fauxlaw

If SCOTUS is the original curt of jurisdiction, that is EXACTLY what Article III is saying. Sorry.

Yeah for individual to individual cases. But not State to State. I am not a State. Per Article III, jurisdiction of justice is different. 

Article III, section 2, clause 2 states "In all Cases... in which a State shall be Party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction."  "SHALL HAVE." AS Justices Alito and Thomas dissented in the Texas v Pennsylvania, et al. denial by the Court, "shall have" is a declarative statement of obligation, being the court of original jursidction, and from which, as a result, Plaintiff has no further recourse for relief. It is a mandate which the Court ignored. Standing? There is not elective allowance for making that determination. They are to hear the case, and only then determine results. Your, and thiers, is a cafeteria-style use of the Constitution: choose this, ignore that. Can't do that.

Are you enjoying your almost one-on-none conversation?

How about at least a trial, first, rather than direct conviction based on your allegations? You know, due process, and all that shyte?

There is a distinction between there being no evidence of voter fraud in 2020, and the courts deciding they do not want to hear argument of potential evidence. The alleged evidence of voter fraud in 2016, while not rampant, still did occur and there were convictions of individuals who engaged it. To wit:

Therefore, though minor, there was voter fraud case convictions from 2016, period. This may be no different than in other past years, but that is not the point. That there is voter fraud is a fact. That city and state governments were alleged to have engaged it is a charge worth having its day in court. That the courts refused, from state and district courts to the Supreme Court, is a shame. It may or may not have affected the election results, but particularly when SCOTUS is the first court of jurisdiction, and it was, it ought to have taken a higher view of its obligations than it did. Their objections were petty excuses. They did not want to be seen as an arbiter, even to determine if States violated their own election laws.

I summarized "go to God," but, what I told you in full earlier was James 1: 2 - 6, which you "Didn't read, did you? Ignorance is found in all quarters..."

2 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into diverse temptations;
3 Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.
4 But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfected and entire, wanting nothing.
5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

THAT is a standard, and it is a little more than a lackadaisical "go to God." Few can do it, because most, like you, cannot get past being patient. You want it right now, and if it doesn't hit you over the head, it did hit you at all. Further, you cannot be skeptical. Ask in faith, nothing wavering. It is almost miraculous, but you cannot expect a miracle up front. Miracles do not cause faith; they follow faith, but you do not have time for that, do you, buddy?

I gave you an evidentiary standard. That you choose to ignore it and remain uninformed is entirely your choice. If you have a plumbing problem, do you go to a grocer? You either get my drift, or you do not. If you want to know God, don't seek the advice of anyone else. Get it? No, apparently not. This is too simple for you, therefore , it is to be ignored. So be it.

No, the non-belief is a self-imposed limitation; the worst kind.

Didn't read, did you? Ignorance is found in all quarters, but particular where one refuses to see. Argue for your limitations; they're yours, entirely, and no one else's choice. Something like letting someone else decide what to put in your pie hole.

Look it up. I'm not your tutor.

Such belittling. You leave the the story before it is done. The Lord reminds Job that God is powerful... where you end, but the Lord continues, telling Job to gird up his loins like a man, [don't be a wimp] and tells him to deck himself in majesty and excellence, and to be arrayed with glory and beauty. Never leave such a story midstream.

Occam did not know, nor did his razor, how to obtain information direct from God. Apparently, you do not, either. Sorry. The answer is given by Hebrews 11: 1 [actually, the entire chapter], and James 1: 2 - 5. Scoff if you like, be skeptical if you must, but that is how it is done and it is not rocket science. You might begin with a more positive moniker...

That the Bible acknowledged, but did not condone slavery, is my observation, too. However, our Southern Slave States had its identical in Great Britain from Roman times, and from which it required two acts of Parliament to abolish slavery.

Yes, that is the sense of what I'm saying.

