Karl

Free markets are at work all the time, our wealth was founded on them. When they are shut down as they were in Russia the results are evident. It created the rise of black market enterprises which are another example of a type of free market. Without those black markets Russia would have folded far earlier. You need to show examples of where socialism has been spectacularly successful. Free markets aren't an ideology, they are human nature. The freedom to trade with whoever we like, to compete, to profit from serving the people and suffer losses for poor service. If you could only understand that much we would be miles further on.

In time I think you will change your mind as I changed mine. Devotion to a corrupt ideology is not a good place to start. The very word 'devotion' is symptomatic of what socialism really is. A religion. I don't know what you mean about 'fewer billionaires' ?

Thou doth protesteth too much. If you cannot understand that selfishness is equally a force for good then what can I conclude? You only imply the bad. This is socialism. It is the ideology of the jealous and envious. If you really spoke for the disenfranchised you would realise that means freedom from tyranny. The right to exist without trespass in any form. That you don't is telling. My work is founded on reality, nothing more. I don't have an 'ideology' that is again a socialistic argument. I have a praxeological truth that man acts. I need no more than that from which to understand the world. I don't need to measure every triangle in the world to know that Pythagoras theorem works. I do not cling to Hayek, Friedman or even Rothbard bless his heart Because I have no need to. I don't need to dispute Marx either. Reality is clear as a fresh spring.

You have shown no aptitude for logical argument so it's pointless to take that path. Fascism and socialism are cut from the same cloth, they differ only in method. If you are such a clever guy let's see you define socialism and fascism for us and then we may judge how close they are. Remember -genus and differentia- :-) let's see how well you do because you have been blowing hard about your incredible brilliance. It should be a doddle for you. I reckon 8 hours is sufficient to show us what you can do. I look forward to it. Once you have it you will see why the bible reference is important.

Have you read Von Mises treatise human action ? I mean read the whole thing cover to cover not grazed over a wiki entry. Mises wasn't a free marketeer at all. His work is all philosophical and based around praxeology. It's a tough read, it answers every question with logical syllogism and precision. If you consider yourself to have that level of understanding-and you have to be pretty bright to do so-then you should have a bash at it. Friedman was an idiot and espoused the monetarism (Neo Keynesian) of the Chicago school. Definitely not free market. Hayek was better, but had some very odd notions. I wouldn't call him free market-more limited government minarchist. Hmm human greed, rugged individualism and selfishness is more pyrotechnics than anything else. Judge what Mises says in human action for yourself and with an open mind. Humans will always be selfish, but your reading of the word selfish is incorrect. Selfish can also mean charitable giving, fairness, empathy, voluntary association, peace. We use our rational minds, we are not animals of the field, that means we can see the advantage in cooperative working, living and peace. Your reading of 'selfish' is your own judgement on yourself, it is your style of selfishness that is black.

That's a false alternative. I would prefer neither, a free market healthcare system free of protectionism would be far, far better. Railways improved despite it not being a free market and simply a state created franchise. Rail track is still state owned. If you look at the number of passengers prior to privatisation you will see they had dropped off a cliff. The trains were dirty, late and broken. People were deserting them for road transport. Do you mean the private housing market funded by the state monopoly monetary system and the state planning authorities. Both of these have combined to create a bubble in housing. That's socialism planning and control at work, not the free market. All companies are profit driven-even charitable and not for profit companies. It is the profit motive and it's downside losses-rarely considered as important by socialists-that allows us companies to judge if they are providing the right products, at the right prices, at the the right quality. However, today we have the interference of the state in all those markets for the purposes of giving advantage to a few special groups and freeing them from competition. The ideas of socialism, like its twin, fascism, should not be swept away, they should be pinned up for all time as a warning never to adopt them. They are totalitarian bringers of tyranny and serfdom. They rely on the ignorance of the masses and are enticing to them, right up until the moment it's too late to object. Make no mistake, this ideology is the evil that the bible warned about. It seems the easy way, it masquerades as charity and good works, but it is none of those things. It is greed, power, authoritarianism, violence, chaos, pollution, destruction of resources and of human minds and bodies. It is literally hell on earth. Read some books on Russia from the inside and learn it first hand. Then go visit Venezuela with its 700% inflation rate and black market toilet paper. Then North Korea with its mind control and death to anyone who dares speak out against it.

