NEVER said or implied that Schumpeter wasn't a lousy horseman!
The Bastiat Collection ˇ FREE PDF ˇ FREE EPUB ˇ PAPER Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)
- "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
-- The Law (p. 54)- "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
-- Government (p. 99)- "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
-- Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)- "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
-- Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)ˇ tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ˇ
3 year bump.
"The Patriarch"
I think I saw some Chinese knockoffs on ebay.
@Occam's Banana
Any new models?
"The Patriarch"
I'm afraid not. My heart's just not in it anymore. I burned the factory down for the insurance money ...
See Something, Say Something. Report Everyone who doesn't post on this forum in support of liberty as people who are exhibiting patterns of concerning behavior that indicate an interest, motive, intention, or capability of carrying out an act of violence; then the Government can keep us safe by getting rid of these "potential" trouble makers once and for all.
https://babin.house.gov/uploadedfile..._bill_text.pdf
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us