David L

Obama is not the only tyrant to use children as props http://www.infowars.com/other-tyrants-who-have-used-children-as-props/

Of...free energy...right?

On a previous thread, Mr. Capitalism wrote "There may be cheap energy, but there isn't free energy..." First off, and fortunately for us, our sun isn't a business, and so we are never charged for the energy it lights and warms us with on a sunny day. Would you first agree on this point. :-)

You say there isn't free energy. Let's talk fundamentals first. Since this subject seems to divagate from the theme at hand, I'll paste your statement on a new thread titled Free Energy, and we can discuss further. See you there.

Not sure what you mean. Here's what I'm referring to... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqLwTI0D7e8

The creature comforts, yes, the leisure, no way. Holidays in the Middle Ages, for example, were far more numerous than we enjoy today. Feasts and festivity days were abundant. Work was intermittent, relaxed and unhurried. Do some research if you're interested Alan. There are a number of books available on the subject regarding capitalism's erosion of leisure. For example, see The Overworked American: the unexpected decline of leisure", by Juliet Schor.

I understand the difficulty. There is a present entanglement that does not make analysis completely clear cut. That's why for the moment I'm focusing on the basic precepts and doctrine of capitalism. Do capitalists espouse a work ethic? If so, aren't they inherently averse to advocating that we ever realise the existential freedoms that exist beyond work?

Thanks for your response. What do you mean by live better? Materially better? If so, fine, but how far can that take us? Studies show that beyond a modest standard of living, increasing wealth and material possessions do not contribute to increased happiness. Such materialism may even contribute to feelings of depression, chronic anxiety, and an ultimate dissatisfaction with life. Is the nature of man merely to be an everlasting worker? I can see work as meaningful self-expression, but in an age of automation and free energy, I can't see much value in promoting a work ethic anymore. What say you?

Do you have a refrigerator? Do you have a mobile phone? Do you have a computer? Do you use email? Do you have central air and heat in your home? Do you own a car? Do you buy your food in a grocery store? Have you ever shopped in a department store? I don't mean saved from any specific labors, Alan, I mean saved from any labor generally. Do you see? http://www.alternet.org/story/106830/overworked%2C_vacation-starved_america_ranks_%231_in_depression%2C_mental_health_problems http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/americans-refuse-vacation-days-lag-rest-world/story?id=11361600 http://20somethingfinance.com/american-hours-worked-productivity-vacation/ http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/02/16/Is-America-Overworked.aspx#page1 PS: I'm not for statism, but neither am I for capitalism at this point, until I can be convinced otherwise regarding there being any fundamental freedom inherent in the latter. I'm not saying there haven't been certain benefits to capitalism, I'm just weighing in those benefits now versus the ultimate costs involved that are accruing in continuing to religiously venerate work as an ethic and a virtue in and of itself without end. We are so workaholic now we seem to be working ourselves into becoming a species of cyborgs. !!!

Obviously from capitalism, yet with all the tremendous number of technological devices, automation, and so on that are performing so much work as a result of capitalism, who's been saved from any labor as a result? It's just not in the capitalist psyche, because capitalism isn't about "saving labor", it's about increasing it to infinity, no? Don't capitalists want limitless capital, meaning limitless labor?

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that capitalism is about capital and its accumulation (which essentially means an increasing capacity to do more and more work). It's not about freedom (from work).

Well, what's underneith the drive for innovation, if you're not first free to just be?

The Sandy Hook Actors Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_b9hh2lp3I What do people think?

Cody, thanks very much for your critique thus far, I'm very intrigued, and there are lots of stunning synchronicites in your post for me personally pertaining to my own thinking and reading earlier today. I'd be interested first off in knowing if you're aware of the work of Nassim Haramein. He came to my attention specifically in regard to your position surrounding the vacum. Among many You Tube videos, see for example this one.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmE7Y5K7Q9c Thanks for any comments.

As I see it, there is a difference between a symbol (which exists as a mental tool or conceptual operation), and the existence of what that symbol represents or portrays (which may or may not exist outside of the symbol itself. In other words, we can confuse the content of our minds with physical or spiritual realities, not realizing there is a distinction to be made between these various realms of experience and knowledge. God, or Spirit Itself, for example, is not a mental concept per se, but if we are stuck in the mental realm, we can (as we almost always do) confuse the symbol we entertain of God with God itself, or as Atheists do, dismiss it as "mere imagination". But the realm of Spirit has its own faculty, or eye, just as the realm of mind has its eye, and the realm of flesh has its eye. In the Perennial Philosophy, the three basic modes of knowing are: Physical (sensibilia) Mental (inteligibilia) Spiritual (transcendilia) Each mode of knowing has to be respected for its own unique contributions to its own unique realm. If one realm claims to speak, or see, for another realm or realms, this is called a category error. For example, religionists claiming that the earth is only 6000 years old, are making a category error, speaking for the physical world, by completely ignoring the physical geological evidence provided by the eye of flesh. Rationalists make category errors when they claim through reason and logic, that Spirit does, or doesn't exist (since Spirit is transrational by definition, and can't be discovered through reason itself) and when they make claims on the physical world through reason alone, without checking things out with their physical eye. And empricists make category errors when they claim nothing exists but matter and physicality, when clearly reason and Spirit do exist when those unique modes of knowing, or "eyes", are properly trained to experience datum from those particular realms. A true philosophy of life would thus seem to respect and thus carefully differentiate these major modes of knowing, so that confusion, which seems to be the hallmark of our human history, is ultimately eliminated. This is how I see it anyway.

Innocents Betrayed http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAU9AJfttls

Eric Holder: Gun Owners Should "Cower" in Shame Like Smokers http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2013/01/10/eric-holder-gun-owners-should-cower-shame-smokers#ixzz2HbmeTEJU Wow, a government that cowers in shame? Yeah I think that would be really a hip idea!

You're welcome. As I see it, and as you suggested, much of this technology can also be used to free ourselves, if we use it intelligently. For instance, one can do all kinds of investigative research using the internet at one's easy disposal, applying a search engine in combination with your own reason, intuition and inspiration. It's really an open sesame to enlightenment, if you have the true spirit of inquiry in you. For example as just a start.... http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/microchip_implants_mind_control.htm

So then, Robin, since you have already stated that the Non-Aggression Principle actually exists, how then would you present evidence to an Empiricist that it does? In Empiricism, to claim that something actually exists requires evidence to back it up, no?

OK, so I'm guessing if an Empiricist were to ask you for evidence of the existence of the Non-Aggression Principle, you would NOT try to present any evidence of the Principle to his fleshly eye---instead, you would present evidence of the Principle to his mind's eye, that is, you would describe the Principle to him, which would include giving reasons and explanations for its existence right? And this is because reasons and explanations cannot be seen with the physical eye, only the mind's eye, correct?

OK, so to make sure I really understand, you are saying the Non-Aggression Principle has an actual existence, right?

How do you define it?

Except in mind of course. In line with the general inquiry of this thread, here's a question for all staunch Empiricists out there: Does the Non-Aggression Principle exist?

So you don't think capitalism's unrestrained emphasis on work (as opposed to freedom) is going to produce violence in people? Just inquiring.