Keys Writings 2015, Part 9

This entry is part 10 of 13 in the series 2015B

April 13, 2015

Does the End Justify the Means?

The Question;

We often hear the statement that a certain act was a “necessary evil” in order to produce a good result.

Is an evil action sometimes necessary to produce a good result? And if the end result was good, was the action then really evil?

Good comments on this. I’m short on time tonight and can’t do them justice so I’ll just say a few words on this subject.

A belief held by many is that the end does not justify the means, but when you think about it, this is just not true. To say the end does not justify the means is to say that cause and effect does not work. After all, the means is a cause and the end is the effect. The end is always brought about by a cause that works the same for everyone, making it just.

If this is the case then why do many say that the end does not justify the means?

They say this because they are looking at the middle, not the end, a piece and not the whole.

Let us take an example.

Judy cheats on tests and manages to graduate from college with honors. She gets a good job afterwards and all seems well. This good end did not seem to justify cheating.

The problem here is this is not the end of the effects her cause set in motion. Cheating and deception is now built into her character and will create numerous ends that will plague her in this life and possibly lifetimes to come. Because of her good grades her boss may think she is more capable than she truly is and give her assignments in which she is doomed to failure. She may lie and cover up digging a deeper hole for herself leading to depression and even ill health.

Here is another example:

Ron seals some money from funds he holds in trust to bet on a sure thing in the horse races. He wins and then puts the money back in the trust. No harm done, right? An evil action seems to have produced a good end.

Again, the problem is that this is not the end. It never is for a gambling thief. Just ask Bernie Madoff. He stole billions from investors thinking he could pay the funds back with profits and for years it looked like he would never get caught. Now he is ending his life in jail, his son committed suicide, he is separated from loved ones and hated by most everyone. Again we have to look at the real end of the causes put in motion and it is indeed just.

The next question is whether there is such a thing as a necessary evil, This is another phrase thrown about quite often.

This problem occurs when there is a fork in the road and both decisions seem bad. The example previously given of the crazy guy with the bomb is a good one. Is it a necessary evil to kill one bad guy to save fifty?

Actually people look at this the wrong way. If you can save fifty by killing one and you know this to be the case then you are doing a good deed, not an evil one. You’ll find that all fifty people whose lives are saved will agree with this.

Let us take a nefarious act less drastic than taking a life, like stealing. Is this ever justified?

Here is a great story from the Aquarian Gospel, chapter 132:

A MULTITUDE of people thronged the streets. The officers were on the way to court with one, a man accused of stealing bread.

2 And in a little while the man was brought before the judge to answer to the charge.

3 And Jesus and the twelve were there. The man showed in his face and hands the hard drawn lines of toil and want.

4 A woman richly clad, the accuser of the man, stood forth and said, I caught this man myself: I know him well, for yesterday he came to beg for bread.

5 And when I drove him from my door, he should have known that I would harbour not a man like him; and then to-day he came and took the bread.

6 He is a thief and I demand that he be sent to jail.

7 The servants also testified against the man; he was adjudged a thief, and officers were leading him away.

8 But Jesus standing forth exclaimed, You officers and judge, be not in haste to lead this man away.

9 Is this a land of justice and of right? can you accuse and sentence men to punishment for any crime until they testify themselves?

10 The Roman law will not permit such travesty on right, and I demand that you permit this man to speak.

11 And then the judge recalled the man and said, If you have any tale to tell, say on.

12 In tears the man stood forth and said, I have a wife and little ones and they are perishing for bread, and I have told my story oft, and begged for bread; but none would hear.

13 This morning when I left our cheerless hut in search of work my children cried for bread, and I resolved to feed them or to die.

14 I took the bread, and I appeal to God, Was it a crime?

15 This woman snatched the loaf away and threw it to the dogs, and called the officers and I am here.

16 Good people, do with me whate’er you will, but save my wife and little ones from death.

17 Then Jesus said, Who is the culprit in this case?

18 I charge this woman as a felon in the sight of God.

19 I charge this judge as criminal before the bar of human rights.

20 I charge these servants and these officers as parties to the crime.

21 I charge the people of Capernaum with cruelty and theft, because they heeded not the cries of poverty and want, and have withheld from helpless ones that which is theirs by every law of right;

22 And I appeal unto these people here, and ask, Are not my charges based on righteousness and truth?

23 And every man said, Yes.

24 The accused woman blushed for shame; the judge shrank back in fear; the officers threw off the shackles from the man and ran away.

25 Then Jesus said, Give this man what he needs and let him go and feed his wife and little ones.

26 The people gave abundantly; the man went on his way.

27 And Jesus said, There is no standard law to judge of crime. The facts must all be stated e’er a judgment can be rendered in a case.

28 You men with hearts; go forth and stand where stood this man and answer me, What would you do?

29 The thief thinks every other man a thief and judges him accordingly.

30 The man who judges harshly is the man whose heart is full of crime.

31 The courtesan who keeps her wickedness concealed by what she calls respectability, has not a word of pity for the honest courtesan who claims to be just what she is.

32 I tell you, men, if you would censure not till you are free from sin, the world would soon forget the meaning of the word, accused.

The bottom line is that good judgment must be used. You would only lie, steal or kill with justification if good judgment was involved and the end would be an overwhelming good to which almost all fair minded people would agree. You wouldn’t be justified in stealing to get the latest iPad, but you could be justified in doing so to save your family from starvation as related in the story.

Solomon spoke a great truth when he said that there is a time and season for all things. Seeing that time and season takes good judgment.

***

Jim

No need to wait until 2010 to get on a floating city. I have been on this one and its Sister, and there are more being built as we speak! I was on He Oasis 12 straight days sailing from Ft. Lauderdale to Barcelona, Spain. These Cities are State of The Art, Self Contained.

LINK

JJ

A ship and a floating city are two entirely different things though some ship are large enough to carry the inhabitants of a small town.

The floating cities will be different in these aspects.

(1) The residents will be permanent.

(2) Dwellers will own their own property.

(3) They will have their own government

(4) They will expand indefinitely.

(5) They will work at their trade while there rather than considering it vacation.

***

Latuwr:

Joseph John Dewey, do you believe that you yourself are an immortal soul? If so, what is the source of your believe? In other words, whose Rhema have you heard and believed?

JJ

The soul is not Immortal, but that which occupies the soul or Higher Self is.

In our comments I only see an explanation of your views on the scriptures similar to what a Baptist would put forward and nothing that appears to be any revelation from God.

***

Latuwr

I fully agree that the spirit within our souls is immortal, but I deny Allan’s teaching and your apparent teaching that each of us have a higher soul which is immortal.

