“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

[pood]

Bernie Sanders is most defiantly a socialist Evertng is free from the state. The democrats are edging towards it, Cortez being a radical.

Sanders does not advocate this.

Sanders identifies himself as a socialist. College should be free. When progressives say free they should say paid for by tax payers.

Socialism is workers owning the means of production. Sanders does not advocate that, and in fact it has never been tried.

Communism is not socialism. In the Soviet system, workers owned virtually nothing. The state owned it all.

 

[peacegirl]

Putting an end to the Middle East conflict will require the leaders and their advisors to become the first citizens while all noncitizens prepare to take the examination. Remember, until everyone has become a citizen there can be no guarantee that fighting will not begin again, therefore the existing laws would still be enforced. As the transition is taking place from noncitizenship to citizenship, the representatives from both sides would meet in order to map out possible solutions. One solution would be the creation of a two-state settlement that allows each nation-state to have complete independence. As of now, the international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this. This dispute would need to be resolved during these crucial peace negotiations which may require compromise on both sides. When it comes time for the Israeli government and the Palestinian leadership to sign a diplomatic agreement that finds terms upon which peace can be agreed to, the basic principle would then have the power to prevent any further bloodshed because the first blow, which is now being removed, prevents any further justification. To repeat: As soon as the Palestinian and Israeli populace become full-fledged citizens by passing the examination — and the agreement meets the necessary conditions for an equitable distribution of land that is satisfactory to all parties involved — there will be no possibility of a retaliatory strike because the justification to do so will have been removed. Both sides of this longstanding conflict will have no choice but to lay down their arms because they will be incapable of deriving any satisfaction from continuing to do battle under the changed conditions. Israel will be able to pull her troops out of all occupied territories without the fear of attack and the wall that has been a stark symbol of division between two peoples will be torn down. marking the end of one of the world’s longest standing conflicts. These two warring sides will have done the impossible, made allies out of their enemies. What was once thought of as an impossible dream will be within reach; however, it must be understood that in order for permanent peace to be guaranteed the Great Transition must take place throughout the world, not just in one region. This is a necessary condition to preclude international conflict from suddenly erupting due to economic instability causing a ripple effect that would be felt across the globe. The solution will require that the United Nations study these principles and make preparations for the representatives of every nation to become our first citizens. Therefore, it is urgent that this knowledge be brought to their immediate attention. Once this has taken place, they will begin making preparations for everyone in their country to take the examination (excluding those who cannot take responsibility for themselves, in which case a guardian will need to assume responsibility for them), and when this is accomplished, the transition will be complete. This natural law will have the power to stop the chain reaction of hurt and retaliation in all war-torn countries throughout the world. War will come to an end because those on the offensive will be incapable of attacking a nation that puts down its arms and refuses to fight back, especially when the underlying causes that have led to war are being permanently removed. They are given no choice in this matter but to relinquish this desire to strike when there can be no justification for their contemplated actions. Let us continue to observe how the change from noncitizenship to citizenship allows for a smooth transition into the new world.

As more and more people become citizens, all the intelligence agencies looking for terrorist cells and other hate groups will gradually be eliminated. Tight security throughout the world will be necessary until everyone has become a citizen. Until that time all noncitizens will still come under the jurisdiction of their country and will be punished to the full extent of the law, just as they are today. But when all the people of Earth have passed the examination and obtained their guarantee, terrorism will come to an end out of absolute necessity. This does not mean they can’t continue with their acts of terror and destruction if they want to, but three reasons will prevent them from wanting to. First, they will have taken the examination and will no longer be controlled by the laws of their country, as was just mentioned. Remember, they must understand the two-sided equation and pass the exam before they are given citizenship, but once they have, they will be controlled by a much more powerful law. They will know that if they should murder, rape, terrorize or train people to become suicide bombers, no one in the entire world will ever hold them responsible because of the fact that everyone knows they cannot help themselves since their will is not free, but they know that nothing can make them injure and kill people if they don’t want to, for over this they have mathematical control, and when it fully dawns on them that the world must excuse what they can NO LONGER JUSTIFY, they are prevented from desiring to commit those very acts of terror that previously gave them greater satisfaction. In other words, the advance knowledge that there will be no retaliation henceforth regardless of what they do; that it will be easy for them to accomplish their destructive ends because no one will be standing in their way, mathematically prevents the contemplation of this hurt as a preferable alternative because there is no satisfaction that can be gotten. Secondly, after passing the examination they will receive a guarantee that if they should ever fall below their standard of living, the taxpayers of their nation or other nations if necessary (including those nations that were once their enemies) will support them in their time of need. Thirdly, all POWs will have an opportunity to study for the examination and become citizens. Once they pass the examination which shows they understand the principles and sign the agreement that they will not blame anybody for anything, they will be released with no possibility that they could go back to their previous activities. Remember, there can be no punishment should they break this agreement and not turn the other cheek during this time of transition, but how is it possible for them to break this or any other agreement when they know that there will be no blame for striking this first blow while receiving their guarantee? This will also remove any justification for terrorists to kidnap hostages in order to broker an exchange or to use them as political bargaining chips. The release of all prisoners will be explained in more detail as we discuss how they will be the last group to take the examination. Let me clarify certain points, once again, to show you how the basic principle can prevent terrorism, and all other forms of criminal behavior.