Dictionaries are a poor source of learning about culture. In particular, the culture that launches any specific language. Culture begets language, not the other way around. So, why should I trust a lingual meaning for a term that is a cultural, not a lingual phenomenon? Rather than your lexico, I more fully trust the OED, but even in its interpretation of "faith," it holds no candle to Paul's meaning offered in Hebrews 11: 1: "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."  Two terms in that definition yours totally denies: substance and evidence. Your definition offers "no proof." Excuse my French, but that's bullshyte. Lest you think I'm just pulling a verse out of context, I invite you to read the entire chapter, which explores the rationale of that beginning definition. Your definition from lexico assumes that all proof is derived essentially from our five senses via the empiric method. Who says we are limited to five senses? If we are the paragon of animals [Shakespeare, Hamlet], and we are, why are we so limited when other animals express more than five? The answer is, we, too, have more than five senses. I'll call faith one of them; faith that aligns with Paul's definition and provides "substance" and evidence." Faith is greater than mere belief, because it demands you act on what you believe to prove it to yourself. After all, how do you prove to others your experience in five senses? Well, you can also demonstrate a sixth, a seventh, and probably more. One just needs to know how to do it. But, argue for your limitations; they're yours.

I think it's a numbers game. That is, Christianity is the world's most dominant religion in population. In spite of our differences in specific dogma, all have Christ as the central figure of worship, and is, therefore, the primary target of atheists. The majority of them, if converted to atheism by some lack they could not fill, attempted the fill by Christianity, and failed. Thus, it becomes their boogyman. Not necessarily true of life-long atheists, nevertheless, the lifers are likely a smaller population of atheists.

Sure, as long as it's sharp. Blades dull, even Occam's. Occam would be shocked to discover no one has sharpened his blade in 600 years. He did a fair amount of shaving with it in his lifetime, let alone later use. The razor is becoming as tired an excuse as blaming God for everything.

Consider that, again, the germane conversation took place 15th century BCE, and the oldest extant Greek texts [the Septuagint] to which Mopac refers, date from about 300 BCE let alone ancient Hebrew allegedly written by Moses, 1,200 years before, of which we have no sample at all [our best source is about 800 BCE], you will be unsuccessful to discover an original source, Greek or Hebrew, from which to draw the translation variance - if there is one - you seek.

Further, please understand that translation, language to language, is made more difficult by the fact that culture begets language. If an alleged translator does not understand the ancient culture from which translation is done, the translation will be flawed. Translation is, more than anything else, a dictionary-to-dictionary effort. Dictionaries do a historically poor job of teaching culture. Therefore, the translation, even by an expert linguist, so to speak, may be flawed if that linguist lacks a firm understanding of the translation-from culture, or his own, for that matter. Add to that the guesswork that will always be a factor for that lack, or, in fact, an alternate motivation to accurate translation if the translator seeks to deceive. It happens. Add the factor of still another translation from the Greek to English, for example, and you've just doubled, at least, your translation woes. I speak and read four languages fluently, plus a fluency in reading Egyptian hieroglyphs, so the above is not mere theory.

Where does "I am" come from?

Do we forget that God is omniscient? We're talking a conversation between Moses and God that occurred in the 15th century BCE, and then over 2,000 years since Christ's ministry. 3,500 years. Do we ignore that there has been a cry in the world since the beginning of man, almost, that God simply isn't, and no adjectives needed to further qualify the claim of unbelievers? The claim rages today. In God's omniscience, what else would be a valid argument against such a claim? Since God is [again, no adjective necessary], therefore, "I AM." And true to his discussion with God, Moses, in spite of his misgivings of personal worth, demonstrated effectively enough that an extant God will overcome a man who just thinks he is.  Pharaoh met his assumed match, and discovered quite to his distress, that he was the one lacking the "I AM...  God."

indentured servitude: correct.

Today, we call it "public service," but it's the same bloody thing. -  work to pay a debt.

However, there were also slaves who were so their entire lives, so it was both indentured servitude and slavery in a traditional sense.  

But as for the original question, slavery was not "supported" as an imposed service by any biblical reference, but it was acknowledged. There is a big difference

Looks like I'm an ENTJ, although I recall taking this some time ago while still working full-time, and I think it was ENFJ then. Even now, I just barely tip to thinking from feeling, so, apparently, I'm in transition. I've been around long enough to think with reasonable confidence that this is a valid assessment

The only "rational" argument that the universe is finite is because it is impossible to wrap our minds around infinity, but that does not argue well for a finite universe.

That is like saying 20/20 vision is the best vision for long-distance clarity. But my eyes are over 70 years old, and I still see 20/10 from both. I see at 20 feet what "normal" sees at 10 feet. That's not just seeing, but seeing with clarity. Clarity is also a matter of logic, yeah?

