Great encapsulation of the foundation of happiness, peace and abundance in this world Christopher. Enjoy your holiday, we highly appreciate all the work and thought you put into your posts and glad you are taking a much needed and deserved break. Don't want to see you suffer from burnout. Merry Christmas!
Of course, I never really did relax. In addition to the makeover to my wife's office and the basement (which took a week earlier in the month), I spent nine hours redoing the kitchen yesterday. (It started because I bought by wife an espresso machine and we needed a place to put it…) Can't sit still :-)
Sounds like a born workaholic ;-) Well at least a change of pace, and the wife needs some attention too. Looking forward to a momentous New Year. Had a very relaxing time myself, good food and friends.
"To lose your life is to lose your future. To lose your liberty is to lose your present. And to lose the product of your life and liberty is to lose that portion of your past that produced it."
i whole heartedly disagree with this as fundamentally erroneous & flawed premise on every level. it is impossible to lose your "present", your past or your future. this is demonstrably false with objective observation. the past is set & done and is what your standing in "present"ly. look around you and see where you are, look at what you see, that is the fruit, result of your past. now, look again, look farther, see, what you dont want & look more. what you see that you don't want is your future until you choose a direction to lose it & take a, one, step to see more. the future is potential possibilities seeded in past & present so whether i die today my future is not lost.
i would also like your thoughts on the perspective of events herein (17 min), not the speaker, if you would. thnx! again, Merry christmas!
I carved out a little time to listen to the Chomsky talk, while working on a present for someone. Deems pretty much what I would expect to hear from him. Did you have a particular aspect to which you wanted to direct my attention?
ty for taking time. i had to go back & listen again to clarify for you. in particular, more the last half where he outlines events & results. laisez fare capitalism, i know i mispelled it but trust you know what i attempted. lol
there are several statements & quotes he mentions that i fully agree with such as the people of a nation should benefit from the natural/all resources of their nation.
I am from labor, anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist & have studied & watched business & labor practices since the 80's. when NCR closed the factories in 1974, i think, leaving people 2 weeks short of retirement with nothing I was profoundly affected.
i recently was reading papers on the failure of the liberal international order and the deglobalization that has been ongoing& the associated steering of public opinion & belief. i have many concerns regarding a reset to an earlier time, path and conditions that led us to exactly where we currently are that I see in your writings and I am trying to broaden my view & understanding with yours. I attempt to create new by learning from mistakes as well as solid, ancient principles that remain solid, time tested & proven. renaming things doesn't change the core of things and I seek to direct my course with knowledge that helps me understand what I see & currently don't.
"people of a nation should benefit from the natural/all resources of their nation."
—Quick question on this. When I was a kid, I bought 20 acres of land in the middle of nowhere. I still own it. I have kept it safe and pristine.
If I discovered oil underneath (a possibility in the area where it sits), would that oil be a natural resource of the nation, or would it be mine?
Who is "the nation"? Is it everyone who lies within a certain set of boundary lines? Who extracts the resource? Who determines how the wealth is to be distributed? Why isn't it mine? By what moral alchemy do we determine that everyone get to own a share of it?
imo, it should be yours & extraction is with whom & when you decide, with agreed upon percentage to profit you as well...not dictated, coerced.
the nation or country is always it's people, individual people & the land, in my mind.
In Afghanistan, for example, there were mines and those mines were individually owned & operated. those owners ran & employed neighbors, community to all their benefit. certain orgs & people referred to them in negative connotation as "warlords". commercial interests wanted to access those resources and found the warlords resistant to deals offered. nationalizing the resources, overthrowing made it simpler & easier. deal with 1 govt entity & fck the people.
i totally reject this practice & claim, beginning with the fact that all mineral rights on your property are not yours. same with water rights in many places. owning a couple of inches of top soil, your foundation & a few feet of air space above the limited height you can build...well doesn't leave much.
