Karl

Yes, I've gained some incites into you. Absolutely I regard defence as entirely necessary. I just don't see any reason why it needs a government to do it. Mostly these days it doesn't seem to be doing much defending ( and actually has it ever done so in its entire history)-they failed to prevent 9/11 and a whole host of other attacks. It appears to me it has ignored the entire constitution and gone off into the foreign entanglements it swore it would never do. There is another good book which I read but can't quite remember it's name something like 'why the Wild West wasn't so wild'.

Urgghh warm milk.......nasty, nasty. We used to get those little bottles of milk served at school. In summer they were left for hours in the heat until their caps were bulging. The milk that had been spilt had soured in the sun and the stench of its putrefaction hung in the classroom like a rancid fog. We were forced to endure the warm,curdling liquid whilst inhaling the vile stench.

Different levels ? Please explain. I'm not Buddhist or Taoist or any 'ist' except realist. Levels means to me differing heights of land, structures above or below a plain datum ? How doors that help to hold two differing concepts simultaneously. An example would be a square circle. There are many who need guidance and control. By which you pertain to law and it's enforcement. Could that be carried out without the Government ? Is it possible that you could have laws operated by, for and of the area in which you reside but privately funded ? If you say that calling the police is useless what value does the state operation of the police force have ? If the government is not offering good guidance and security then what actually is it offering you. I guess just the pension you paid into as a soldier which you could have got in a privately funded army.

Yes it's all over the place. You can point to a man or building and say that is part of the Government. Yet it is just an ordinary man and an ordinary building, so why create the myth it is something other than what it is. Is the man much brighter, more worldly, has more wisdom, knows what you should do better than you do ? That's a rhetorical question, I already know the reply. LOL So, protect the country. Does it need protecting ? I mean it's just a hunk of land, so you I assume you mean the life and property of its citizens up to, but not including yours ? As you said you can defend yourself quite easily. I get that, you are an ex soldier and that was your role. Are you absolutely certain that you knew what it was you were defending during your time in the forces ? Was there any time when you had a doubt ? Why do you need a license for these things ? What business is it of the state who you marry ? Why do you need a state license to drive a vehicle-if you required insurance then a certificate of competence could be issued by a private examining body ? Or to have a child, to get divorced or even one to say that you had died ? No, you don't need government all that much. Actually if you had been privately employed by an insurance company as a soldier by direct contribution from private funders then you could have negotiated a private pension scheme, probably a lot higher wages, better equipment and less risk of being involved in a conflict. You don't need a license for anything that you do. It is demanded by the state because you are Chattel-we all are. The state keeps records of its stock. It doesn't like other states getting its mitts on them because they are a valuable resource-the most precious, valuable and scarcest resource. The state isn't defending us, it is defending itself and the defence of its chattel is only a by product.

This gets to the heart of it. You don't see, this is the issue. You are holding two conflicting concepts at the same time. If you aren't beginning to suspect that is the case then you would not have said 'regretfully'. You don't like what you call ' the Buddhist talk' so that's going to somewhat hamstring the discussion. You seem to accept Government is a concept and not an object ? You don't like the government creating $18 trillion dollars ? Why ?

Right. Still you have not proven the existence of a creator. You have given me some quotes from a twister of words. Unfortunately for the word twister my Kung Fu is stronger :-) These are well known fallacies. If you can produce a creator either directly, or by the use of logical argument then that is sufficient. The 'unbeliever' is subtle petitio epithet. It is question begging. If I say to you there is a green goblin at your feet, now prove that I'm lying, then you cannot. I call you an atheist and unbeliever- look at that poor atheist who cannot see this fine green goblin that rests at his feet. How poor his sight, how feeble his intellect.

Did you not say that there needed to be Government ? How do you resolve that with the other things you are saying. I'm not in the USA by the way. I think geographical distances and some of the primary freedoms under the original constitution probably mean you have a slightly different experience from that which we have in Britain. It somewhat remind me of the time I spent advising businesses. It was easy to do because it wasn't me taking the risk. I got a salary every month regardless. I had also been where they had been and I knew how hard it was, but it was easy to give advice when I was nice and comfortable. It's easier to comply when the strings are at a distance and somewhat stretchy.

Not Buddhist I don't think. I was showing that you cannot point to a concept. Good, that you aren't offended so if you hurl a few insults at me I'm fine with that also. Sometimes things need a bit of colour.