JJ

I do not know about Allan, but I have never said the Higher Self was immortal.

Latuwr

I actually do not know what Baptists believe, but in seeking to understand concerning them, I discovered that Mormons believe that a human soul is the combination of spirit and body (D&C 88:15). With this, I agree.

JJ

The word soul is used a number of different ways by different belief systems. Some use it synonymously with our eternal spirit essence which is different than the way I use it as well as most Theosophists and Bailey readers.

There is soul energy and the soul which is the higher self. Soul energy is created by the interplay of spirit and matter. We thus become a living soul (or manifesting soul essence) at birth when spirit and matter are united and interplay creating physical life.

The Higher Self is focused in a world that lies between the physical and the spirit and thus is often called the soul, because its energy body is created by the interplay of the higher and the lower. This itself is still a vehicle for a higher and eternal part of ourselves that comes from God and is one with the One Great Life.

Latuwr

I am moved to respond right now to your words to my Brother, ImAHebrew. I am actually surprised that you would so quickly threaten to act so as to prove Allan to be a prophet concerning us and our relationship with you on this forum.

JJ

I’ve already placed both of you on moderation in the past because your posts were way off the direction of the class. If he predicted moderation then that has already been done. You both seemed to be more cooperative so I took you off and now you are going more and more off topic again.

Imagine if you took a class in Spanish and some student kept trying to teach the class math. Even if what he taught was accurate it would still not be appreciated and be a distraction and irritation. The class would tell them to save their ideas for a math class.

Even so it would seem that you would be a lot happier in a forum that sees the scriptures as God breathed and tries to interpret them. This is not that forum.

We see the scriptures as just another book containing truth that is to be used as the soul approves or is appropriate. Most of us see the Bailey writings as much more enlightened overall.

Also, I think all members but you two accept reincarnation. The acceptance of reincarnation is pretty important to get anything out of this class because so many teachings revolve around it. Many of us have received actual proof of the principle and we do not want to spend time arguing about this, but accept it as a foundation belief for moving on to higher things.

Now you do not have to believe as I do to be a good member of this class but you do need to not be a distraction and do the equivalent of force feeding us math when we are trying to learn Spanish.

 

April 14, 2015

The One Life

After stretching is head around thoughts of God and the universe Adam asks:

JJ, did the character Joseph in Book IV see anything beyond what is explained there? He saw a grouping of 7 Universes in the larger Multiverse, but Joseph made no revelation about how big or expanded that larger Multiverse might be. I encourage a spoiler of a future book.

JJ

Actually I did. You need to read more carefully.

First the seven refers to the foundation number of this universe not to any number of universes. Beyond this universe are enough universes to supply particles to create greater universes. The number boggles the mind – and they are all a part of just this group of physical universes we inhabit.

In other dimensions there are more universes still and the multi dimension universes are unusually called the multiverse. Many believe there to be an infinite number, but I tend to believe they are twelve or less.

Now getting back to our universe in our dimension there are at least 49 planes of being. Let us just say that there is enough going on in creation to keep us occupied for some time to come.

Joseph Smith worded it well when he said we would have eternal lives on eternal worlds.

Adam:

Is it possible that spontaneous eruption of intelligence (eternal though it be) may have happened (in non-time, of course) with other points in space/non-space – unrelated to the One God of which we are parts?

Could we eventually bump into another wholly independent Multiverse in the course of time as we reflect and expand Ad Infinitum?

JJ

To answer your question again it is important to look at the principle involved.

All lives have their separate and distinct nature and qualities yet also form a part of a greater whole.

An atom in your body has its own individual existence yet is a part of a greater life we call a cell. A cell again has its own distinct life yet is a part of the greater life which is you. You have your own distinct life but you are a part of the greater life, which is all of humanity on planet earth where all share the same oversoul.

Humanity again is a group life and is a part of a greater life which is the life of earth itself. The earth has its own distinct life (living in a different time reference than us) and is a part of the greater solar life. This process continues until all the lives in the universe join to manifest one great universal life. When this life which is our universe discovers other universes it will join with them. This process goes on until creation ends.

Wherever there is more than one life and the two discover each other evolution will eventually bring them into unity to share in one greater life. When the evolution of all there is, is complete it will be discovered that there is only one life of which all the lesser lives are a part.

And the greater life will not be lonely because it can identify with any of the trillions of lives within its body. Fortunately for us we serve the purpose of bringing fulfillment to lives greater than ourselves.

***

Jim:

Some how, this appears to be a Paradox that almost sounds ridiculous, when I imagine being connected with some of the 600 lb. fat asses that have made fast food their God, and don’t ( can’t) work to support them selves, so whine about their food stamps able to cover their daily Cheeseburger and fries. That’s only one extreme example. But who really wants to be any one else then our selves?

JJ

The scripture says:

Luke 12:6 Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God?

Luke 12:7 But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows.

JJ

The Logos is aware of all that goes on in this planet but those in error cannot disturb his peace. An imperfect example would be the internet for us. One can be aware of all kinds of disgusting things going on in it but do not focus on it unless there is some purpose in it. The Spiritual internet of the Logos can access the number of hairs on our head if need be but he doesn’t lose sleep dwelling on it.

***

Blayne:

So do these atoms and cells think they are the center of the universe like most of us Humans do? Or is it only lives who are self aware that tend to think this?

JJ

The principle to look at is this. The evolution of the Life of God on the physical plane proceeds from the small (the microcosm) to the large (the macrocosm). Also much more time takes place in the microcosm than the macrocosm – for instance the heart of the earth only beats once about every 25,000 of our years.

Thus the evolution of the cells and atoms have advanced on their plane to a much higher level than we have on our plane and understand that their lives are enhanced and stabilized by seeking the good of the whole rather than just the unit. We humans have a ways to go to reach this understanding and most seek to serve self above the whole.

 

April 16, 2015

Clarification Time Again

Jim, when you came on board here you were friendly and seemed happy to share some of your knowledge and experience with us. I realized that there were some differences in philosophy, but that is okay. Members can disagree with me and still be civil and contribute some good material for consideration.

You are a good writer, good entertainer and have a pretty wide knowledge so I saw a potential for you being a valuable contributor. I know many teachers out there would be threatened by you as you may come across more knowledgeable than they. Not me. If you know something I do not then fire away, just as long as you do not distract us with quotes and teachings removed from the interest of the members here. Like I say. If one is attending a class on Spanish then the student doesn’t want someone there trying to teach math.

Overall you came across as one who would be a friend and when someone comes across that way I accept them as presented until something surfaces to the contrary.