 

[peacegirl]

The terrorists, fully aware that if they went ahead and perpetrated a vicious act, no one in the entire world would be looking for them in an effort to strike back — along with the fact that the justification for what they are about to do is being removed — denies them any satisfaction from moving in this direction because it would be the worst possible choice under the changed conditions. Regardless of their previous political or religious motivations, they will be unable to carry out their plans knowing that no one in the world will be lifting a finger in retaliation. In other words, the rationale that gave them the justification to continue their killing sprees was based on the belief that they were striking a retaliatory blow because of hurt done to them, but when this justification is removed then their actions become first blows aimed at those who must turn the other cheek for their satisfaction. It is important to understand that anger is a natural reaction to being hurt whether it is directed toward the responsible party or directed toward a scapegoat. In either case, it is a way of finding something to blame for the intolerable conditions that exist. But when the hurt to them is removed, including economic insecurity which strikes the first blow, there can be no justification for these continued acts of violence. Under these conditions they would be unable to continue as before because their conscience would never permit it.

You may believe that this principle would never have the power to control the behavior of those with such sinister motives; that the terrorists are a different breed and just because they know that they will no longer be blamed would never be enough to stop them from fulfilling their lifelong mission of destroying the people they perceive to be their enemies. You may also believe that it would give them free rein to achieve their evil purposes without having to account for their actions or be punished for their wrongdoing. But this is a completely fallacious observation based on inaccurate reasoning. We are all part of this natural law and when the terrorists know that no one henceforth will ever again blame them for what everyone knows is a compulsion beyond their control — although they know it is not beyond their control since nothing can force them to attack if they don’t want to — they will be compelled, of their own free will, to relinquish this desire to attack when they can find no possible justification for doing so. You must remember that in the past they were able to kill with a clear conscience because they felt justified. But when every bit of justification has been removed, along with the knowledge that they will never again be blamed by anyone anywhere, they will be compelled to change their ways. Let me repeat this crucial point: To continue to hurt people who are throwing up their arms and saying, “We will no longer blame you no matter what you do to hurt us” can give them no satisfaction whatsoever, especially when the source of their hatred is now being removed. Under these conditions, it would be mathematically impossible to desire hurting innocent people when not to hurt them is judged the better alternative. This would be a movement in the direction of dissatisfaction, which cannot be done. (If you do not understand the two-sided equation, which is the very foundation of this discovery, please reread Chapter Two.) Let us now review the first two steps of this Great Transition because they hold the key to lasting peace.

 

[peacegirl]

Step one is for the knowledge that man’s will is not free to be translated into every language and disseminated throughout the earth. When this is accomplished, every bit of tacit blame must be removed so that any nation wishing to disarm can do so without fear of being attacked. Step two is the disarming of all weapons, including the weapons of mass destruction. As we extend our basic principle, Thou Shall Not Blame (which God, not me, has given to mankind), war can be prevented but it is important to remember that the chief representatives of every nation (i.e., the heads of state) must be the first group to take the examination and sign the agreement in order for the Great Transition to begin. This will allow new citizens to be free from any further blame by their respective governments and will prevent any justification to strike a first blow. Please understand that this does not imply the premature discharge of troops which could leave a threatened country open to attack. It should be obvious that the transition to this new world must take place on a gradual basis because the government cannot remove the possibility of punishment as a necessary condition of the environment until every person throughout the world receives his guarantee and passes an examination to prove that he understands what it means that man’s will is not free, that is, understands the two-sided equation, what constitutes a first blow, and who has the right-of-way when desires conflict. Those who have not passed the examination will be treated like noncitizens, consequently, they will still be bound by the laws that are in existence. Only noncitizens could desire to strike a first blow, therefore until they pass their examination — and this they will be anxious to do — they will be controlled by the laws of their country and the combined citizens of the world. Each country will retain its armed forces which will be reduced in just proportion as people gradually begin making the transition from noncitizenship to citizenship. This will be a precautionary measure to control the noncitizens, if needed, and will act as a guide to the citizens who are placed above them. As the citizen population begins to increase (it doesn’t matter which country we are referring to because everyone throughout the world will be taking the examination and becoming citizens), the noncitizen population will decrease. Once again, this does not mean leaving the world open to attack. The police and military forces will be reduced in just proportion as the citizens increase, which will allow for a peaceful transition. All weapons will slowly be destroyed as the noncitizen population begins to decrease. This reduction in arms will allow the transition to get under way without the possibility of further wars because the very people who have the power to start one will be stopped by the guarantee which denies them any justification, and by the realization that there will be no retaliation by those who will be compelled to turn the other cheek for their satisfaction. A noncitizen moves away from libel because of the laws. A citizen will move away from it because he cannot find satisfaction in hurting anyone when he knows he will never be blamed. With our basic principle to guide us — together with the removal of advance blame, it is really not difficult to put a permanent end to war, crime, inflation, and all the other evils of our economic world. But bear in mind that these weapons are destroyed not because they are forms of tacit blame but only because with the aid of this slide rule, we are able to see, for the first time, what is truly better for ourselves. By turning the other cheek Gandhi and his people demonstrated how they were able to prevent the second cheek from being struck, although many lives were lost. By revealing the knowledge that man’s will is not free and what this actually means, each individual makes known in advance that he is turning his cheek no matter what is done to him because he cannot find satisfaction in blaming another for doing what he is compelled to do, even if it means a terrible hurt to himself, which mathematically prevents his first cheek from being struck because there is no way satisfaction can be gotten.