In my "Human Constitution," I define the right to property thusly:
"IX. PROPERTY
To hold allodial title to property—to land, consumable goods, personal possessions, money, information, creative works, products of labor, personal identities, data, digital assets, natural resources, and any other alienable thing—
acquired through original acquisition or homesteading of unowned things,
produced without the initiation of force,
acquired in voluntary trade or transaction, or
inherited in voluntary bequest,
and to possess, use, maintain, enjoy, protect, develop, exploit, exclusively control, and dispose of said property and its resources in any way that does not initiate force upon the person or property of another,
and to be secure in said property from trespass, acquisition, occupation, use, control, overlordship, taxation, forced quartering, or any other initiation of force by any other PERSON or order of PERSONS."
So long as property is acquired in those ways, it is legitimate. All that is needed to secure a claim to property is a recognized private title company and a private security agency/aggression insurer to protect it. No government required.
In fact, government just serves s an instrument of oppression, as you ably laid out.
Nothing is easy in this life. Anyone who tells us that their "system" will solve all problems is selling us a bill of goods. There is no perfect solution, no utopia. Here on Earth, the best we can hope for is better or worse.
I always go to first principles. No matter how good something sounds, if it violates the principles of natural law, it is to be avoided. I firmly believe that even if a solution is meant to make things better, if it violates natural law, it will make things worse.
This does not mean that respecting natural law will produce utopia. Rather that it is simply the least bad of a set of options all of which are flawed to one degree or other.
So, let's take "capitalism" as we understand it—the capitalism that Chomsky decried. This system is more in keeping with the principles of natural law than, say, a command economy like you would find in a totalitarian communist country. But that does not mean that capitalism, as we understand it, is fully in keeping with those principles. It isn't.
For example, government grants corporations a series of perks, and special status, which make it easier for them to screw people over. Government gives corporations a power vector that they can use to extract money from us. In the absence of government, corporations don't become more powerful, they become FAR LESS powerful.
Chomsky et al envision crafting a government and "democratic system" that will keep corporations in check, but that will never work. Corporations, governments, and rich people will ALWAYS hop into bed with each other. And government gives them all the power to impose their will upon us.
Getting rid of government does not create perfection, but it will produce the least-bad scenario out of the available choices.
agree with what you say here but I would add this...along with the legal structure known as gov't as we have, ALL legal entities recognized, permitted, incorporated with said legal structure must also be dissolved. meaning specifically those corporations & existing policy & power structure to operate above any government, community or peoples of the world.
ALL...which is standard practice & legal precedent.
i am looking at results & outcomes of past practices, beliefs, policies that are obvious, undesireable & preventable.
"Corporations, governments, and rich people will ALWAYS hop into bed with each other."
YES. corporations & rich people create the gov't they want & it is no secret, pretty obvious, corporations are masquerading as & are running & using our govt & financial structures for their benefit.
corporations are running amok the world over with zero accountability to anyone except their shareholders.
the coal mine barons called the federal govt to send troops to murder striking miners & their families.
chomsky outlined some of this and it was that i was referring to and would like your thoughts on.
"ALL legal entities recognized, permitted, incorporated with said legal structure must also be dissolved."
—My wife and I have an S-corp, from the days when we did a lot of private contracting. Just a mom and pop thing, of course, but it was our business. If government were to disappear, new types of entities and recognitions would arise, and perhaps we would choose one of those. Or perhaps not. But I cannot see any reason why anyone else should forcibly dissolve us, just because at some point in the past, we were coerced by government into incorporating (in order to protect us from government, mostly).