I wish people would stop calling it liberal. Bright, Cobden, Adam Smith et al would be turning in their graves. Universal healthcare is a disaster, but universal state schooling is a pernicious destroyer of minds. The Scandinavian models are misunderstood due to history and timescale. A country with a free market economy, that has avoided war can live very easily on the wealth this produced. However, eventually it becomes unsustainable and countries must begin to reverse their socialistic models. It is not true that countries are not capable of failing. Sweden was in serious difficulty in the 70/80s and had to cut its social programmes.

What's more, without the little bit of free market capitalism that peeps through the layers of state socialised concrete is the only reason the NHS exists at all. As we saw in Russia, China, Venezuela, Argentina and every other country who despise capitalism and embrace socialism-their people suffer terrible poverty, health, education and it all ends in tears. Any objection to socialism is dealt with severely. Socialism and it's twin brother Fascism have murdered million and impoverished billions. Anyone even dabbling with the idea that socialism produces any good should be in no doubt that they are supporting an evil ideology that works by creeping, plank by plank until it suffocates its supporters.

More crap from Corbyn. Now he has to argue the bits of socialism that do work. Bastiat would have a field day with Corbyn, but in his esteemed absence I shall try to fill his shoes: Firstly the NHS. We are stuck with it, it is a truism that it's helped everyone because there is no free market healthcare system to replace it. Even prior to the NHS protectionism was rife within the medical business. Practitioners were limited by the BMA and medical suppliers were pushing the state to provide patents and extended IP conditions for their products. The U.S. Does not have a 'free market' medical system. The US government is heavily involved in the regulation, licensing and protectionism of the system. It has a crony, semi-state operated system which created ever higher cost burdens on the insurance companies. The government run FDA is involved in protectionism for the drug companies. It reaps billions to be fed into the state coffers-no doubt to be spent on war, surveillance, bailouts and other boondoggles. The FDA ensures that competition for the big pharma companies is set aside and that they cannot afford the fees demanded for years of 'research'. Insurance companies have to run their own version of the FDA in order to assess the suitability of the drugs the FDA has passed-many are rejected. Many more cheaper and effective drugs available in Europe are rejected by the FDA even though the insurance companies parallel testing centres would like to use them-the quicker their patients get better, the cheaper it is. If you want to build a hospital in the U.S. You must obtain permission from the state. Again and again cheaper private community hospitals have their planning permission rejected in order to stifle competition. There is no place for socialism. It's a promise that can never be fulfilled and its ideology requires coercive force to enact. The NHS is no 'free at the point of use' it is paid for by taxpayers who have their money taken at gun point. The use of force for anything except defence should be abhorred. Corbyn stands against war, he should not be such a hypocrite and realise that force cannot be countenanced for any ideology.

I have asked that many times over the years. The answer is to see there is not really 'everyone else' but only self. Then all thoughts and actions are in accordance with self. If that isn't yet possible for you then perhaps a reading of Albert J Nocks 'Issiahs Job' essay might help. We have a finite time here as individuals, we are brief sparks, our efforts are mere stepping stones on a vast river. It is our job to ensure that the stone we leave is true and sound, it is the very best we could have made no matter how poor the material or clumsy our hands. Nothing else is required. Live your life by that analogy and let the impermanence of others wash over you. Then you will see that the world is just perfect as it is and appreciate it for what it is. For it is a miracle and you are of it and witness to it. I don't say this in a flowery, peace and tofu sense. To act this way takes immense courage, one does not withdraw from the world, one engages like a knight in battle. Establishment in the self is the act of the brave, it is to say 'I am that' and there is no end to the realities which I shall greatfuly accept.