Once this knowledge is disseminated throughout the planet and everyone has become a citizen of the new world, there will be a countdown, and when 0 is reached all remaining weapons that are designed to hurt, kill, or maim, or to prevent people from doing what they have every right to do, will be destroyed immediately without the slightest fear of being harmed as a consequence. The development of new weapons will come to a halt since the armed forces will no longer be necessary as a means of defense. For the very first time in recorded history all of the world’s borders including ports, railroads, airports, etc., will be open without the specter of terrorism. There will be no more need for checkpoints that prohibit citizens from entering their country of choice when there is no possibility that anyone can get hurt. In our present world of free will it is not difficult to imagine what would happen if suddenly all laws, government, and forms of punishment were withdrawn. Every potential thief and even those who never thought about stealing would have a field day, and nobody would be safe. Sectarian violence would increase causing extreme chaos and destruction. We can only begin to imagine what an aggressive country would do if there were no other powers to control the desire to spread whatever that country desired to spread. But the moment mankind understands what it means that will is not free which prevents the very things for which government came into existence, it proves, beyond a shadow of doubt, the reality of God — this amazing mathematical power. Everything was timed so perfectly that you must catch your breath in absolute amazement when you contemplate the magnificence of this mathematical equation which includes not only the solar system and the exquisite relationship that exists between the planets, but man himself and all the evil and ignorance that ever existed.

 

[peacegirl]

Presently there are people in the world who make a profit on war, for which they cannot be blamed, and there are many theologians and politicians who cannot be happy from having what gives them great satisfaction taken away. Consequently, this group will be somewhat blinded by the mathematical relations and will be compelled to search for some flaw in order to retain their accustomed position of extreme spiritual satisfaction. However, there isn’t any flaw which compels all those in a leadership position who are accustomed to giving orders as is the case with religion, government, and education to be absolutely silent for the very first time while the truth about man’s nature is being revealed. This may also necessitate that those of you who do not want war and crime learn the mathematical secret of how to prevent what you don’t want by carefully studying these principles and passing them along until a critical mass is reached. As public pressure builds it will become a deafening roar that will be heard throughout the world. Those in high office will no longer be able to ignore the demand to have this knowledge thoroughly investigated. Unfortunately, this may be the only way to bring this discovery to light since politicians have a vested interest in solving the world’s problems, but they will continue to be eluded because the answer is not found in government. For the very first time a person’s formal education cannot be used here as a standard to determine the validity of the knowledge being presented regardless of his position or rank, since every relation is absolutely undeniable. This book is an S.O.S. for those who have the capacity to perceive undeniable relations and can be objective in their analysis; otherwise, those in power will laugh at and criticize what they cannot understand. As soon as this discovery is confirmed to be sound by the world’s leading scientists, it will not take long before the Great Transition can begin.

During the transition more and more people will be displaced from their jobs. The manufacturers of war equipment will be out of work, as well as those who make burglar alarms, safes, vaults, armored cars, locks and keys. Even cash registers that are designed to check on the honesty of cashiers will no longer be needed. Also displaced in due time since nobody will be spending money in that direction are private and public eyes, floor walkers, security guards, and all licensing departments because they blame individuals for being unqualified by refusing to give them a license. We can continue to spend in this direction if we want to, just as a businessman can continue to hire floor walkers, but when everyone becomes citizens of the new world, how is it possible to want to when this serves no purpose, and the money could be used to improve our standard of living? However, the lawmakers will not be completely displaced because they will serve a useful purpose. They will have the job of analyzing every possibility of hurt that could occur, and make it known. Whereas before we were controlled by the fear of punishment which allowed those who thought they could beat the laws to attempt things without any regard to who got hurt, we are now prevented from desiring to disobey a law that is just because the fear of being excused for hurting others offers no satisfaction when all the principles are understood.

 

[peacegirl]

As these miraculous changes become a reality religion comes to an end along with evil because one was the complement of the other. Religion came into existence out of necessity, but when all evil declines and falls and God reveals Himself as the creator as well as the deliverer of all evil, it must also, out of necessity, come to an end. It is important to recognize that religion gets displaced only because mankind will no longer need its services since God, our Creator (this world is no accident), is answering our prayers. Of what value is having an institution that asks mankind to have faith in God, to have faith that one day God will reveal that He is a reality, when He does this by answering our prayers and delivering us from all evil? Is it possible for a minister to preach against sin when there is no further possibility of committing a sin? Is it possible to desire telling others what is right when it is mathematically impossible for them to do what is wrong? However, there is no mathematical standard as to what is right and wrong in human conduct except this hurting of others, and once this is removed, once it becomes impossible to desire hurting another human being, then there will be no need for all those schools, religious or otherwise, that have been teaching us how to cope with a hostile environment that will no longer be. In fact, since anyone who tells others how to live or what is wrong with their conduct blames them in advance for doing otherwise — which is a judgment of what is right for someone else — all sermonizing and the giving of unasked for advice are displaced. You see, this discovery draws a mathematical line of demarcation between hurt that is real and hurt that exists only in the imagination. The hurt of ridicule and criticism is real, but in the world of free will there existed many forms of hurt that justified ridicule and criticism. When the hurt that motivated this behavior is removed, then there can be no justification which means that any ridicule and criticism that exists thereafter strikes a first blow, but this is controlled by the realization that it will never be blamed or punished. Consequently, there is no further need to tell others what to do. You may still desire going to church or synagogue, which is your business, but how is it possible to want to continue paying a religious organization when your money can be used to improve your standard of living? For the first time the members of a congregation realizing that God is everywhere, not just in churches and synagogues, and realizing further that all evil is coming to a permanent end, will prefer spending their money in a different direction. Religion will be reluctant to give up the pivotal role it has played for thousands of years, but how is it possible for these theologians to object to the very things they have been unsuccessfully trying to accomplish without revealing that they don’t want mankind to be delivered from all evil? This does not mean that religion has not served an important function in man’s development. We could not have reached this turning point had it not been for our religious institutions, but we are at last shedding the final stage of the rocket that has given mankind its thrust up to this point. The great humor and the very reason religion could never approve of this work, in spite of its purpose, is because it would be forced to relinquish what has always been a source of tremendous satisfaction