Now it appears that you are changing your mode from friendly to unfriendly and seeking to knock me off of some imaginary pedestal that you falsely believe that I have perched myself on.

This is very disappointing as I had hopes that you would return my hand of friendship and share with us in a positive way.

As it is you have distorted me as a person and what I teach and then attacked a false strawman. Now one more time I have to set the record straight on a number of items.

First, tithing.

You say mockingly:

How many years would a sincere Tither to JJ’s Molecule Zion Organization need to Tithe in order to advance past all of his/her Ring-Pass-Nots between Boise, Idaho to reach the Biggest of the Big Kahunas of Multiverses of all Multiverses?

There is no Molecule Zion Organization and no one here is asked to or required to pay tithing to me or anyone else to qualify them to participate with us here. I am not offering any type of salvation for money.

As far as right use of money goes for the spiritual aspirant here are my views. I agree with Jesus that your heart is where your treasure is and instead of working to store up treasure on earth that only benefits self that it is advantageous to labor in the service of humanity and their progression. It is good therefore to dedicate your time, talents and excess money you may have to something you deem to be beneficial that goes beyond the desires of the lower self. Each server needs to determine who or what is to be the recipient of that energy. It could be a charity, a benevolent or spiritual organization or he could just pick out individuals to assist. Or one may work, as is Dan or Blayne, on developing projects that one thinks will help his fellow men and women. Each server must use his best judgment in making sure his donations of time, talent or money is sent on a positive and helpful direction.

The willingness to freely give of himself is one of the signs of a true servant and when a molecule is created that is one of the qualities that will help us achieve soul contact as a group, a rare thing indeed.

Secondly you say this:

I have never hid behind any “Cloths” other than my Dhoti , on occasion.

Well the trouble with your post (#74554) is that you seem to be hiding your true thoughts behind a screen of words – one moment exalting me to the perfect guru and the next warning of false gurus (like me) that are leading their group astray because they themselves are in the dark.

Now correct me if I am wrong but when we remove the curtain here is what it sounds like you are saying.

I, JJ, am a mislead guru seeking for followers and money. I am the blind leading the blind and these poor mislead Keys members are following me down to hell. They need to abandon me and seek a true guru (possibly yours?) who knows what he is doing and that can truly save them.

So, does this represent your thinking? If so then just come out and say it and quit beating around the bush. If you think I am in error then tell me where the error is in a civil manner and we can discuss it as men working in the light of day.

That said let me add this.

I have never claimed to be a guru.

I have never claimed to be infallible or that any of my teachings should be trusted any more than that of any one else – unless they are verified by a person’s soul or his own reasoning and common sense.

We do not have positions here. We are all in a classroom and a class is a place of learning and that is all.

I do not take responsibility for anyone’s salvation. That is not up to anyone outside of the person himself. If they find my teachings, or that of anyone else here useful, then fine, and if not that is fine also.

If nothing else we are having a good time exploring truth and seeking true principles.

No one here speaks for me, but me. Neither I, or the members here are perfect. We are all struggling to do our best. If you treat others here with respect you will generally be respected in return.

You seem to believe you have found a perfect guru that can save us. Okay, fine, you have told us about him and if anyone wants to follow him that is fine. The Brown brothers also offer their brand of salvation and if anyone wants to follow them then more power to them.

BUT – this is a classroom where people come to learn what I have to teach as well as share with each other. We are staying with the class agenda and will only divert temporarily to other subjects that are not of general class interest.

We look at other teachers and teachings from time to time and discuss their pros and cons. Sometimes a member will move on to another group and we wish him well. Each has to follow the path of their own soul and we support this.

In the meantime the agenda here is the discovery of true principles. If you or anyone else has one they want to explore then put forward your suggestions for class discussion. Otherwise, after distractions have passed, I will lead the class to the next one to learn.

***

Clay:

No that is the Randian Objetivist ideal society. Oh wait we already have that. Never mind.

JJ

We were not close to Ayn Rand’s vision of the ideal society when she was alive and much further away now for we have taken a number of steps away from her view toward the Marx’s view.

My ideal is somewhat different than hers but hers is much better than what we have today. It is too bad it has never been tried (as has Marxism) so we could have an accurate contrast.

***

Jim:

Thanks for your explanations. I never unfriended you. Hope likewise? Friends never tell friends what only what they like to hear. They tell each other the truth,…..as they see it. If they see each other sinking in Quick Sand, they will quickly offer a hand to pull each other out even at the possibility of being pulled in them selves.

JJ

If you were trying to tell me some truth about myself then you were far from clear as I had to read your long post several times to figure out what you were trying to say. If you disagree with me or think I am astray then just come out and plainly say it, but when you do explain the reasons why rather than just making veiled accusations.

I am glad you still consider me a friend as my friendship is always extended if reciprocated.

***

Clay:

JJ I always believe that any ideological belief system is not fit for all problems. Capitalism does some things incredibly well, others things not so much. Socialism does some things well, in others areas not so much. You can not fix every problem with a hammer, nor can you fix every problem with a screwdriver. It is about find ing the right tool for the objective at hand. Rand prescribes one tool for all problems, Socialist another. They are both right for some areas and completely wrong in others. As a friend a mine likes to say, the Bird requires both wings in order to fly, if it becomes unbalanced, it falls to the ground. Wisest statement I have ever heard.

JJ

I basically agree with you and my solutions are a combination of both systems (but without the use of force). One problem we have in seeing the whole is we have good examples of socialism and Marxism, but none where Rand’s philosophy or pure capitalism prevailed. All most of the public have in their minds are demonized strawmen.

***

Larry:

Consensual Sex vs Rape is the primary example: obviously beautiful with consent but one of the most heinous crimes when consent is missing.

JJ

Great point Larry. Even so, some social ideals of sharing are very virtuous and beneficial when supported by the free will of the people so one can freely enter into or withdraw, but becomes a great evil when enforced against majority will by force. It then becomes social rape – something very repulsive to its victims.

This is why capitalism, even though it appeals to self interest, is a lesser negative in today’s world. It doesn’t have the direct power of government force to implement its desires and force us to buy its brand of hamburger or cars.

I do not think we disagreed on the principle behind natural rights. I recall that the only controversy was the way I defined the term. A disagreement of a definition is much different than a disagreement in how a principle is carried out. It is often no disagreement at all.

 

April 18, 2015

Mind Boggling Questions

Adam:

I’ve consolidated and edited my previous questions, as well as a couple of additional thoughts/questions, if you feel inclined. Thanks.

JJ

You are doing the right thing here. If I seem to overlook a question, then just ask again. Actually I didn’t forget and was about to get back to you.