These last three posts after my #356 kind of settle my point, yeah? All three of you are talking past each other, and after several pages of it, it's getting old for the rest of us. Take your corners. No one is landing a punch.

I have. Satan has a number of names, As I'm sure you're aware. Only, the "original" Hebrew is text that cannot be dated to any earlier than 7 to 8 centuries BCE, so, we can only guess at authenticity to more ancient texts we simply do not have. Yet. Hope springs eternal. You might be intrigued to read a short book of 8 chapters called the Book of Moses, contained in the Pearl of Great Price. Google "text the pearl of great price" --- When you have the time

Meanwhile, I was really intrigued by Mel Gibson's "Passion of Christ," putting Satan in Gethsemane, and walking along behind the crowd as Jesus carries the cross to Golgotha; not at all biblical concepts. I've been trying to find where the idea of those non-encounters [there really isn't a direct encounter in either scene] came from, but have not yet found it. Regardless, it made me wonder: where else would Satan be during the two events that would best hinder his efforts. I conclude satan would have been nowhere else but those two locations, considering the biblical account of his temptation of Jesus in the wilderness before Jesus even began his ministry. As Jesus is ending his ministry, Satan does... what? He goes fishing? I don't think so.

Sum, it seems these other three have usurped your thread in a theoretic shouting match instead of discussion of observation by personal experience. I'm going to try to tackle the problem from that latter perspective. I think part of the issue is  a discussion of what God does; what's his job? I'd reply that creation is his job. As I've already noted, I think that is simply a matter of organizing matter and energy that is in chaos. I was recently in a debate with Fruit_Inspector, https://www.debateart.com/debates/2631-resolved-god-created-the-heaven-and-the-earth-with-existing-matter-and-energy-and-not-ex-nihilo on the subject of creation with existing matter and energy, or by ex nihilo [creation out of nothing] My BoP was the former [existing matter and energy - proposing the disorganized [chaotic] and organized [creation]. It ended in a tie, unfortunately. Also unfortunately, I didn't think of this scenario; it may be a better example of my thinking. Maybe creation begins by organizing chaotic matter, such as like shards of matter similar to Saturn's rings, or a mass of gas cloud, or likely both, and creation begins by starting this chaos into a spin as is theorized the beginning of a galaxy, and without getting into the weeds, we ultimately have rough worlds rotating and orbiting about a newly formed star. I'm skipping a lot detail for brevity. Then God engages in a concept we're just beginning to understand enough to theorize how it may happen: terraforming. That further organizes a hostile world into one compatible for life. God starts transplanting life forms from an existing, compatible world to this new, terraformed world and begins the process of living evolution, whether that is, as Darwin suggested in his first edition of "Origin of the Species" by one form, or many. Therefore, evolution is the ongoing process of creation. He is simply more experienced, and better at terraforming than we are. For now. We will learn. Does that mean we can become gods? If we learn enough, experience enough, why not?

Merely formalization of  a practice already ancient in the first century, a few thousand years after people. were already denying the existence of Satan [an excuse to justify themselves as godless], yet in practice of Satan's methods. It's a bit of chicanery if you ask me, by denial of principles secretly embraced. Socialism goes through the same denial process, claiming their really about a simplified capitalism that only recognizes production and sales, because those are both very obvious tasks, ignoring that the part of capitalism that allows it to thrive is R&D, materials strategy, purchasing, production design & implementation, tooling design & implementation, and customer service - all the stuff that ensures you have a continuous operation. Socialism's flaw is thinking the proletariate are thrown their bone for labor, and the bourgeois absorbs the remainder of the profit by sales. They ignore all the other stuff that is expense from the gross profit, and not from the labor, which, typically, can be as much as 40 of the gross. Socialism thinks the other 60% is net profit for the bourgeois.

Well, Satan operates exactly the same way, even convincing followers that he does not even exist, and it's their show, completely but for a few incidentals. Incidentals like, you just kissed your freedom of thought ands action goodbye. And that, my friend, has been around a lot longer than the 60s.  The 60s just packaged it and sold it as "new & improved."

who's "we?"