There is something else that annoys religion because it expects the Messiah to look like Christ or some other historical figure, and that he will come to earth not through ordinary channels. Someone who would claim to have solved the problem of evil could easily be mistaken as a false prophet or even ethe antichrist. It may be difficult for the faithful to entertain the idea that the promised Messiah may not come in bodily form but rather as a divine law which has the power to prevent what manmade laws and institutions could never accomplish. To some, this suggestion may be viewed as an unpardonable offense because it appears blasphemous. It may be impossible for those who adhere to the literal translation of the Bible, or any other sacred text, to consider the possibility that peace might come through an unexpected source, although still in accordance with God’s will. Even if I had never made this discovery, it would come to light sooner or later because what is revealed is a definite part of the real world, not a figment of the imagination. Science will have to take the lead in affirming the accuracy of these principles before they can be applied worldwide. The truth will be very easy to convey once it is understood and acknowledged by scientists because it involves undeniable relations such as two plus two equals four, but when people have been taught for centuries that man’s will is free and the eyes are a sense organ, it becomes more difficult to break through these beliefs since the long tenure of preempted authority has confused opinions with facts and dogmatically closed the door to further investigation. However, when theologians fully realize that not only were teaching something false and that God’s will, the truth, was hidden behind a different door, but that their standard of living will be permanently guaranteed even though they step down from the pulpit, we will very quickly get their cooperation in attaining this sonic boom. They will strongly desire to spread word of the new gospel that will soon put an end to all evil, even if this puts them out of business. Although we must enter this new world of our own free will because no force will be used, the comparison of what we now have with what is now possible gives us no choice because our will is not free to move against what we believe is better for ourselves. This will compel us to desire studying for the examination (which will only require the very basic understanding of these principles) so we can become citizens as quickly as possible after the transition has been officially launched.

 

[peacegirl]

Before I demonstrate how it is possible to make the guarantee work for the benefit of all mankind by extending it together with the basic principle into the economic world, it is important to understand how we have been striking the third form of first blow with impunity and in the name of justice by calling it a retaliatory blow. This occurs when we hurt people not because they did something to hurt us, which is the retaliatory blow that when removed prevents the desire to strike a first blow, but only because they did not do what we judged they should, and we blame them for our disappointment or their disobedience. There exists a right-of-way system in human relations, as it does in the world of traffic, that also allows a motorist to know who has the right-of-way when desires conflict. By my judging what you should do for me, which judgment cannot possibly be for the purpose of preventing a first blow because you would not desire to strike one under the changed conditions, I am actually trying to get you to do what you have a perfect right not to do, and then when you refuse to do it, I criticize, blame, or hurt you in some way. A perfect example of this takes place when the government fines a driver for going 40 miles an hour in a 25-mile zone. The driver did absolutely nothing to hurt anyone, but the government justified this hurt to him by calling it punishment which implies that he struck the first blow. In our present world, people get a ticket for going over the speed limit, but in the new world nobody will desire to travel at a speed that endangers others. Radar traps were set to slow people down which was absolutely necessary, but they were also given tickets for parking in restricted areas, not because they were responsible for hurting someone but because they violated a law. This, however, was necessary to prevent the possibility of someone getting hurt at a future time. In the new world, when a citizen knows that he is not going to hurt anybody by going through a long red light because no cars are coming, then it is obvious that traffic lights have come into existence only to allow an even flow of traffic in a heavily traveled area; otherwise, a stop sign would be sufficient. When a sign says, No Parking or Stopping Between the Hours of 4 and 6 p.m., this is designed to allow the increase in traffic to flow as smoothly as possible. To be delayed because someone has parked along the curb is an inconvenience, but the citizen of the new world could never desire to hold up traffic because he knows he would never be blamed or criticized for this. If it was possible for him to time his stop so that he would not delay traffic, then nobody would be inconvenienced, whereas in our present world, he could get a ticket for this regardless as would happen if he went through a red light though no traffic was coming. The government was able to take money right out of his pocket because he violated this traffic law. This is not a criticism because it is obvious why these and similar laws came into existence and the only reason it is mentioned is because the removal of all blame will also be able to prevent what these manmade laws could not. They had no choice to do otherwise since they knew of no other way to try and prevent accidents. Let me show you how this natural law takes a slightly different turn in order to prevent our government from continuing to hurt citizens with impunity, and in the name of justice.

When motor vehicle operators approach an intersection in the new world and see that the traffic light is still red, they have the right-of-way to do anything they want to do but they decide to stop not because the government is telling them what to do but only because the risk of hurting someone and the knowledge that they would be responsible is so terrible to contemplate when the person hurt would refuse to blame them for what they cannot excuse, that they are compelled to prefer stopping. But when they stop and see that it is perfectly safe to cross even though the light is still red, they have just as much a right to do so as they had a right to cross without stopping. If no cars were coming, there would be no reason to wait because the sole purpose of the traffic light is to give the cars that have green the right-of-way. If, in fact, this was a first blow then they could not have done it knowing that they would not be criticized, but the very fact that not blaming does not prevent them from doing it offers undeniable proof that our hurt to them, not their disobedience, is the first blow.