Big corporations perhaps have more to atone for, but I am not sure violence is required (forcible dissolution, seizure of assets, etc.). Rather, they are simply on their own at that point. No more big daddy government to protect them and give them goodies. If they wish to remain together as an organized entity, fine—but they are vulnerable to market forces, just like the rest of us. No special status or protections.
ok. let me clarify. your mom & pop is not forced to dissolve. the contractual agreement between you remains intact. that is separate from the incorporation recognition & designation.
now, if the US govt were to fold just as example, that entity no longer exists and any agreements, treaties, contracts etc no longer exist.
now, nestle through various methods & mechanisms owns rights to almost, if not all, water sources. the UN lists all corporate partners.
i guess my point is this, corporate powers have infrastructure from trade agreements, isds tribunals, other associated which is above & supercedes any govt on this earth. long established, acknowledged rights are held in the public sphere.
removing multinational's federal incorporation doesn't dissolve the company, entity, the business agreements between the parties. and it still leaves, state, county & city. sigh. incorporation was needed to do business by whoever we are incorporated & recognized with. who is the unites states incorporated with or by? these corporations rule the world and dont need any government. the govt is strictly for the people, a middleman, scapegoat, collector & processor.
our special ops are privatized, can work for the govt if contracted. mercenaries for hire by corporations in what are basically staffing agencies.
that also allows the govt to state no boots on the ground.
what i am speaking of is dissolving agreements, contracts, etc., that grant perks, privileges, infrastructure , beneficial & above the local, individual & community. no one can dissolve a partnership or business contract agreement but the parties. or seize assets, good grief, i am an anarchist & not in favor of govt or asset seizure & forfeiture of any form. now what the rest of the world does...whatever. if one of those parties is no longer than it automatically terminates & changes. unless people believe it doesn't.
it is in the detail that chomsky & others bring that we can learn the pitfalls but also suggestions to do it better no matter what it is called. we keep getting played the same way over & over & i think I should give up. gnite.
“The solution is for the people of the earth to stop asking government officials to initiate force on their behalf.”
How many people actually ask?
Excellent post though.
Thank you and I wish you a wonderful Christmas.
Good point, and Merry Christmas!
Excellent summary of the philosophy of liberty! Merry Christmas and happy holidays to all!
Hiya John—Merry Christmas to you and yours :-)
Great encapsulation of the foundation of happiness, peace and abundance in this world Christopher. Enjoy your holiday, we highly appreciate all the work and thought you put into your posts and glad you are taking a much needed and deserved break. Don't want to see you suffer from burnout. Merry Christmas!
Thank you, Hat, and a Merry Christmas to you!
Of course, I never really did relax. In addition to the makeover to my wife's office and the basement (which took a week earlier in the month), I spent nine hours redoing the kitchen yesterday. (It started because I bought by wife an espresso machine and we needed a place to put it…) Can't sit still :-)
Sounds like a born workaholic ;-) Well at least a change of pace, and the wife needs some attention too. Looking forward to a momentous New Year. Had a very relaxing time myself, good food and friends.
I am very glad you had time with friends (and food)!
And yeah, I may be a workaholic now. But I had some lazy times in my youth that I have to make up for now. 🤣
Yep, I can relate to that.
Great video Christopher which lays it out so well!
Merry Christmas and a Happy healthy New Year to you and All of Good Heart!
Merry Christmas, AV!
Merry Christmas & joy of the season to you!
with that said now to comments lol.
"To lose your life is to lose your future. To lose your liberty is to lose your present. And to lose the product of your life and liberty is to lose that portion of your past that produced it."
i whole heartedly disagree with this as fundamentally erroneous & flawed premise on every level. it is impossible to lose your "present", your past or your future. this is demonstrably false with objective observation. the past is set & done and is what your standing in "present"ly. look around you and see where you are, look at what you see, that is the fruit, result of your past. now, look again, look farther, see, what you dont want & look more. what you see that you don't want is your future until you choose a direction to lose it & take a, one, step to see more. the future is potential possibilities seeded in past & present so whether i die today my future is not lost.
i would also like your thoughts on the perspective of events herein (17 min), not the speaker, if you would. thnx! again, Merry christmas!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxp_wgFWQo&pp
I carved out a little time to listen to the Chomsky talk, while working on a present for someone. Deems pretty much what I would expect to hear from him. Did you have a particular aspect to which you wanted to direct my attention?
ty for taking time. i had to go back & listen again to clarify for you. in particular, more the last half where he outlines events & results. laisez fare capitalism, i know i mispelled it but trust you know what i attempted. lol
there are several statements & quotes he mentions that i fully agree with such as the people of a nation should benefit from the natural/all resources of their nation.
