Do take heed of these words of wisdom and understanding here in reality. VIA Darren Rooke Robert Menard. Please do correct me, but arent you saying that the money does not need to be repaid. Based on what? Do you realize then that would mean the master would have to refuse the very note he created as payment for any performance or property he was looking to trade. For if he accepted it himself as payment then he has delivered the exact performance that he received when he created the money in the first place. So if the master wont perform for he has no performance in him seeing as this master seems to be of the Ilk of Caligula then there is nothing obligatory attached to his note that is of equal consideration of what he claims it pays for, this would be the equivalent of me issuing £100,000 and saying ill earn it or maybe I won’t or as and when I see fit or at whatever rate I decide in any one given moment or by any other whims I can conjure up like Ive paid in full. So how can that possibly be considered as money? There are, as far as I can see, no facts at this point, For money is a singularity in the fact its has to be universal, there by surely that would mean equal to all. My question is where is there any room to deviate in the aforementioned? Furthermore the note being earned and then extinguished is the point at which we would be evidencing accountability which is the proof of payment by the issuer by the fact he’s no longer obligated by the note he issued. Meaning the note no longer represents value/obligation as the contract between the master and the servant is fulfilled. If this is not the case then where is, what money represents? In what does it represent as far as this master is concerned, for if it’s not an accounting system which is for showing we are all accountable to everyone, that no one indeed received anything over and above anyone else which would be getting something for nothing, which is simply a crime, unearned wealth, which could only be rightfully describe as unlawful when it was predetermined by two people what value was being traded in a bilateral free market deal? Going back to the problem reference not of equal consideration, I’ll try to explain the problem with such a notion How can it be when performance is represented in a note that’s evidence of entitlement by the fact of possessing the note by the performer for performing is now classed as payment from the master? The question is, paid with what. For what does payment even mean at this point. For you seem to be saying that by merely issuing money you are entitled to the face value, based on what!?) is that just because you say so or is there a rational explanation Ive overlooked? at this point ill accept any attempt, For How can a note be redeemable (spendable) by the receiver of the note but yet not with the one that created it, for this creates a problem, because if there were only two people in the world then youve given me something thats worthless (your idea of money) because if its not redeemable in your production because it’s not obligatory for the master to perform because he somehow has paid in full. So then what could I spend it on? So whats the note worth? That’s right, the same considerations that created it, NOTHING. Furthermore again, is the fact that the money had to be created was proof by the person that created it that they had none! for to have had some, none would have been needed to be created, then the fact remains that it had to be created because he lacked the entitlement in the first place to any ones performance, meaning he didnt have the means of what money is as far as already possessing an earned note, so you issue a note that is a promissory note that you have to earn back by the same universal means which is to give equal value as to what the note represented to the performers performance. So this very action of having to create the money by the issuer could only be a promise to deliver value at a later date. We have a contradiction in this master example in what I can only describe as being blind to the obvious. The question becomes why. Easy unable to integrate universally by way of self-evident equal rights for all, For if this is not so then the question becomes what is it about this so called master that has him over and above another. Is it because hes over us by force and above us by deception. Ring a bell Rob? So in the absence of objective facts to back this master example, any idea of what money is can only be considered as totally subjective and could only be seriously considered as nothing more than an out of context assertions which leads to the creation of problems where none previously existed. See the problem with this is, the master is an out and out usurper of man’s value for irrational self-gain? This by the way would require force to pull off this obvious violation of everybody’s rights to issue their own lawful promissory obligations. By the way my friend Derek is as aware of everything Ive written within his own knowledge, because it is we that penned the above. The question he put to you was as simple as simple gets. Which was as follows: Robert Menard, are you saying then that you think harm injury or loss are not axiomatic facts, they are variables? Seeming how according to you I’m making some kind of assumptions about you. While we are at it what philosophical basis are you coming from when you make any statement at all? Surely the answer to this is lawfulness which could only be defined as universal individual rights for all by the fact of no initiatory force applied in any situation for this creates harm injury or loss. So do you hold lawfulness as a fundamental or is it some variant? Ultimately our question is. Where is what’s been said flawed? Over to you.
Posted on: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 15:59:09 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015