Adam:

  1. Is our present Universe once, twice, ten, or a gazillion times removed from the ultimate Multiverse-Alpha/Omega? Or is this unknowable/unknown at this time?

JJ

Our universe is merely a sub atomic particle in as yet an unorganized Universe of Eight. Some science fiction writers and philosophers have guessed that we may be a particle in greater organized universe and may be part of a pimple on some guy’s nose, for example. This is not the case as the greater universe is as yet unorganized. This universe built on the foundation of seven rays is where the organizing power of God is focused on the physical plane.

So in answer to your question the greater universes to come are a gazillion times greater. I wouldn’t use the word “removed” however.

JJ stated:

In other dimensions there are more universes still and the multi dimension universes are unusually called the multiverse. Many believe there to be an infinite number, but I tend to believe they are twelve or less.

  1. This loses me slightly. Can you maybe clarify? I hate to be using my idea of dimension and Multiverse, if you mean something quite different.

JJ

This universe and dimension consists of 49 planes known to the masters and seven of which are in the Cosmic Physical which concerns us. There may be more but there is enough to discover in these 49 planes to keep even the Christ occupied for an eternity.

In addition to this dimension containing these 49 planes there are other dimensions. How many we know not but there are a handful of out of body travelers as well as specialists in the spirit world who have learned to travel to different dimensions.

There is a widely accepted new age belief that there is a different dimension for every possible decision to play out. For instance, in another dimension you would have married someone else and Romney would be president instead of Obama.

The reason some believe this is that thoughts do create things and when powerful decision points are reached thoughtforms are created around them. In the spirit world one can tune into these thoughtforms and see what would have been the result if a different path were taken. This is a much different thing than a different universe, yet because some psychics pick up on these thoughtforms they conclude that there is an infinite number of universes where you wound up marrying every girl you liked and following every decision you can imagine. In reality we just live in this one universe, but where all possibilities can be explored.

Adam:

  1. Joseph communed with the Alpha point (Eleven), which is the same “entity” as the indwelling “entity” of our Universe. We understand this “entity” to be the One God. If Joseph could have communed with the indwelling entity of the Multiverse, I assume IT would be the same “entity” as the other Alpha points below?

JJ

The greater universes to come are as ye unorganized and thus a vehicle for the incarnation of any life is as yet not available. The Greater Life is just getting started in handling incarnation in this physical universe.

 

April 19, 2015

Essence of the One God

Adam:

What I had hoped to clarify is that the ESSENCE of the One God of our Universe is, in fact, the ESSENCE of the One God of All that Is and will ever Be?

JJ

As usual it is best to go to the core principle for understanding, but because we are talking about the second greatest mystery it takes a little stretching of the consciousness to grasp.

Each atom, human or even universe contains the whole of the life of God and yet is a part. The tiniest particle contains the intelligence and life of God as it has evolved in this system of creation. This life which has achieved relative perfection in the microcosm is seeking for even greater perfection in the macrocosm. As it expresses itself through an atom, you or a universe it finds that it can manifest greater and greater parts of itself while still incorporating the whole as potential.

You are a more complete manifestation than the atom and the universe, when mature, will be a much greater one than you. Even so, the life of the universe is far from representing the completeness of God. The life from the universe of Eleven will not completely manifest in this Universe of Seven, as this universe is limited compared to what is to come. Much greater and more complete manifestations are yet to come in the universe of universes, but that is so distant it is not productive to speculate on it for all the lives of God pertaining to us are now centered on this universe and this is where the highest manifestation of God can be looked for on a physical level.

The most complete life of God from universes past has not yet caught up (on the physical plane) to its highest point from the past in this universe, but is gaining new intelligence as it ascends. The life of God in the macrocosm is the same life as in the microcosm, but just in the process of moving toward its projected aim.

***

Dan:

Okay, I’ll bite 🙂 If that’s the SECOND greatest mystery, what’s the FIRST ?

JJ

Yeah, I might as well of put out this question with big neon letters: “What is the greatest mystery?” Well, I have written about it a number of times so let us throw out the question again to see who was paying attention. What is it?

***

Adam:

The greatest mystery is why and how anything exists at all.

JJ

Yes, when you think about it that is indeed the greatest mystery of all. Why is there anything in existence, you, me, God, a planet etc? As I have said before, even if there was just one rock that was in existence it would be a marvelous thing. The fact that we are all here, illusion or not, is wondrous indeed. We are just fortunate that all there is, Divine Space, decided to be.

***

LWK:

The problem is that Socialism is all about using force. If it doesn’t use force, then it is not Socialism. Then it is about morality (helping others voluntarily) vs being forced to do what others consider to be moral.

That is where JJ misses the boat, in principle.

JJ

Whether or not I missed the boat depends on how one defines socialism. If you define it as collective efforts that use force then it would seem that I am missing something. But if you include collective efforts that are voluntary then I have not missed the point for I do include voluntary collective efforts in my use of the word unless otherwise noted.

This illustrates why it is always important to understand which definition a person is using with various words. Usually, the context will reveal it, but not always.

The word socialism is a tricky one as it is used with several dozen different applications.

In my view any use of socialism should be voluntary. That way we can see what works and what doesn’t and discard that which is hurtful.

***

There can be social collectives where you can all pool your resources, yet maintain the option to voluntarily withdraw yourself and your assets if you should become dissatisfied. There have been 40 different recognized definitions of socialism. Here is a quote from one of my articles on it.

Why is it that ideologues are all over the map in their discussions of socialism? The problem was pointed out in the introduction of the Historical Dictionary of Socialism by Peter Lamb & J. C. Docherty – 2006

Hide message history

“Despite its importance in history since the early nineteenth century, socialism eludes simple definition… As G. D. H. Cole suggested in the first volume of his monumental History of Socialist Thought (1953), the early socialists opposed the individualism that had come to dominate modern thinking and stressed that human relations had an essential social element that needed to be emphasized. Then, as now, there was no single agreed-upon definition of what socialism actually was. Variety has always been an outstanding feature of socialism. In his Dictionary of Socialism (1924), Angelo S. Rappoport listed forty definitions of socialism.”

Read more HERE

 

 

April 19, 2015

The Abortion Question

Olivia:

As one who has chosen to abort myself, I can say that it is something that stays with you for the rest of your life.

If we did not understand the full implications then, we certainly have more of an understanding of that now.

In my opinion unless you have been faced with that decision as a pregnant women in extremely difficult circumstances everything else is a judgment call with out informed experience to reach your conclusion.