Since your 5th ecumenical council was seated in argument over Hesychasm [or Greek:: ἡσυχασμός], or reclusion to shut down senses in order to allegedly achieve a higher state in prayer, when the term as noted in Greek merely refers to being in a condition of quiet stillness. which can be achieved even in a crowd, although I understand Jesus' reference to closing one's self in their own room to pray, the Greek [in which I am relative fluent] version of the passage in Matthew in which Jesus makes his solitary prayer commentary speaks of nothing of separating one's self from their senses, so the whole argument escapes me, and the result of the 5th council was a schism in the Orthodoxy [and perhaps that is because the apostasy foretold is in full swing by the 14th century 5th ecumenical council, and thus direct revelation from God to settle the issue is long past, what should one expect of quibbling mortal left to their own philosophies?

I owe no allegiance to the 5th ecumenical council. By what authority did they make claim since Christ, himself, and others, foretold an apostasy. See Isaiah 24: , Amos 8:, Acts 20: , Thessalonians 2:  , II Timothy 4: ,  Peter 2: …  They all foretell an apostasy before the second coming of Christ. It was happening by the close of the first century CE. I won't give you verses; you need to read in context, so read the chapters, not just singular verses.

No. The production fed 5,000, but the origin was 2 fish and 5 loaves. Besides, since the miracle feeding 5,000 [not including woman and children, so it was actually much more] was donated as charity, and it was deductible, if there was even taxation on such miraculous production then. Come on, you know this stuff. Stop straining at gnats.

Dude read the context. Don't just pick out the one verse [it's Matthew 22: 21]. Read the context, Begin with verse 1 and read the entire chapter. Context is king, not just content. Does Jesus say anywhere that paying taxes [rendering to Caesar] should be avoided? No, he acknowledges the obligation. Public works requires public money to do the work, yeah? And don't argue that paying a tithe is wrong because it is paid, today [in the US, anyway] by the image of Presidents and such on coinage and currency, and should have nothing to do with the church. However, tithing is not merely a payment of money. It is a sacrifice - that is the payment to God. In the meantime, there are also "works" necessary to conduct in the church -  building buildings and maintaining them is one obvious need. But, in ancient and modern time, tithing was and is more than money. Offering of goods; product of the field, for example, is also tithing. Read Malachi 4: - again, the whole chapter - you'll get one of the best essays on tithing that exists in scripture.

Add Satanism?

You remind me of something I meant to say, but didn't. I don't think one needs to add Satanism. Satanism has been around since before Adam. My religious context on this matter is as follows:

1. Before being born on Earth, we existed as spirits, literal spirit children of God the Father, and a Mother [probably many Mothers, given our extreme numbers. We are, all of us who have lived, are living now, and ever will live on Earth are their children, but were in spirit form before our physical birth. We are, as spirits, of a single generation of children to physically perfect, resurrected beings, Father and Mother, who once existed as spirit children, then mortals, of an earlier generation of godly parents who were, in their time, also once mortal, etc. There are, therefore, generations of gods, and generations of their spirit, then mortal, then resurrected physical, perfect embodied children. Each generation has had, has, and will have this same process of progression: There is a master plan that all who are spirit children wold potentially have the opportunity to be physically born to parents who preceded us on earth for us to obtain a physical body and experience mortality. The purpose of mortality is to see if we will be obedient to Father's commands, because he has been through this mortal cycle and knows how best to achieve it to eventually become perfect, and a god. That godhood is the ultimate goal.

In our generation of spirit children, at least, but I believe the entire pattern repeats in every generation, there was one who would be chosen to be a savior, redeemer for the rest of us in our mortality, because we will, in mortality, make mistakes in out endeavor to follow the plan. Some mistakes are minor, but many are major impediments to our progress toward perfection. We need someone who can act as a redeemer to offer personal sacrifice in our behalf to reconcile those errors we cannot, ourselves, correct. Thus are our mortal lives lived by our agency to be obedient to God, or not. It is entirely our choice, and we choose to be obedient, or choose to be sinful. The one chosen to atone for those sins, on condition of our repentance, will be our savior. He is our older brother. This is Jesus, in our generation. By his atonement, we all have opportunity to reconcile our sins with God and present ourselves before him, having completed our mortal life, either clean and spotless by repentance, or dirty and filthy by dying in our sins. Those sins are the result of another, Satan, who, in our spirit world opposed the plan, seeking to force us all to return to God, but would do so by eliminating our free agency and forcing us to be good. So Satan is another spirit brother in our generation. God rejected his plan, and accepted Jesus' plan. Satan, and those who followed his plan, were cast out of heaven, leaving us - all who have ever been born into physical mortality - to continue on our path toward mortality, trial, and eventual perfection if we achieve it by our continued obedience.