What is an opinion, but that which you believe to be the way things are/should be. If not then why express anything at all. Show me 'the government' that you own, that you may do with as you please as with any private property. You had previously said that you wanted the government to defend ? What would it defend if it wasn't your property ? You are taking ignorance as an insult and it isn't, we are just used to it being used that way. Do you know everything there is to know ? Do you have a Government pension ? Do you need a licence to drive. A birth certificate, a social security number, a marriage license, a gun license, are you free not to pay taxes without penalty ? If you refused to pay your taxes what would happen. Would they simply be forgotten about ? No, first there would be letters and fines. If these were not paid an agent of the state would turn up at your door and demand payment. If you still refused you would be taken before a judge and likely imprisoned. If you tried to resist with force you would be shot and probably killed. Privileges are the things the state grants you. I didn't say you gave up free will. I don't think that can ever be given up or taken. You have exercised the right to freely support a government ruler who places conditions on you and grants privileges such as the right to drive, have a bank account, draw a pension, basically everything except breathing and they can end that to. Mushrooms ? The only one I touch are the button ones, or those big flat fryers. I had some with my steak and brandy cream sauce the other night. Lovely. It's nice to be an anarchist. Yet anarchist means you support the absence of Government, or self governance. I hesitate to say that it does not appear to be exactly the case because I can see you pulling out that .38 and aiming at my head. :-) Oh his essay isn't about a soldiers life, it's isn't like the art of war or the history of war, it's about who really benefits. Smedley was a soldier in the First World War.

It didn't say unionising. Just one on one. Have you ever read the history of the unions during the new deal era ? Yes, you operate by those standards. You don't need anyone to tell you what standard you should adopt. Most people are like that, they don't require supervision, they get on with life very well. The man you would blow away. You understand the analogy that this is a man who would use force to extract from another, by force, that which he has not worked honestly for himself. There is a philosophical concept going back to Plato who first codified it, it is the pyramid of power. Each stone is simultaneously bearing down on and supporting those above and below it. Many at the base support few at the top. Each layer manages the next an so on down. At the top the numbers thin out, but right at the very top, if you can climb high enough to see, that last stone is missing and in that high place stands a mirror.

You have used equivocation. Government is also a concept. Try and find one. That you have allowed yourself to be governed (ruled by others) is not in dispute. Governance is not in dispute, but I challenge to point to a government and you will discover that you cannot. You can point to a senator, a building and say that's where government is, but you can't point to government. This is why I have said you have equivocated on the word government. That there will always be some governance is inherent in our selves. We govern our own actions. Please don't think I'm being arrogant, harsh or argumentative, or that I judge you in any way that is not in my nature, but what I say can sometimes come across like that. I'm aware of it, but in real life these words are spiced with humour and no one gets offended-well that's not entirely correct:-) my wife says I'm patronising and she is always right:-) . Here on the internet it's different, so I'm direct and that can create some conflict. Can't be helped, I don't do flowery and don't expect flowery. I can't answer you question over eggs and milk, that's specific and I don't know the details of what happened. I could research it but it's pointless. I only work in a priori economic laws. I've researched many cases and it always comes out the same. Some government policy, tariff, subsidy, regulation, price fixing, money inflation, license arrangement, rationing or monopoly creation. It's incredible how the state takes aclaim for things it didn't do, and simultaneously refuses any blame for the things it did.

Have you read his books ? I have. After much consideration I decided the guy was off his trolley. A complete fruitcake as was Freud.

Yet you are talking about you, because it is you that is demanding that something should be a certain way other than what it is. It isn't 'your' Government either. Neither is it necessary to have 'a government' to defend your property. 'A government' does not answer to you, you answer to it. You innocently and in ignorance have agreed to a one sided, open ended contract of which you are granted privileges by the state. As privileges they can be granted or removed at will by the state and they need not give you any explanation because you gave away your power to decide your own life. You sacrificed freedom for the promise of security and will do your utmost to force everyone else to support there own enslavement for what you believe is the common good. As an ex soldier have you read ' war is a racket' by General smedley butler ? It's very short and is available on YouTube as an audiobook. It's more an essay than a book. I think you would find it interesting as an ex soldier to an ex soldier does.

Yes, I'm aware of what you believe and that's the problem. Why not let employers and employees negotiate there own contracts completely free of state interference ? Isn't this the fair way ? Is this not how you trade with your fellow man ? You negotiate what you believe to be a fair price for your productive efforts and likewise so does the person that you trade with. You do the trade and expect to get what you paid for as does the other guy. If you both achieve this then it's a win win. You are both wealthier by the trade. If one of you cheats then there is conflict. If one of you brings in a third man with a big club and packing Arnold Schwarzeneggers muscles and demand that you increase your payment or suffer the consequences then how do you feel about that ? Would you do business with that man again or advise anyone else to do so.

Your argument is based on equivocation of the word Government. The reason is that you hold an incorrect concept of Government. There is reality and concept. Don't mix them and it will be plain to you. Inflation isn't prices rising. Cause and effect. Prices can rise as a result of high demand but will always tend towards equilibrium. The general trend in a non interventionist market is for prices to fall as competition drives producers to innovate and therefore production increases. Increasing production tends to lower prices-indeed that was exactly what happened during the 1800s in the USA. Inflation has been concealed from you. It is simply the increase in the money supply. Kings of old used to do this of old with coins. They would come to the throne and remint the specie ( gold, silver coin used as money). They would make the coins smaller but stamp on them the same value. The people could not guess what was being done. The king had minted himself a share of their money. Those directly in the Kings employ and court had gained an advantage. They stole without being seen, there was no more production to back up the new flow of expanded money supply. More money chased fewer goods. Supply and demand. Prices the rise.