If it isn't, then it isn't capitalism, it's something else. We need to change the argument to engage with the new paradigm. So, in a centrally run, state controlled economy is the minimum wage a good idea ? At that point I leave the discussion. That question is for those that don't believe in capitalism. Mainly communists, fascists, dictators, the ignorant and crooks.

It's nothing to do with a religious entity. Capitalism ( and that is a Marxist slur as there is no such thing as capital-ism unlike Marxism which has no basis for its ideology) is just the ordinary way in which humans operate. There is no mystery to it. In the purest sense it means not to consume everything we produce. It is commonly known as saving for a rainy day, however, these savings allow the producer to produce innovative ways to increase that production. A fisherman saves enough to make a net and can now fish more efficiently. It can also be lent out. The fisherman agreeing to feed the berry picker whilst he constructs a berry picking device and increases berry production. He agrees to pay the fisherman a percentage of the berries as payment for the berry picker deferring that consumption. Everybody benefits. There are no faults with pure capitalism. What we have today is crony capitalism where the state protects businesses and occupations from competition which deprives the consumer of the value of his earnings. This should not be called capitalism at all, it is a fraudulent hybrid. It is monopoly by state. Today when politicians talk about 'free markets' and 'capitalism' they are lying. We have a centrally managed economy predicated on a monopolised monetary system. Today there are no markets. The state did away with them and created front run casinos powered by cheap money. It has pushed money from the bottom to the top and created great differences between the very rich (0.01%) and the rest. It has created zombie businesses and banks which should have gone bust and who's continued bailouts are dragging the real producers down. Capital is no longer being created. Savings are cursed and capital is being destroyed. If we go back to that simple example. If we do not save, we cannot produce. That's where we are headed.

Read lots Gita, SRM, Osho, SNM, Tolle, Adyashanti, patanjali, meditated for over 7 years twice daily, Pranayama, Sanyama, mindfulness, self inquiry. Even wrote a book on meditation and philosophy. That aside, the books, meditation and practices mean nothing, give me no special authority, or afford me any special knowledge and neither does your ad hominem attack . I respect your wishes not to pursue any further discussion. If you wish to discuss it at a future time then I'm open to it.

Mind games ? I'm only interested in establishing the truth regardless of any preconceptions or beliefs I might currently hold. You must decide if you want to know the truth on that same basis. If you do not then we are wasting our time. That your fear is not my fear does not disprove the existence of fear as an independent emotion. That we have subjective experiences is not in dispute, but we can still broadly agree on our experiences even if the subject of them, or intensity of them differs. If you point to a colour and say it's blue, then that's what you call that colour. Unless one of us has exceptional colourblindness or other malady I think we will broadly accept this reasoning. You are using an equivocation of the word 'death' to back your argument. If you want to refer to death as an absence of consciousness then this is acceptable to me even if this is not the normally accepted definition. I must then ask how you will define the absence of life in a corpse. There is not simply an abscence of consciousness in a corpse. A corpse is not unconscious-unless you wish to define unconscious in your own terms which suits me. As long as we have the rule that once something is defined by you that it remains as that specific definition.

Can you provide uncontroversial proof of the validity and truth of your argument ?

What is there to rationalise ? Fear is real, death is real. You do not see either as they are, because you don't accept the self as it is. Death is the end. There is nothing beyond it. Fear of death is natural and real there is no requirement to gild it. Both are perfect as they are. There is no 'purging of ego'. It's a choice. Either be self or think yourself other than self. Reality does not alter, self does not alter. We are as we are. It's a conceptual nicety to talk about a false self, but none such exists.