Sorry, I've let too much time pass since your post #90 posing the above. Here:

The distinction I draw other than a visual distinction of apparent organization v. chaos, such as the planet Saturn [organized] and its rings [chaos] is that matter or energy organized has specific purpose that is observable and measurable, whereas chaotic, or disorganized matter/energy, is purposeless and, while it may be observable, purpose doesn't exist. In fact, if anything, it is completely under the control of something else, even if that something is exemplified as if God had a junk closet, and the disorganized matter/energy is simply stuffed in it to be sorted and organized at a later date. Only the door prevents it from being allowed to tumble out and block the hallway, disturbing, challenging, obstructing purpose.

Pie may have a different view, but mine is that God the Father is a different generation that human mortality on Earth, that God's mortality [yes, he had one] pre-dated the House of Judah, and, in fact, Jacob, Issac, Abraham... Adam. More to the point, the House of Judah has the seeds of God's mortal generation. After all, "God" is a title, not a name. His name may have been Bill, for all we know, or maybe Obi-wan Kenobi, of the House of Jedi. This humanity bit has been going on far longer than the Ancient of Days [Adam].

Ever been to Singapore? Hardly "third world." In fact, they do not allow sales of chewing gum in-country, nor do they allow spitting on the sidewalk [particularly with chewing gum]. I call Singapore the Asian Disneyland, because it is a scrubbed, squeaky-clean, Disney version of Asia-as-Disney-Main Street. Don't get me wrong, I like the place. Never been in a place so full of restaurants from a myriad of countries. I've been there many times. On one trip, I spent 6 weeks on the island [about 12 mi square], and never ate at the same restaurant. During one trip, a disrespectful American teen vandalized a bunch of cars with a spray paint can, was found, arrested, tried and sentenced to incarceration and caning. Oue State Department bitterly complained about the sentence, even thought the kid's passport, and mine, said clearly that we are subject to the local laws of countries we enter. The kid deserved his punishment, and I guaranteed it was a good post-deterent. On another visit of three weeks, one the same day as my arrival, a hooker from Hong Kong was arrested at the airport for possession of 1 kilo of heroine. She was charged, tried, convicted, sentenced to death, and was executed within 2.5 weeks of the occurrence. Brutal? Maybe, but Singapore does not have our drug problem. Gee, I wonder why?

Just looking at your sourced survey, I conclude the following based on actual population data, and what data can be gleaned from the report:

1. In 1944, the overall population of the US was 138M people, represented by 300 civilians in the survey

2. In 1944, the military population of the US was 12.5M people, represented by 850 officers and enlisted in the survey.

3. Per statistical norms, the civilian pop [1] should be represented by a minimum of 1,068 sample pop. for min statistical accuracy at a Margin of Error [moe] of ±3.0%

4.Per statistical norms, the military [2] should be represented by a minimum of 1,067 sample pop. for min statistical accuracy at an moe of ±3.0%

Therefore:

5. The sample pop's used were insufficient for both sub-groups [civilian and military] to achieve minimum statistical accuracy

6. The survey offers no data on the moe actually used - a major flaw resulting in apparent failure to achieve minimum statistical accuracy.

7. I see no actual summary of statistical data at all, just a verbal report. 

Conclusion: An unsatisfactory report. Somebody needed a statistician among the committee members, but apparently thought it unnecessary. Therefore, I consider the report a dud, and should have been strapped to either "Fat Man" or "Little Boy" before it was issued

But, according to Wagyu's source, Satanists do not accept a deity of any kind because they do not accept a presence of Satan at all; kind of like atheists. Then they are self-directed enthusiasts of upsetting all theo-carts. A perfectly acceptable position with which I disagree, but to each their own.

Biden fans, here's your candidate.

I didn't think it would take too long, and, I am saying again, "He did it again."