Although this natural law can prevent accidents because they are first blows, it cannot prevent drivers from exceeding the recommended speed limit, from crossing on a red light, from drinking alcoholic beverages, taking drugs and driving, if these drivers believe there is no risk to others, whereas the government has been punishing certain behavior only because it did not comply with their laws. In fact, anytime a person is blamed by others for not agreeing with their judgment, their laws, their commandments, their customs, their conventions, their standards, and so forth, they are striking a first blow because this person is expected to sacrifice his desire by conceding to their desires whereas the person being asked to change is not making any demands on anyone. Therefore, this individual has the right-of-way not to comply with those demands and as a new citizen he will be able to choose what is truly better for himself. However, I shall clarify this by going back to a previous example.

In our present world the truck driver doesn’t cross even though it is perfectly safe to do so because he is afraid of getting a ticket should a policeman see him. This means that to satisfy the government’s desire that he stay until the light changes, he must sacrifice his own desire to proceed. But when he stops and sees that it is perfectly safe to cross even though the light is still red, he has just as much a right to go as he had a right to go without stopping. Remember, in the new world the risk of hurting others is so terrible to contemplate when we refuse to blame him, that he is compelled to prefer stopping. If there is the slightest possibility that his actions could be responsible for an accident, he would never desire to take those risks which could get him into this kind of situation. Therefore, the need to judge what is right for him becomes obsolete when we know he will never do anything to hurt us, which means that to criticize, blame, or hurt him in any way because he doesn’t do what we tell him to do becomes a first blow that we cannot desire to strike when we know that he must excuse what we can no longer justify. In other words, we are prevented from hurting him for not obeying us because we know that our hurting him [for not obeying us] is a first blow for which he will never blame us. This proves conclusively that when others know what is a first blow we don’t have to tell them not to strike it because the basic principle prevents the desire, which means that they are completely free, their conscience clear, to do anything they judge is right for themselves without fear of criticism. For the very first time we are compelled by the knowledge of our true nature which reveals what is better for ourselves, to mind our own business, that is, to stop judging what is right for others, which was impossible before. If someone wishes to go out to a strip and race at two hundred miles an hour, this is his business, just so there is no possibility of someone getting hurt other than himself; and if there are others that wish to race against him, this is their business just so there are no drivers in this race that don’t want to be. In the world of free will it was necessary in many instances to mind other people’s business because they were hurting us with their business, but when it becomes impossible for them to hurt us, there is no further need for us to interfere in their business. As for children, don’t jump to any conclusions. They will be discussed in another chapter.

 

[peacegirl]

There are many laws in existence that do not represent first blows while denying us an opportunity to improve our standard of living unless we take the risk of their violation. As an example, in many cities of the United States poolroom proprietors are denied an opportunity to stay open longer if they want to, as with other businesses, while certain forms of gambling are considered illegal. Can any person in the world make us place a bet unless we want to? This means that citizens will have opportunities to improve their standard of living the very moment the laws that deny this no longer apply to them. This does not mean that gambling will increase; it only means that the people who are already into gambling will have no laws restricting their operation. But under the changed conditions of the guarantee, no citizen will desire to gamble with the money he needs to meet his standard of living. Should he do this, and lose, this is something he is doing to himself, and he would not be entitled to take from the guarantee. He could steal from the guarantee, but his conscience would not allow him to move in this direction. The government blames people for selling drugs, their bodies, pornographic literature, and guns. They blame citizens for not using seatbelts, for drinking too much alcohol, for certain types of gambling but not others. Because our experts have never known how to put an end to all the hurt in human relations, although many of them thought they did, they blamed the theft of a car on the person who left his keys in the ignition, murder and robbery on the sale of guns, sex crimes on pornography and the lack of strict censorship, and our children not turning out as we hoped on night-clubs, gambling houses, brothels and other dens of iniquity. In other words, the people who are selling things the government does not like are only trying to earn a living. However, this does not mean that when the laws are removed these things will flourish. On the contrary, prostitution, the sale of guns, alcoholism, drug addiction, and many other things will come to an end because there will be fewer and fewer buyers to keep the sellers in business, not because these things are first blows. This natural law can only prevent a first blow, and the first blow here is not what these people have been doing to the government, but what the government has been doing to them. They are completely innocent of hurting anyone because nothing in this world can make a person swallow a drug, place a bet, buy the services of a prostitute, or do anything if he doesn’t want to. How can a boy or girl, man or woman, desire a prostitute when they are in love with someone who is in love with them? How can anyone desire to get high on alcohol and drugs when the causes for this are removed and when they are already high and very happy being a part of this new world? By blaming those not responsible our government started a chain reaction of justifiable retaliation in every walk of life, making matters a thousand times worse; but all this is coming to an end out of necessity. In the new world, how can a drug pusher make a living when citizens can sell the same thing at a cheaper price? The drug store is loaded with poisons we can take into our body if it gives us satisfaction to do so (and we won’t need permission to buy them), and if we want to dive off the Empire State building to see if we can make a three-point landing on our head without killing ourselves, this also is our business. Therefore, not only are we not going to blame you for any hurt you do to us, but we are not going to blame you for any hurt you choose to risk doing to yourself. Although someone can do what he wants with his own body, the reasons that would cause a person to want to jump off a building will no longer be present. You must bear in mind that although the words legal, illegal, lawful, and unlawful become obsolete for citizens, noncitizens will continue to come under the laws of their nation until they pass the examination.