Suffering is just conflict with reality. There is a clear distinction between pain and suffering. Take as an example, if a person dies who is close to us we may rationalise the death 'at least they are at peace' 'they had a good life' or whatever. This is avoiding the reality which is that we are sad about being left alone. There is no requirement to rationalise the reality of that emotional feeling of loss. We try and empathise with the deceased, but the reality is we cannot, all we are discovering is our own response to our loss. Sometimes the suffering caused by self imposed conflict is minor, but it has a tendency to build layers one on top of the next. At some point the suffering can become unbearable-Illusory concept is heaped on illusory concept and we are lost and unable to cope with any form of reality. Reality like gravity it is always pulling us back and won't be ignored, the further we go from it, the greater suffering becomes.

Kundalini isnt something I have any experience of. It's a word which creates a kind of mental fog. I cannot criticise the AYP treatment of something I'm not acquainted with.

Its not something I want, or need understand, but I can feel your passion to bring the people to life. I can appreciate it. However if someone has become irrationally fearful of some aspect of their inner conceptualisation then there is suffering. You have rationalised your own conceptualisation. It has become a source of unbound creativity, just as a climber enjoys the rationalisation of his mental fear of falling and becomes a creative mover. There is equilibrium in the mind of the climber. However it is not necessary to be a climber in order to be relatively comfortable with heights.

Why ?

Well, if you go looking for spirits then you will most certainly find them that is very true.

I was happily trying out tents and climbing gear in the churchyard trees right up to my mid 20s. Dead bodies are just that. There are no spirits, ghosts or ghouls except those that infect the imagination-I've witnessed those visually too. I'm as happy in a graveyard now as I was then.

I spent most of my childhood playing in the graveyard we lived right next door to. It was always a calm and peaceful place even at night.

:-) breaking our mental conditioning is a great taboo breaker. We live in a self imposed mental prison in which we are prisoner, prison warder and prison. There are no obvious walls or boundaries yet we create the illusion that there are and then add further illusions to make it appear as if we are free. Our subconscious conditioning throws up all kinds of warning flags to discourage us from breaking these carefully crafted illusions. Your analysis of the OPs dream seems sound. I also think this is why there is a use of 'I' and 'you'. It's a subconscious way of holding the belief 'it is this way for everyone, that is normal'. I remember when I believe the first breaking of this boundary happened to me. I was gripped with terror for what seemed like hours. It was if I was being murdered by some invisible foe and fighting for my life. I began to regret meddling with meditation at that point. The only way I managed to resolve it was simply to give in to the fear, to give up control and accept whatever fate was in store. Within minutes I began to relax and then things got really serene. It only happened once and I've never experienced anything like it either before, or after.

No one can doubt free market capitalism and it is a matter of logic. I know humans have the capacity to reason. I also know it is an under developed capacity which has been deliberately and systematically suppressed since early times. We are here on this forum because we wish to develop our spiritual side, but you should know that 'spiritual' is just another name for conscious awareness and our higher functions-reasoning- are those that separate man from animal. To be self realised-to become what one already is-must be accomplished through expanded higher functions on the face of consciousness. These higher function provide a datum or platform of truth. It's like a superhighway of perfect logic in which no false beliefs are possible. It underpins all of existence because it is part and parcel of existence. Everything is connected by it. I am not simply just sure, or even very certain, I bathe in the waters of reality and it is one and the same with me. This you will, I think, struggle to understand. Try and imagine no egoic intention at all, pure knowledge to which a story has to be written. Like a well from which water is taken and then utilised for bathing, drinking, painting, cooking. This is hard to explain because words such as 'capitalism' are conceptual and abstract, they are capable of misunderstanding unlike the pure knowledge that underpins them. Just like freedom, or love are concepts combined with emotional response. When you become established in the self, you will understand. It is not necessary at this time to try and disassemble a concept in order to arrive at the underlying truth. That is like breaking a pot to find the potter. Instead it should be our aim to find the truth in ourselves and thus arrive at the truth of everything else. It isn't possible to reverse engineer it. Do that first and then the rest may follow.