JJ

Every action has consequences and for many females like you and Ruth, I’m sure the decision was a terrible one to make, one that men often do not have to face. Abortion, especially in the first trimester is nothing on par with murdering a fully developed human being. The soul does not even enter the body and often hasn’t even committed to it until after about five months. With the over population we have on the earth at present there will be plenty of opportunity for all who are willing to seek birth opportunities.

But let us suppose one did abort a baby who was designated by a soul. What would be the repercussions?

To understand just imagine how you would feel if you had picked a mother and she aborted you for reasons that seemed justified to her. Then compare that to how you would feel if you were an adult, having invested 30 years into your life, having family responsibilities with things looking great and some guy kills you because he hates your guts.

The second person with a much greater investment in his life  has much more to lose and the one taking such a life would suffer much more karma. The aborted baby can often find another mother quickly and not suffer much of a loss.

In fact souls generally know which mothers will abort their babies and usually they are not even designated to such fetuses. Why would a soul attach itself to a fetus that he knows is going to be aborted?

Again the key to understanding is the use of judgment. Each situation is different. Abortion is not the same as murdering an innocent breathing person and murdering an innocent living person is much different than killing a thug in self defense. We will all be weighed and judged according to the circumstances we are under and the main judge will be ourselves through the eyes of our own souls.

April 20, 2014

Cause of Existence

Adam:

The only problem with this question is that it demands a REAL answer, at some point, else life is so precarious as to be absolutely meaningless and purposeless. And without meaning and purpose, I can see no reason or possibility for existence. Existence demands meaning and purpose. Existence itself would seem to guarantee an explanation for its own reality. Accepting big questions as unanswerable is practical in a given moment in time, but from a larger point of view, it is also supremely lazy, defeatist, and counterintuitive to the principle of life itself, IMO. All should be knowable in due course.

JJ

I touch on the answer in my next book. Here is the link to the chapter.

In addition to this the reason all things exist is quite simple. That which is eternal is the interplay of Yin and Yang. There is always duality of some kind whether we are talking about form or in subtle levels of formlessness. Their eternal interplay creates intelligence and universal intelligence is God. The intelligence of God then manifests purpose and the intelligently projected purpose creates all things.

 

April21, 2015

Cause and Effect

JJ:

I touch on the answer in my next book. Here is the link to the chapter.

“All things created from form have a beginning and end whether it be a galaxy, a sun, a planet, the human body, a cell or an atom. Intelligence, which is the essence of God and man has no form but merely uses form. That which is formless does not exist in time and is therefore eternal with no beginning and end. Thus the formless intelligence of God has no beginning because it does not exist in time.”

Adam:

I realize that the bolded sentence has been taught a lot here and elsewhere, and I certainly want to buy into it. But, I’m not sure that I can square it, given the account of Joseph’s journey into the microcosm.

JJ

The Grand Tour in my book only concerns the physical universe which is indeed complex and majestic enough for most. Time and space rule here in both the macrocosm and the microcosm. The higher planes and the formless worlds were not even touched upon in the book. It is here where we incarnate into space and time as we understand it.

Adam

Is it fair to say that while perhaps we can’t know for certain, right now, either the 3 is the first Singularity point of creation, not created from prior Universes and singularities, OR at least the 3 contains the eventual true Alpha particle not dependent upon a prior Singularity/Universe?

JJ

No one knows for sure the true beginnings of physical creation which was long before this universe began. But remember we are talking about physical reality, not the formless worlds from whence all things came.

Adam

In either case, that is the only point that I can see where we might arrive at true formlessness.

JJ

We do not arrive at formlessness by exploring this physical reality, but ascending to planes beyond it. We start this process by seeking soul contact and pulling down principles that are from the higher planes.

Keep in mind that which is called formless is not “no thing” for intelligence always exists in all spheres and intelligence can imagine forms which will later become physical.

JJ:

In addition to this the reason all things exist is quite simple.

Adam:

Good gravy! You’re kidding, right? 🙂

JJ:

That which is eternal is the interplay of Yin and Yang. There is always duality of some kind whether we are talking about form or in subtle levels of formlessness. Their eternal interplay creates intelligence and universal intelligence is God. The intelligence of God then manifests purpose and the intelligently projected purpose creates all things.

Adam:

I’ll have to ponder this long and hard. Are you saying that these answers actually are THE answers to the mystery of “why and how does anything exist?” I can see that you are describing the creative process of variations of existence. But I can’t see how it explains the fact the intelligence or Yin and Yang or Duality even exist in the first place.

JJ

Intelligence and life could not exist first. Therefore there was no purpose behind existence itself. Existence just IS. There is no purpose to it.

BUT

Beyond time existed the polarities, cause and effect, inbreathing and outbreathing, yin and yang, etc. There was no first cause. There has always been cause and effect and this just exists with or without purpose. They have been without beginning and their interplay created intelligence and life and intelligent life created all things and infused them with purpose. Because of the three we have purpose and meaning, but cause and effect just existed. Intelligence directing it creates purpose.

Cause and effect, Intelligence, and Life have always been and will always be, but purpose and meaning comes from the three working together.

 

April 22, 2015

The God of the Old Testament

Clay wanted me to comment on his views that Jehovah seems to be a cruel God that doesn’t deserve to be worshipped. He says:

“If any other God acted in such a way we would justifiably condemn it, just as we do for Allah in the Koran. But because we have all been so brainwashed as children we do not just make the very obvious conclusion, the “Abba” of Yeshua is not the YHVH of the Israelites and the Jews of Yeshua’s day absolutely knew it.”

Actually your thoughts on this agree with Madame Blavatsky. She gave an interesting interpretation of this scripture:

John 8:39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

John 8:40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

John 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

John 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

John 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

The orthodox interpretation of this is that Jesus accused the Jews of having the devil as their father because they had evil thoughts and rejected him, but Blavatsky gives a different twist.

She says that the acknowledged father of the Jewish leaders was Jehovah of the Old Testament and this was who Jesus identified as being the devil, or adversary.

Here is my view of the situation. Moses did penetrate the veil and received divine revelation, but the vision he saw was way beyond the consciousness of the people who wanted to revert back to worshipping the golden calf. He therefore developed two sets of teachings. The higher he taught to a select few who he thought may be able to appreciate them and the lower he gave to the people. Some he gave out directly to them but mostly they were given out by those he personally taught.

Moses did not give out laws and commandments that represented a cruel God, but he did have to step down his teachings as the people he worked with were primitive in thinking when compared to the people of today.

Jesus had this same problem in his day. For instance, he made no effort to free the slaves in his day because the consciousness of the people just was not prepared to do anything about it.

Even so, Moses had to plow with the horses he had and taught the people the highest they could receive. I believe he felt kind of discouraged near the end of his life in how little he was able to raise the people up.