I need to remind the reader that the transition to this new world must take place on a gradual basis because the government cannot remove the possibility of punishment as a necessary condition of the environment until everyone receives his guarantee and passes an examination to prove that he understands what it means that man’s will is not free, that is, understands the two-sided equation, what constitutes a first blow, and who has the right-of-way when desires conflict. I cannot predict how long it will take to complete the transition because this depends on many factors, but one thing is certain. No one can become a citizen of this new world until he passes this simple test and signs the agreement. If he doesn’t understand someone will help him understand so he can receive the guarantee. This means that a citizen, with the exception of those who still represent the laws of their government, will be forced to act toward noncitizens as if they are already citizens, that is, never strike them with a first blow because they know the government will not blame them for anything they do, which denies them greater satisfaction in striking this blow, especially when the people who are protecting noncitizens during the transition must turn the other cheek. In other words, how can a citizen desire to hurt the people who are still noncitizens for one reason or another, when the police who are citizens but still protecting noncitizens refuse to blame them for what they know would be their responsibility? They cannot move in this direction for greater satisfaction. This forces them to drive their car as if there are no noncitizens and allows them to drop their liability insurance because the laws that make them liable have become obsolete for them. However, should an accident occur between them and a noncitizen, they could still sue or bring charges against this individual because this is not a first blow if they feel that they had the right-of-way, and the same thing applies should an accident occur between two noncitizens because they are still living in the old world. But if they feel the noncitizen had the right-of-way in an accident involving them, their guilt will be overwhelming because the laws will not hold him responsible. In fact, there would be absolutely no way a citizen could find satisfaction in hurting a noncitizen when their standard of living is guaranteed never to go down and when they know, well in advance, that the laws of their nation must excuse them for doing what they can never justify. This will compel them to think like never before in order to prevent any possible hurt to others. Even the need for deductible insurance will decrease proportionately as the citizens begin to increase. What are the risks that something unforeseen will damage our cars when everybody stops doing those things that cause accidents? A noncitizen during the transition may desire to switch his liability to no-fault insurance because citizens are not liable, but such a change will take place in their driving habits that he really has nothing to worry about except from a noncitizen. The only reason citizens may desire to sue a noncitizen is if his insurance doesn’t cover expenses and they have to use reserve cash, and if they have none they would need to take from the guarantee. But this cannot be too much of a problem as the citizen population begins to increase. However, just as long as there will be noncitizens, they must know they will be blamed and punished if responsible for hurting others, which is why the portion of government that protects the people during the transition will remain in existence until the transition is complete. It is also interesting to observe that if a motor vehicle operator wants to speed, go through red lights, stop signs, or do any number of things that risk hurting others without the police being on his back, or if someone wants to steal without the possibility of going to prison, all he has to do is become a citizen and he will be completely free of the laws. When he does become a citizen, he will be compelled by a superior law and the guarantee which gives him financial security, to sacrifice any such desires as that alternative which he finds better for himself. For the first time, he is truly free to do anything he wants, but will never desire to hurt others because his conscience will not allow it under the changed conditions. This proves conclusively that as soon as science confirms this work as an undeniable blueprint of a world that must come to pass out of absolute necessity when our political and military leaders understand the principles, the inception of this Golden Age can officially begin. The transition will be completed when prisoners, the last ones to take the test, have passed the examination. Remember, when prisoners are released after signing the agreement, they will be entering a new world in which hurting others as they did before, whether in retaliation or a first blow, will be an impossible consideration. I know many of you will find this difficult to believe, but only if you don’t understand the principles.

 

[peacegirl]

At first glance it may appear that noncitizens could take advantage of the knowledge that they would be released from prison after passing their examination should they get caught breaking the law. They could kill someone hated very much and not fear the charge. They could successfully rob a bank of a million dollars, hide the money, and if caught, take their examination and be released to enjoy the fruits of their plan. You must remember that man must always do what he thinks is better for himself which compels the noncitizen to take into consideration the possible consequences. In trying to kill somebody, he himself could become the victim. He could also be killed while attempting to rob the bank. Furthermore, he must also weigh the possible years he could spend in prison just waiting his turn to take the examination which he might fail, and with no one willing to assume responsibility in his case. He might also be executed before capital punishment becomes obsolete. Once the transition gets officially launched, that is, once the leaders have set up their IBM offices and become citizens by passing their examination, they will forthwith abolish capital punishment. You have looked at a negative possibility without comparing the positive benefits to the potential citizen who is now a free man looking in, not looking out. Because the comparison gives no free choice, everybody notwithstanding who gets wind of this new world, so to speak, will desire to become a citizen just as soon as possible. If a prisoner takes the examination and passes, regardless of what he was in prison for, he will be a free man because it will be mathematically impossible, under the changed conditions, for him to ever desire hurting others again. But just as the leaders of the world were first in taking the examination, so the prisoners will be among the last.

“What about gangsters, racketeers, bookmakers, dope peddlers, and those who are paid to commit murder; do they get out as well even though they earn a living hurting others?”

Anybody who makes his living by doing something that hurts others has a choice to make. He can pass his examination and become a citizen which guarantees his standard of living and allows him to change his job without losing as a result of this change, or he can continue to hurt others to earn his income with the constant possibility of earning less while ending up in prison. Is he really given a choice? When a drug pusher becomes a citizen, he will lose the desire to push the sale of his products with misleading information, which means that once all available facts about drugs are made public and all blame withdrawn, the user will find very little satisfaction in taking this chance of hurting himself, but if he wants to, this will be his business. The citizen will not find any satisfaction in remaining in a business that hurts others under the changed conditions, and the noncitizen, knowing that his standard of living is guaranteed when he becomes a citizen, and also realizing that just as long as he continues to engage in illicit activities he is subject to the full penalty of the laws, will be very anxious to study and pass his examination.