I am from labor, anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist & have studied & watched business & labor practices since the 80's. when NCR closed the factories in 1974, i think, leaving people 2 weeks short of retirement with nothing I was profoundly affected.
i recently was reading papers on the failure of the liberal international order and the deglobalization that has been ongoing& the associated steering of public opinion & belief. i have many concerns regarding a reset to an earlier time, path and conditions that led us to exactly where we currently are that I see in your writings and I am trying to broaden my view & understanding with yours. I attempt to create new by learning from mistakes as well as solid, ancient principles that remain solid, time tested & proven. renaming things doesn't change the core of things and I seek to direct my course with knowledge that helps me understand what I see & currently don't.
"people of a nation should benefit from the natural/all resources of their nation."
—Quick question on this. When I was a kid, I bought 20 acres of land in the middle of nowhere. I still own it. I have kept it safe and pristine.
If I discovered oil underneath (a possibility in the area where it sits), would that oil be a natural resource of the nation, or would it be mine?
Who is "the nation"? Is it everyone who lies within a certain set of boundary lines? Who extracts the resource? Who determines how the wealth is to be distributed? Why isn't it mine? By what moral alchemy do we determine that everyone get to own a share of it?
imo, it should be yours & extraction is with whom & when you decide, with agreed upon percentage to profit you as well...not dictated, coerced.
the nation or country is always it's people, individual people & the land, in my mind.
In Afghanistan, for example, there were mines and those mines were individually owned & operated. those owners ran & employed neighbors, community to all their benefit. certain orgs & people referred to them in negative connotation as "warlords". commercial interests wanted to access those resources and found the warlords resistant to deals offered. nationalizing the resources, overthrowing made it simpler & easier. deal with 1 govt entity & fck the people.
i totally reject this practice & claim, beginning with the fact that all mineral rights on your property are not yours. same with water rights in many places. owning a couple of inches of top soil, your foundation & a few feet of air space above the limited height you can build...well doesn't leave much.
did I answer your question?
If I read you aright, I think we agree.
In my "Human Constitution," I define the right to property thusly:
"IX. PROPERTY
To hold allodial title to property—to land, consumable goods, personal possessions, money, information, creative works, products of labor, personal identities, data, digital assets, natural resources, and any other alienable thing—
acquired through original acquisition or homesteading of unowned things,
produced without the initiation of force,
acquired in voluntary trade or transaction, or
inherited in voluntary bequest,
and to possess, use, maintain, enjoy, protect, develop, exploit, exclusively control, and dispose of said property and its resources in any way that does not initiate force upon the person or property of another,
and to be secure in said property from trespass, acquisition, occupation, use, control, overlordship, taxation, forced quartering, or any other initiation of force by any other PERSON or order of PERSONS."
So long as property is acquired in those ways, it is legitimate. All that is needed to secure a claim to property is a recognized private title company and a private security agency/aggression insurer to protect it. No government required.
In fact, government just serves s an instrument of oppression, as you ably laid out.
Nothing is easy in this life. Anyone who tells us that their "system" will solve all problems is selling us a bill of goods. There is no perfect solution, no utopia. Here on Earth, the best we can hope for is better or worse.
I always go to first principles. No matter how good something sounds, if it violates the principles of natural law, it is to be avoided. I firmly believe that even if a solution is meant to make things better, if it violates natural law, it will make things worse.
This does not mean that respecting natural law will produce utopia. Rather that it is simply the least bad of a set of options all of which are flawed to one degree or other.
So, let's take "capitalism" as we understand it—the capitalism that Chomsky decried. This system is more in keeping with the principles of natural law than, say, a command economy like you would find in a totalitarian communist country. But that does not mean that capitalism, as we understand it, is fully in keeping with those principles. It isn't.