Oh I have been listening. Stop asking the Government to do things and all this stuff falls away. What is fair is that a man owns his own body and mind and the fruits of his own honest labour. What gives you the right to take another mans stuff ? The only reason you consider it is because you believe that your plan to get the state to act on your behalf has backfired and another group is benefitting from what you believe to be your claim. You don't have a more equitable claim on people's stuff or what they do with it. If you let go of trying it will become apparent, if you do not stop then you will be elated when you believe you have your own way and suffering when it is clear you do not. Its all part of the same delusional mind stuff. It is the inability to separate conception from perception-real from false even and unto the self.

It was only a metaphor for saying, we should do the best that we can in this life in order that others may do likewise. There is one life, one go around and that's your lot. No need to think about making up in the next life or in some spiritual never land. Do today what shouldn't be put off until tomorrow. If we stare at the immensity of what we think needs to be done we get lost in delusional unreality and suffering. Better to make each footstep true and the most steady we can manage and that drives internal satisfaction with life as we work on the only thing we can actually work on.

There is no 'in your consciousness'. There is only being conscious of something. You should start to see the impossibility of what you are saying. You are saying it is your consciousness that is 'producing' everything, but you know this cannot be true, because if that were the case then how would you be conscious of it :-) senses sense direct reality, mind produces conceptual un-realities You have created a conceptual mind entity called consciousness, but you are consciousness itself. You cannot be conscious of consciousness, that much must be obvious. An eye cannot look at itself.

That's the magic word 'inflation'. You skim over it like it was as inevitabile as the sun appearing each morning. Wherever the state interferes by taking tax and creating bands it messes up the normal behaviour of the market. Everywhere and always there are unintended consequences which will require a further sticking plaster, more unproductive government employees, more deductions from the producers efforts. The only fair tax is no tax.

It's a ridiculous and unfair system that appeals broadly to those who wish to vote themselves the wealth of others. It's simply theft by a mob who think they are entitled to the productive efforts of the most valued producers. Not only do these producers risk their capital, they are also satisfying a demand and instead of fair dealing-paying for perceived value-these bone pickets want their cake and eat it and feel entitled to put their hands into the wallet of those that have given them what they desired and steal back what they had fairly offered. However the joke is on those that think this actually works. There can never be a fair system of robbery. What we have is a den of thieves dividing up the booty from a robbery. By this method we all get progressively poorer whilst those who run the system (government, bureaucrats ) hand out money they never earned and take a nice fat cut for doing so. They are simply fences for the stolen loot and they and their buddies (crony capitalists) do very nicely out of our avarice.

How can you be anything other than your true self bindi ? There is only self and you are that. No need to look for something to become. :-)

There is consciousness and unconsciousness ( the complete abscence of consciousness awareness). We let go in deep dreamless sleep. We all look at the same realities or concretions though we might observe them marginally differently (optical illusions, mirages, shapes in clouds) and have different thoughts and feelings about them. What you are saying is very important. In effect "how can I know what is real-what I see is what I see". If you begin to wonder if you actually CAN know, then you are drifting into the world of the subjectivist where nothing is assumed real at all. This is what self inquiry and other techniques does. It destabilises the entire direct perceptive and conceptive internal by putting it on one plane. It is a form of liquidation which eventually hardens out direct reality and conceptual internal realities. Then one can be seen entirely different from the other. This is the origin of the rope and the snake. To correctly identify direct reality. To know what is and isn't real. To see the real as real for separated out from the conceptions is the aim.

"Every consciousness is the root creator of it's own reality model built from perceptions. No two can be alike or they would be the same reality." That seems backwards Bud ? Consciousness is conscious of something. We are conscious of the direct percepion of reality, the things we see and touch that make up the universe-we can use tools to look deeper into the structures of those existent realities. We are also conscious of our thoughts, feelings and conceptions. These are existent to us, but they are not realities as viewed by a second conscious entity. Direct perceptual reality is existent. We don't need to go beyond that. We may see a different shade of blue, but we can all agree that the colour is blue. We all go and sit on a chair, there isn't a changing direct perceptual reality where a chair has become an elephant for instance. It is in our conceptions that the difference is revealed. These are very different from person to person. They are creative outpourings of the higher cortex. We can reason, rationalise and feel emotion. The question 'what is consciousness' is just a badly formed concept. Consciousness is not a thing at all because it is a fundamental. We cannot look at or hold consciousness.

You are begging the question. As yet you have not proved the existence of a creator.

I always understood heart to mean centre and not the organ itself.