Within a generation or two after Moses departed his teachings became corrupted and carnal men assumed leadership. Most of the prophets and priests after Moses controlled the people who thought they were receiving revelation from God as did Moses but were really receiving revelation from the lower group soul essence of the people. This produced a group consciousness that spoke to the priests and gave them teachings that seemed right to them, but were not of a high spiritual nature. This God of human creation was the adversary spoken of by Jesus. It is the outward God that always takes the place of the inner God that speaks from the higher realms.

This carnal god gave them the commandments of animal sacrifice and told them not only to go to war, but to kill men women and children of their enemies.

They also rewrote some of the history to suite their altered teachings.

This corruption was to be expected, but even though the revelations seems cruel and primitive the Jews were still a cut above most of their neighbors in righteousness. At least they did not sacrifice their children to their god as did many other people of that era to their gods. And when they conquered a people they either enslaved them or killed them quickly, whereas many people of that era delighted in torturing their enemies to a slow painfully prolonged death.

From Moses to Christ a number of true prophets did surface such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Amos, and a few others. These attained true spiritual contact and usually they were rejected by the leadership and the people.

Jesus indeed spoke truly when he said:

Matt 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

Matt 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Matt 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Matt 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits.

Up to now it has always been the case that only a very few are willing to listen to true words of light and love, but this is beginning to change. Today more people than ever before in recorded history are in touch with the voice of the soul and truly hunger after truth and seek for true brotherhood.

Hopefully each of us can do or part to speed the process.

 

April 23, 2015

Freedom and Selfishness.

Clay wrote me a couple emails and my response to them may be of interest to readers here. I’m posting this with his permission.

Clay:

I think that anything that encourages our sense of selfishness, and encourages our separation from each other and feeds our desires to accumulate more and more stuff, and then protect all our stuff is definitely not a benevolent or useful ideology in the spiritual quest. I honestly could care less about my “private property” or my tax rate as I don’t really view any of this as mine anyway. It is all on loan from god and I am prepared to give it all up the moment he desires. Rand encourages us to cling tightly to our attachments and our possessions and establishes materialism as our soul basis as identity and I think she promotes an incredibly dangerous ideology. At least she was honest about her despising Christian values and all mystical and religious institutions, so I am truly disturbed that so called “christian groups” and spiritual seekers have latched onto Rand. Spiritual Satanist and those of Anton Levay’s Church of Satan have been long time advocates of Objectivism and it disturbs the heck out of me that Objectivism has infilitrated mainstream christianity. Satanist love this stuff, I suggest you look it up.

Sarah plans on giving them a read when she gets some free time. She actually keeps asking me about your books which is rare for her as I read books constantly and she rarely asks me what I think of them.

JJ

I view the support of taking away freedom of others as much much worse than selfishness for about 99.9% of the people have some degree of selfishness – much higher than those who support the tyranny of taking away freedom so they can support their own little wills.

Rand put too much emphasis on selfishness, but to her credit puts emphasis more in the aspect of self interest than greed, two entirely different things. We are told that even Jesus was acting in self interest when he went to the cross. The important thing is she did support individual freedom of choice which is the main point of demarcation between light and dark. To act to take away freedom is the ultimate act of selfishness. To enslave another to get what one wants in extremely selfish – even if it is for an apparently unselfish ideology. This she was unselfishly against unlike those who follow the dark path as the Satanists you mention. It takes a love for your brother and a degree of unselfishness to advocate as much freedom for your neighbor as you do for yourself, for the truly selfish person is happy to take away the freedom of another if it benefits him or his mindset.

Clay

JJ have you ever read the political and social theoritst John Rawls? I truly believe that Rawls proposes the only fair and equitable organization of society and it has nothing to do with taking away freedoms of others.

JJ

I haven’t heard of him until now, but did read some of his material today and so far the only thing I get out of it is that he advocates fairness and justice in society, but doesn’t even clarify what they are or how they are to be implemented.

Does he desire his ideas be implemented by force for the whole nation or does he want to start with voluntary groups to see if his ideas work first?

I have no problem with social experiments if they are established through free will. Then if they are not satisfactory the participants can withdraw any time they choose.

He wrote most of his ideas over 40 years ago. Have any of them been tested?

Clay:

What you and others are failing to realize that our entire society was founded upon taking away the freedom of others and that freedom is far from equally distributed in this country.

JJ

Are you joking? When this country was established it was the freest nation on the face of the earth and outside of slavery, much freer than it is now.

Freedom is not a commodity that is distributed. Goods and services are distributed. Freedom comes through non interference in the will of the individual and the people.

Clay:

Please be patient with me and at least read my following example, also I did not come up with this example, a friend of mine who is working on his masters in economics told me about it. The professor had 5 student play a game of monopoly and normally each player starts out with $1500 to begin the game. What the professor did though was have each player start out with a different amount of money. The first player received $6000 dollars, the second received $4500, the third player received $3000, the fourth $1500 and the fifth player received only $500. There were 4 separate groups of 5 students who played. In each and every game the winners were those who started out with $6000 or $4500 dollars, without exception. The student with only $1500 and $500 were always the first out and honestly never stood a chance of competing with those who had more. This fairly simple analogy clearly demonstrates what any child can instantly recognize. If you were to start 5 children off playing like this they would all protest loudly that this was incredibly unfair and that the ones with the least amount had almost no chance of winning. Why is it that as children we all instantly recognize how unfair such a “game” would be, but somehow as adults we try to justify the exact same system as “fair”. Just something to think about.

JJ

I do not mean to insult your friend, but that is really an illogical example. There is little correspondence between Monopoly moves and the realities of life.

Why?

Your moves in Monopoly are made by a random throw of the dice and the player has absolutely no control over what will come up and where he will land next.

In life our moves are not made by random luck, but by intelligent choice. If this Monopoly idea represented reality then no disadvantaged people would ever succeed, but many who started out poor and with big disadvantages have been wildly successful.

John D. Rockerfeller went from being a poor kid raising turkeys and selling potatoes to becoming the richest man on earth. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs came from middle class households. These and others shatter your friend’s Monopoly teaching.

Clay

John Rawls theory of social justice is based on an idea of a “pre-incarnational” constitutional system. Essentially Rawls proposes that the only “fair and equitable” system is one that would be developed before human souls incarnate in bodies. We all meet together prior to birth and in this state none of know how we will incarante. We have no idea what sex we will born as, what race, what ethnic group, whether our family will be filthy rich or dirt poor. We have no idea if we will be a genius, average, or low intelligence. We do not know if we will be born healthy or struggle with sickness our whole life, we have no idea whether we will be ambitious or lazy, sane or suffer mental illness, and so on and so forth. Only a system that all souls could agree on prior to incarnation would be a fair system that worked for the best benefit of all members, since no member would willingly chose a society when they have no idea if they might be born as the lowest member of the society. This society would be geared to granting the most equality while protecting liberty.