This week's gaffe: referring to "President-elect Harris." https://nypost.com/2020/12/29/joe-biden-refers-to-kamala-harris-as-president-elect/

This is not a misspeak. This is a trending evidence of a mind gone missing. In a month, Biden may be right.

Thanks for your 16.1C reference. I wish you would read it.. It appears you criticism of me. is shared. Wear it well.

Read through your 6 key points, particularly the 1st [and note that while capitalism has endured in America for 400 years = before America was America], socilaism has neve succeed beyond 70 years. And the 6th, regarding revolution, and the4n read the definition of revolution under key terms, and then tell me why an economic system that begins with revolution [and recall I just said capitalism has thrived in America for 400 years, while our revolution was 156 years following the first settlements, and still thrives] and socialism always has begun and ends by revolution. Oops. Yes, I know what I'm talking about.

I absolutely agree that it is difficult to maintain an unbiased attitude about other religions, particularly when one, as I am, is a very active participant. However, I've found it much more satisfying, and comforting, to consider that religions should not be at each others' teeth, but respectful and honorable. I did a study, once, of how many religions today have a similar sentiment to the Golden Rule - do unto others... - and discovered that at least 30 of current worldwide religions from every continent, even some I would not have expected, embrace this moral code as a ubiquitous morality. We should celebrate our common agreements, and keep an open mind on all opposing views. 

Curiously enough, Scientology was not among the 30-odd religions discovered had this code. The closest to it I found within Scientology was: "To support true humanitarian endeavors in the fields of human rights," and  "To embrace the policy of equal justice for all." A bit dry and impersonal for my tastes.

Yes, but "Jew" is not a political stripe, it is a familial [of the House of Judah] and/or religious [practitioner of Judaism] stripe. However, in the vein of comparison of politics/family/religion, I will, later, be discussing my own preferred "political" stripe, and it is not a common one. In fact, I may be its only advocate by its name, which I will not yet reveal, but is not the typical D/R we have in the US.

First, I think you've raised a very good issue that deserves discussion. It s sensitive, and it is confusing, comparing attorney/client privilege and clergy/parishioner privilege, so far as the latter goes, because I think there is less legal precedent for the latter than for the former. But the idea of confession of sin to to clergy is a different set of circumstances than that of a client speaking to an attorney in confidence. The a/c condition is tightly related to the 5th amendment's self-incrimination clause. In the case of c/p, I'm admittedly fuzzy because, unless there is action on my part that has caused injury to another of my congregation, or my transgression was of a serious legal nature [murder, rape, abuse, grand theft, and such felonies] my confession is between me and God. My ecclesiastic leader [called a bishop in my case] is not a necessary advocate between me and God but for those exceptions. 

However, your argument above is thought-provoking because, although never having committed any of the excepted crimes I've noted above, I am aware that my bishop would seriously recommend that I give myself up to authorities for my crime, so his personal obligation is not as troubling because if I don't go to authorities, he will, or should, I should more correctly say, and I'm the worse off.

Personally, I am opposed to the declaration of clergy/parishioner privilege mainly because, as we are discussing matters of law, a subject with which an attorney, by profession, should be intimately aware, most clergy are not conversant in the law, and are, therefore, poor processors of "privileged" information. I don't think clergy should be held to the same privilege as had between a/c. As for the parishioner's resulting predicament, perhaps a person who claims a faithful lifestyle, but is not, should either walk away from religion and throw his options on the mercy of a/c privilege, or determine that he should not succumb to legally troubling situations by strict avoidance of breaking the law.

I've heard many claim that Jesus was a socialist. I don't think he thought politically, but, if he did, it wasn't socialism. So before I launch a discussion of what I think were Christ's politics, I'd like a clear explanation why y'all think Jesus was a socialist. Cite whatever you like as justification, but I'd like clarification because, well, I'm not satisfied with unjustified declarations. It's like claiming someone is a racist, but no one offers their justification. "He/she just is." Sorry, that's not good enough. But, this string is not about anyone else. Keep your focus on Jesus and his own words.

You're kidding, right?

No, and I will not describe it again. If yu don't get by now, it's never going to hit you over the head.