Let us imagine that some counterfeiter wishing to get out of his present line of work because he knows he could get caught and go to prison decides to become a citizen and receives a guarantee that was estimated at $300 a week. He then uses his IBM identification card to buy a big mansion, several cars, an airplane, and many other things on credit. He subsequently borrows a million dollars from the bank but when the very first payment in all these things is in default his creditors go to his IBM office to collect their first installment. However, just in case a mentally disturbed person did manage to pass his examination, he would still be prevented from buying on credit beyond his standard of living because his creditor will ask to see his identification card and on it would be recorded the amount of his guarantee. If the purchase is too great, according to the judgment of the lender or seller (remember, the installments must come out of the guarantee, not out of his cash reserve), this transaction would be reported immediately to his IBM office. If he did not buy beyond his means but failed to pay his installments when due, we would pick up his condition soon enough. However, the odds of a new citizen hurting anyone as a result of being mentally disturbed will be virtually nonexistent.

“But what if he makes a slip with his pencil or pen, and instead of recording $100 per week, he adds an extra zero giving himself $1000, and when we call him in to test his present state of mind after seeing what he did, we discover that he is not mentally ill?”

Once we have determined that he has no severe emotional problems and that he deliberately wanted to hurt us, there is nothing we can do because we know that he couldn’t help himself. We would continue paying his creditors, and if he used up his thousand dollars and still did not want to work for a living, he could steal more from us because we would never blame him for hurting us in this way. But he knows that he doesn’t have to hurt us in this way unless he wants to, for over this he knows he has mathematical control, and when it fully dawns on him after passing his examination that we would never hold him responsible for what he can never justify, he will completely abandon all such ideas —unless he is really mentally sick. Remember, everyone is going to be given a golden opportunity to cheat and steal all he wants, if he wants to. This person doesn’t have to make a slip of his pen, he can just as easily add in $10,000 or $100,000, but why is this even necessary when all he is going to do when buying something is hand somebody a piece of paper on which is recorded the amount of the purchase? If he wants to take a trip abroad and he doesn’t have the purchasing power, it isn’t first necessary to enter in his book the amount he thinks he will need for the trip because nobody is ever going to question his ability to pay or ask to see his record book. Consequently, all that is necessary is to have a pad of paper and a pen or pencil for writing. He could board the plane or ship, get the best stateroom or accommodations, eat the best meals, tip the waiters very heavily, and live like a millionaire. In fact, he never has to work at all and could issue slips of paper from morning to night, but there is one other thing required for him to do this with a clear conscience and that is he must be absolutely certain he is not hurting others by what he does because if he is, and he knows that he will never be blamed or punished for this — which the people who are hurt must excuse and he cannot justify — then he will be mathematically prevented from moving in this direction because the very thought of it will give him no satisfaction whatsoever.

“But how does he hurt the people when he is paying them for everything he buys, though the slips of paper are counterfeit? If I give you a slip of paper for a television set, and you record this in your book at the end of the day, you certainly are not being hurt, in fact, you are pleased with the business for the day, right?”

“That part is very true, but the storekeeper is not the one being hurt at that moment. The people who are hurt are those who desire to buy the very things you have just stolen but can’t because these things are now not available, which makes a mockery of their purchasing power. Of what good is money on a deserted island?”

“There is none whatsoever.”

“Then what good is this purchasing power when the very things you want are suddenly not available anymore?”

“Again, your money has no value in this type of situation.”

“Consequently, when a person steals, he upsets the balance between available merchandise, services, and the money with which to purchase these.”

“I see what you mean. There would be less merchandise and services, and more money.”

“Yes, and when that happens everybody will be forced to take a decrease in their income, even the storekeeper who at first was so happy with what appeared to be a sale. Now once each person understands that he would be hurting everybody by stealing, and further knows that he will never be blamed or punished for doing what everyone knows he is compelled to do, when he knows he is not compelled to steal unless he wants to, then he is given no alternative but to relinquish the contemplation of his theft because it cannot satisfy him to be excused for this hurt when he knows it would be his responsibility.”

TAXES AND FINANCING THE GUARANTEE​

 

[bilby]

I’m trying Bilby to show how all blame and hurt must be removed from the environment

I already understand that to be a laudible goal.

which gives justification to take chances regarding others.

Does it? How?

This is a major discovery which cannot be shown in a couple of sentences.

Well, it doesn't help that the author of your "discovery" has dozens of sentences that don't get us any closer to being "shown" his point.

You already understand some of it.

Yes.

I hope you’ll be patient. It’s for your benefit.

That's one of the most terrifying things anyone can say, as those who say it almost always mean the opposite.

I'm going to continue to post excerpts of this important chapter. If you are hellbent on not reading it, then that's your problem.

I just want to skip to the meat of the argument. Waffle is not helpful.

I don't need someone to tell me how important the thing they are about to say is, nor do I need them to soften me up in advance of telling me their big plan.

If there's something worth saying at the end of this, then either I will recognise it and grasp its importance; Or I won't. And no amount of preamble will change which of those I do.

If you want people to read the stuff you post, it has to hold their interest. If you just post more bollocks about how great the idea is, and how blown away we will all be if you ever actually get to it, then you should expect your audience to get bored and wander off.

Less showmanship, less blarney, less sales patter, and more actual information are needed here.

 

[bilby]

As soon as the United Nations are convinced that the blueprint of this solution is scientifically undeniable (we shall assume this for the moment in order to move along), they will set up IBM computer offices, or the equivalent, for the purpose of making this guarantee work.

I sincerely hope not. IBM suck giant donkey balls, and exist for no purpose other than to suck vast sums of money out of large enterprises, in exchange for which, they provide systems that don't work, and then to suck even more money out to provide well-paid consultants to try to find out why the systems don't work.

Anyone who is claiming an above average understanding of reality, who thinks that IBM are a useful partner for government or big business, has a woefully inadequate understanding of the depth of their ignorance about reality.