For example, government grants corporations a series of perks, and special status, which make it easier for them to screw people over. Government gives corporations a power vector that they can use to extract money from us. In the absence of government, corporations don't become more powerful, they become FAR LESS powerful.
Chomsky et al envision crafting a government and "democratic system" that will keep corporations in check, but that will never work. Corporations, governments, and rich people will ALWAYS hop into bed with each other. And government gives them all the power to impose their will upon us.
Getting rid of government does not create perfection, but it will produce the least-bad scenario out of the available choices.
agree with what you say here but I would add this...along with the legal structure known as gov't as we have, ALL legal entities recognized, permitted, incorporated with said legal structure must also be dissolved. meaning specifically those corporations & existing policy & power structure to operate above any government, community or peoples of the world.
ALL...which is standard practice & legal precedent.
i am looking at results & outcomes of past practices, beliefs, policies that are obvious, undesireable & preventable.
"Corporations, governments, and rich people will ALWAYS hop into bed with each other."
YES. corporations & rich people create the gov't they want & it is no secret, pretty obvious, corporations are masquerading as & are running & using our govt & financial structures for their benefit.
corporations are running amok the world over with zero accountability to anyone except their shareholders.
the coal mine barons called the federal govt to send troops to murder striking miners & their families.
chomsky outlined some of this and it was that i was referring to and would like your thoughts on.
"ALL legal entities recognized, permitted, incorporated with said legal structure must also be dissolved."
—My wife and I have an S-corp, from the days when we did a lot of private contracting. Just a mom and pop thing, of course, but it was our business. If government were to disappear, new types of entities and recognitions would arise, and perhaps we would choose one of those. Or perhaps not. But I cannot see any reason why anyone else should forcibly dissolve us, just because at some point in the past, we were coerced by government into incorporating (in order to protect us from government, mostly).
Big corporations perhaps have more to atone for, but I am not sure violence is required (forcible dissolution, seizure of assets, etc.). Rather, they are simply on their own at that point. No more big daddy government to protect them and give them goodies. If they wish to remain together as an organized entity, fine—but they are vulnerable to market forces, just like the rest of us. No special status or protections.
ok. let me clarify. your mom & pop is not forced to dissolve. the contractual agreement between you remains intact. that is separate from the incorporation recognition & designation.
now, if the US govt were to fold just as example, that entity no longer exists and any agreements, treaties, contracts etc no longer exist.
now, nestle through various methods & mechanisms owns rights to almost, if not all, water sources. the UN lists all corporate partners.
i guess my point is this, corporate powers have infrastructure from trade agreements, isds tribunals, other associated which is above & supercedes any govt on this earth. long established, acknowledged rights are held in the public sphere.
removing multinational's federal incorporation doesn't dissolve the company, entity, the business agreements between the parties. and it still leaves, state, county & city. sigh. incorporation was needed to do business by whoever we are incorporated & recognized with. who is the unites states incorporated with or by? these corporations rule the world and dont need any government. the govt is strictly for the people, a middleman, scapegoat, collector & processor.
our special ops are privatized, can work for the govt if contracted. mercenaries for hire by corporations in what are basically staffing agencies.
that also allows the govt to state no boots on the ground.
what i am speaking of is dissolving agreements, contracts, etc., that grant perks, privileges, infrastructure , beneficial & above the local, individual & community. no one can dissolve a partnership or business contract agreement but the parties. or seize assets, good grief, i am an anarchist & not in favor of govt or asset seizure & forfeiture of any form. now what the rest of the world does...whatever. if one of those parties is no longer than it automatically terminates & changes. unless people believe it doesn't.
it is in the detail that chomsky & others bring that we can learn the pitfalls but also suggestions to do it better no matter what it is called. we keep getting played the same way over & over & i think I should give up. gnite.
Merry Christmas!
This is perfect! Ty.
Cheers!
Of course...
Money Enslaves Us (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/money-enslaves-us