JJ

Actually we do choose our situation, sex and we know what our intelligence is before we were born, but do not see what this has to do with his theory.

How do you grant equality without taking away liberty? North Korea is working with this idea and anyone who disagrees gets shot.

Clay:

Our current system and the “ideal” system as Rand proposes totally lacks heart and is the worst ideas of “social darwinisn” held out as ideal all over again. I truly find Rand a monster and it has nothing to do with taking away freedoms.

JJ

Our current system does not reflect Ayn Rand’s thinking, but has moved dramatically toward your idea of fairness through redistribution.

Whereas there has never been a nation using Rand as a model there have been several using the fairness ideas as taught by Marx such as the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba and China under Mao. China has been smart enough to incorporate some free enterprise into its system and has managed to escape some of the pitfalls that plagued other Communists nations.

Clay

Rand would have no problem with children dying and starving on the street, as they were prior to social service agencies being set up.

JJ

Have you read her books? I have and see nothing that tells me you are correct here. If people are allowed maximum freedom then the poor will come out much better than becoming wards of the state.

Clsay

The poor houses, the houses for orphans and the so called “religious charities” that took care of the poor in this country prior to social services were abysmal,

JJ

You overlook the fact that the situation of most of the people in ages past was abysmal and their resources were much less than now. It would have been impossible to create a welfare program then as we have now.

Unfortunately, there is not a place on earth we can point to that has the economic and individual freedom that this country had 150 years ago. If it existed and had use of today’s technology you would see a nation of prosperous happy citizens that would be the envy of the world. Switzerland isn’t perfect, but the people there are relatively free and life there is quite good with the poor being well taken care of through free will assistance.

Clay

and Rand’s society only provides opportunities for those most able to “compete” at a high level.

JJ

You have no evidence of that whatsoever.

Clay

That is social darwinisn justified as “freedom”.

JJ

Rand was an anti-socialist and anti social engineering.

Clay:

To me that is no freedom at all, it is ego inspired greed taken as ones highest value.

JJ

If the ability to make your own decisions is not freedom then what is??? It sounds like you think freedom is being restricted from making your own choices and having some dictator who knows better make them for you. You should clarify your position here.

The greatest tyrants have always been those who thought they knew what was best for the people forcing their ideals upon them.

Clay

I will be vehemently opposed to Rand’s vision of a “just society” till my last breath

JJ

But you are ambiguous as to what it is about Rand that you do not like. Her central teaching is freedom. Are you against that? You do not like her teachings on self interest, but you also have self interest. You have an ideal that you are extremely interested in seeing materialize. Rand just thinks you should have the opportunity to make it happen as long as you do not take away the freedom of others.

Clay

and hold out Rawls vision as the only truly “equitable” system that has ever been proposed.

JJ

But how would it be implemented – by force or free will? And if it is so good why is no one trying it out on a small scale to demonstrate its veracity?

Clay:

I really hope you take a look at Rawls and his vision of the “just society”. I guarantee you, that is not a single soul in Rawls system that would agree to Rand’s system.

JJ

It sounds like Rawl would be against individual freedom then. As I said, I read quite a few of his writings today and can’t see how he could implement his ideas nationwide without the use of force and loss of freedom. I couldn’t find any suggestion from him where he advocates free choice gathering of experimental groups to prove his ideas.

Clay

We only agree to a Randian society when we are privileged from birth, whether through rich parents, a high IQ, overwhelming ambition, or good health.

JJ

I grew up about as disadvantaged as you could get and I certainly support the principle of freedom advocated by Rand. I do have social ideas that she would not agree with, but she would not prohibit me from trying them out.

Clay:

The game is rigged from the start JJ and we are sliding into Oligarchy.

JJ

What we are sliding into is totalitarianism and freedoms are being restricted by government, not business or the wealthy.

We need to reverse this trend and seek for maximum freedom over the maximum selfishness of those seeking to obtain the wealth of others by force.

There are always obstacles in life, but the deck is never stacked. There is always a way to improve your situation. Energy follows thought.

***

Force and Free Will

Clay:

Ruth plain and simple, in JJ’s world you get ZERO, count them ZERO benefits, and would be entirely reliant upon charity.

JJ

This is totally untrue. You are using the Allan approach of stating fictional accounts of what I teach rather than going to the source and accurately portraying them. As Ruth said, if I truly taught such a thing then she wouldn’t be here. And why is she here? Because she actually does her best to respond to my actual teachings.

You need to argue with what I say and teach not with what I not say and teach.

Here is your problem with understanding me. You are looking at various teachers in terms of black and white. Instead of looking at Rand as maybe having some things right and some wrong you just write her off as totally evil that must be opposed by your life’s blood.

Because I find something I like with Rand you categorize me and others as acolytes that accept her every word as gospel. Such is not the case. Most old timers here are not black and white, but synthetic, and if you are going to argue with them you need look at their actual words instead of categorizing them as totally in some evil ideological camp.

I referred you previously to my teachings that would take care of people like Ruth. Here us the reference again:

LINK

Ruth has read this and has voiced no objection to the plan. Keep in mind that this is not my vision of Zion, but a step in making this country work as it should.

The main thing I like about Rand’s teachings is her support of the principle of freedom but we do not use her writings as any handbook for building a future society.

I also do not look at those opposing Rand, such as Rawl as totally wrong without good points. More fairness and justice would be a good thing. But how to achieve it could be attempted by good or evil means. The devil is in the details.

Clay:

it absolutely no different than the Communist utopia envisioned by Karl Marx.

JJ

My ideas are much different in that Marx supported the use of force in establishing his ideals and I do not and neither did Rand. That is a huge difference.

Clay:

I would take today’s society over life 200 years ago without a second thought and if people were truly aware of social conditions back at that time, they would to.

JJ

You overlook the fact that most of the improvements in society are due to technology, not government. If we keep the improvements of civil rights and go back to the economic freedoms of the past then the country would be much better off than today.

When I compare today vs yesterday almost all of what I enjoy comes from technology, not socialist government.

Clay:

If you get a single social welfare benefit Ruth you are truly a hypocrite for subscribing to this belief structure.

JJ

To be a hypocrite you have to go against what you believe. Ruth is following her beliefs; therefore, she is not a hypocrite.