 

[DBT]

But that is also where compatibilism also goes off the rails by making up a definition of what behavior constitutes the free will that they believe can hold some morally responsible and some not. I understand why we have to hold people responsible in a world of hurt, but they are fooling themselves when they think that their special type of free will is any different than libertarian free will.

Of course it’s different. Libertarians, like hard determinists, are INCOMPATIBILISTS.

Yet your comments suggest that you do lean towards the Libertarian notion free will, alternate choices, etc.

 

[DBT]

All one do at this point is

Decision making and choice are not the same thing.

Exactly. Decisions are made, but given determinism, the decision that is made in any instance of decision making is inevitable.

 

[peacegirl]

As soon as the United Nations are convinced that the blueprint of this solution is scientifically undeniable (we shall assume this for the moment in order to move along), they will set up IBM computer offices, or the equivalent, for the purpose of making this guarantee work.

I sincerely hope not. IBM suck giant donkey balls, and exist for no purpose other than to suck vast sums of money out of large enterprises, in exchange for which, they provide systems that don't work, and then to suck even more money out to provide well-paid consultants to try to find out why the systems don't work.

Anyone who is claiming an above average understanding of reality, who thinks that IBM are a useful partner for government or big business, has a woefully inadequate understanding of the depth of their ignorance about reality.

You have to understand when this discovery was made. There was no internet. IBM was the biggest tech company at the time. You overlooked the point he was making. It could be any large computer network that has the capacity to connect us globally.

.

 

[pood]

I'll stick with western democracies warts and all. A saying goes capitalism is the worst possible system until something better comes along.

Churchill said it, quoting an unnamed source, and he used the word “democracy,” not “capitalism.” And the end was, “except for all the other forms that have been tried.”

.

 

[pood]

But that is also where compatibilism also goes off the rails by making up a definition of what behavior constitutes the free will that they believe can hold some morally responsible and some not. I understand why we have to hold people responsible in a world of hurt, but they are fooling themselves when they think that their special type of free will is any different than libertarian free will.

Of course it’s different. Libertarians, like hard determinists, are INCOMPATIBILISTS.

Yet your comments suggest that you do lean towards the Libertarian notion free will, alternate choices, etc.

No, they do not suggest anything of the sort. You read into what I write, what you prefer to be there.

 

[pood]

All one do at this point is

Decision making and choice are not the same thing.

Exactly. Decisions are made, but given determinism, the decision that is made in any instance of decision making is inevitable.

Inevitability and fixity are not the same thing as necessity, as has repeatedly been explained.

 

[pood]

Once more, for the hard of reading:

Libertarians and hard determinists agree that determinism and free will are incompatible. The hard determinist rejects free will. The libertarian rejects determinism.

The hard determinist says given antecedents x and y, a person MUST do z. The libertarian says given antecedents x and y, a person can and will do whatever the hell he, she, or they wants.

The compatiblist accepts both determinism and free will. The compatibilist says that given antecedents x and y, a person WILL (but not MUST!) do z. Could he have done differently? Certainly. But to actually have done differently, antecedents would have been different.

Hope that helps. Not holding my breath.

 

[peacegirl]

Once more, for the hard of reading:

Libertarians and hard determinists agree that determinism and free will are incompatible. The hard determinist rejects free will. The libertarian rejects determinism.

The hard determinist says given antecedents x and y, a person MUST do z. The libertarian says given antecedents x and y, a person can and will do whatever the hell he, she, or they wants.

The compatiblist accepts both determinism and free will. The compatibilist says that given antecedents x and y, a person WILL (but not MUST!) do z. Could he have done differently? Certainly. But to actually have done differently, antecedents would have been different.

Hope that helps. Not holding my breath.

You're wrong Pood. No one is saying before a decision is made that he must choose eggs over cereal before he has even decides what he has a taste for. It just means that after the decision is made, IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN OTHERWISE. You are mixing up before a choice which is still under consideration, and after a choice, which could not have been any other way. If you understood anything I wrote, you should know by now that there is nothing that can make us choose z if we don't want to choose z. There is no causal link from the past to the present such that z is the only choice possible, WITHOUT A PERSON'S CONSENT. If they don't consent to z, they will not choose z. They will choose y (or whatever choice they find the most preferable) in the direction of greater satisfaction.

 

[pood]

Once more, for the hard of reading:

Libertarians and hard determinists agree that determinism and free will are incompatible. The hard determinist rejects free will. The libertarian rejects determinism.

The hard determinist says given antecedents x and y, a person MUST do z. The libertarian says given antecedents x and y, a person can and will do whatever the hell he, she, or they wants.

The compatiblist accepts both determinism and free will. The compatibilist says that given antecedents x and y, a person WILL (but not MUST!) do z. Could he have done differently? Certainly. But to actually have done differently, antecedents would have been different.

Hope that helps. Not holding my breath.

You're wrong Pood. No one is saying before a decision is made that he must choose eggs over cereal before he has even decided. It just means that after the decision is made, IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN OTHERWISE. You are mixing up before a choice which is still under consideration, and after a choice, which could not have been any other way. If you understood anything I wrote, you should know by now that there is nothing that can make us choose z if we don't want to choose z. There is no causal link from the past to the present such that z is the only choice possible, WITHOUT A PERSON'S CONSENT. If they don't consent to z, they will not choose z. They will choose y (or whatever choice they find the most preferable) in the direction of greater satisfaction.

Wrong. All contingently true propositions remain contingently true after the fact. Oswald killed JFK but he did not HAVE TO do that. Elementary logic eludes both you and DBT.