I think the Medicare system is totally wasteful and much inferior to what could be but am not a hypocrite for using it because I was forced to pay for it and believe in getting my money’s worth from my investment. I also do not think all insurance companies are totally efficient, but if I have an accident I am not a hypocrite for collecting from them. We are forced into the current system and thus have to make the best of it with as much integrity as possible.

Clay:

In order to have freedom from we also need freedom to.

JJ

As Dan says, you have it backwards. Except for our god given “freedoms to” positive freedoms are a result of having freedom from forced constraints.

Clay:

Did you know that 1% of the population controls 50% of the worlds Wealth? That leaves 99% of the world fighting for the remaining 50%!!!! How in the world are lower taxes on the wealthy supposed to help anyone? This is just monstrous to me.

JJ

You are talking about a strawman not even focused on here that would take a book to examine. But the fact is that it doesn’t hurt me if Bill Gates has billions. My concern isn’t how much someone else has, but how much freedom I have to achieve my own dreams. We are making progress as a whole. More poor people are becoming prosperous and assisted than any other time in history. Time to see the glass as half full.

Clay:

JJ this nation most definitely was not founded upon “freedom” it was founded upon freedom for a very limited group of people, upper class property owning white males.

JJ

You’re not making any sense. All people benefitted from the foundations of this country. The freedoms enunciated there even led to the freedom of the slaves and better treatment of native Americans. Your idea that only wealthy white men benefitted is crazy talk with no foundation whatsoever. Most of the problems faced by this country were in place before 1776.

Clay:

While negative liberty is usually attributed to individual agents, positive liberty is sometimes attributed to collectivities, or to individuals considered primarily as members of given collectivities.

JJ

Your illusion is you lump together all positive liberties as a good thing. Using your criteria then the South was right in fighting to keep their positive liberties. They claimed that their positive liberties (the liberty to do) brought about by the establishment of slavery which was essential for such liberties for the free man. They felt they could not be maintained without slavery.

We have the same problem today. Many believe we need to place lots of forced redistribution on, not just the wealthy, but all the producers and force them into slave labor so a few extra people can have some positive liberties.

The term positive liberties here certainly gives an erroneous projection of thought.

For thus saith the LORD, Ye have sold yourselves for nought; and ye shall be redeemed without money. For thus saith the Lord GOD, My people went down aforetime into Egypt to sojourn there; and the Assyrian oppressed them without cause. Now therefore, what have I here, saith the LORD, that my people is taken away for nought? they that rule over them make them to howl, saith the LORD; and my name continually every day is blasphemed. Isa 52:3-5

The majority certainly howl because of being forced to support all kinds of things against their will. We can attempt to establish greater fairness by force as did the old Soviet union or by free will as did the Founding Fathers. That which had the greater success is obvious.

Clay, do you really believe it is desirable to force the majority into slave labor to support the minority? Why do you really think force works better than free will?

***

Clay:

I see socialism and capitalism as both being very necessary for the efficient functioning of society. Again, I am not the one advocating a single tool for the job, capitalism.

JJ

Again, you need to read my actual writings for they do advocate the use of both of them. My main emphasis is on the principle of maximum freedom for only in a spirit of freedom can either side be tested appropriately.

It sounds like you oppose me because I am against tyranny. Perhaps this reveals a flaw in your thinking and I am sure tyranny is not your intention. But of course those who supported Castro and the revolution had no idea that they were working for the implementation of a totalitarian regime, worse than that which they toppled.

 

April 24, 2015

Slavery or Not

Clay:

I never said it was entirely just, I just find it offensive to every real person trapped in human slavery to have taxes compared to slavery. Taxation is more of a pain in the rear, but not slavery.

JJ

You are really being black and white with your view of slavery. It appears that the only definition you will accept is something that exactly describes a slave in the Old South on a plantation. This is simply not the case.

Here are three common dictionary definitions of “slavery”

(1) the practice of owning slaves

(2) work done under harsh conditions for little or no pay

(3) the state of being under the control of another person

If you have to work extra hours against your will to pay what you consider taxes to which you think are excessive then you are under the control of another entity. This fits the definition of slavery.

You can’t use the same black and white definition to fit into all circumstances.

The slaves in ancient Rome were in a different situation than those in the Old South. That certainly doesn’t mean they were not slaves.

It was common in Rome for the slave to manage his own business and pay the slave owner a tax of one third of his income and keep the rest and spend it how he wanted.

Because this was rarely the case in the South does not mean that the Roman Slaves were not slaves.

There were also slavery systems in ancient times where the slave was free to leave. Instead of leaving they stayed as servants because conditions there were better than they could secure outside of the slavery conditions. Because he could leave did not mean he was not a slave.

The current taxpayer pays over 50% of his income in taxes, when all of them are considered, so the Roman slave was able to spend more of his earnings than the current taxpayer.

No one is saying that all conditions of slavery are exactly alike as you seem to think should be the case.

But any time one is required to work or pay for something decreed by others that runs contrary to his will then we have the condition of slavery to some degree.

That doesn’t mean that all taxes are slavery. If the actual taxpayers, as a whole, feel the tax system is fair and support it with their free will then such taxes would not be slavery. Excessive taxation contrary to free will would definitely qualify. Most people would support a tax system that is not excessive and where they receive close to their money’s worth in benefits. For instance, most people are happy to pay a gasoline tax if the money is actually spent on roads.

FDR proposed a tax that exceeded 100% of income for the wealthy. Surely that would qualify as slavery conditions.

Then you say:

Sorry guys, America is your family and you just don’t like how it is being run so you want to take your toys and leave, but not really leave, because you still want all the benefits that society has produced due to effective civil government. *** If your liberty is so important, just leave.

JJ

This is a strange statement considering that you seem a lot more disgruntled with the United States than the average Keys member. You are definitely much more dissatisfied than me as you appear to hate this country which you say has an evil foundation and existence, has negative liberties and capitalism you do not like and is not socialist enough for you.

If there was a better place to go and we had the power many here would do just that. Most other countries either have high taxes or ruled by a tyrant. Somalia, as you suggest, is certainly not desirable. There is nowhere to go for those who just want to be left alone as a group, but eventually such a place will be made.

The only place I can think of that may be more desirable than the United States is Switzerland but the draw is not so great as to cause me to go to the inconvenience of pulling up stakes and moving away from my loved ones.

Instead, I am creating proposals for positive change for this country while it is still possible and have written a book on the subject called Fixing America.

If we had reform according to my proposals about the only ones who would complain would be those who want more legal theft available for their own selfish interests.

To read last years writings go HERE

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE




Series NavigationKeys Writings 2015, Part 8Keys Writings 2015, Part 10

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

code