No, Marxists do not believe in abolishing capital, the believe in using it. What they fail to understand is how to make it go to work for them, They are just like the guy who works for money, but has no idea how to put it to work for him, so that, as he spends money, he has not created a replenishing supply, because his spending habits seem to always exceed what he earns working  for it, and is therefore constantly in debt. And when the money's gone, and he has not created a separate continuous revenue stream in addition to what he works for [and he may lose that job, yeah?], he runs out of money. That's soc/com, because soc/coms do not know how to create a continuous revenue stream, they just use other peoples' money.

No, because hive-mind is soc/com. Look, when you convince society that they should all earn the same, work the same, think the same. and act the same, you have created a hive-mind with no individual earning, working. thinking, acting at all. Soc/com's greatest enemy is the individual who earns/works/thinks/acts by his own wits, his own experience, his own self-generated ambition and accomplishment.

Private industry budgeting, in a nutshell, accrues it's fiscal year end net profit, it's available bank credit, it's available year-end inventory value as a gage of expected future sales, and it's raw material inventory value, and, finally, in-process material inventory, and effectively asks: How do we best allocate these values to accommodate our expected expenses next year and arrive at next fiscal year end with another net profit we can use for the following year, and so on. That's very simplistic, but it's not much different than your looking at what money you have coming in next month, and what your expense obligations are next month, and will you end next month with money still in your pocket for the next month after that. The difference with "participatory budgeting" is that Uncle Sam rings your doorbell and tells you what you will do with your money. Participation my ass. That's nice-speak for "your money is really mine; I'll handle it for you, thanks.." And that, my friend, is soc/com.

Marx bloody well !@$@#!#%~#!$~%~%^%%^ does not understand what he opposed and misrepresented it. Did you read my posts 29, 33, 36? Read them again. Marx says capitalism is "this," but he gets it completely bloody wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!

GET IT? He is not describing capitalism, he is describing soc/com and calling it capitalism. He is showing you a puppy, while keeping the rattlesnake behind his back, because he knows if you see the rattlesnake before he allows it to bite you, you will know him for what he is. A rattlesnake.

Oba'a, in his 2008 campaign, told us he would "fundamentally change America." What is fundamental to America? THE CONSTITUTION. What of that needs to change? Not a bloody thing. It has worked for 230 years. How long has any system advocated by Marx lasted. USSR: about 70 years. The average, about 40 years. I've told you that, already. Do you get it, yet? 

I'll give you an example. In a paper AOC published [www.gp.org.webarchive] before introduction of the Green New Deal as a resolution to Congress https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text

one of the supporting ideas of the GND is an item called "participatory budgeting," by which the government would establish a commission in oversight of private industry to "assist" private industry in organizing their annual budgets. Government participation in private industry budgeting? Really???? What do you think that leads to?  It is o longer private industry.

Artists, intellectuals, under socialism are strangled, unless they express the party line. Russia once had a brilliant cultural, artistic stamp of the society of Europe until Lenin and Stalin screwed it all with their "revolution" that crumbled within 70 years. Their artists, writers, intellectuals were tortured unless they played along. It will happen hear if the likes of Bernie, AOC and the Squid get their way. No, soc/com does NOT support individual freedom. That is, to soc/coms, a big joke.

Get this straight: Marx is claiming that in order for capitalism to work, every member of society must participate, but he is WRONG. Haven't I said that enough? Capitalism is an individual effort. It is, ultimately many individuals, but the point is, while people who invest some of what they earn, they are participating in the fruits of capitalism, but if your work, earn a wage, but do not invest any of it, you're not really participating. You're working for money, only, instead of putting money to work for you. There's the distinction of capitalism that socialism never understands is essential for individual success. But socialism does not care about individual success. Socialism expects that the money supply is a finite resource. Capitalism knows that the money supply has no ceiling. Obama, a socialist, was dead wrong saying "There comes a time wen you have earned enough money." If he really believed that, why isn't he back in Chicago, organizing the streets like he promised on the afternoon of 1/20/19 on the tarmac leaving D.C. Funny. He went to CA instead, then bought a home on Martha's Vineyard. He could care less about Chicago, but that's not what he told you

The bit about ALL members of society... collectively. They are taught/forced into a collective. Funny thing, that's descriptive of unions, isn't it. Everybody paid the same as an hourly wage regardless of their actual capability, but in tiers. Some tasks are worth more than others, but individual worth, capability, and ambition be damned. None of it is recognized. And not one of them [actually, maybe a couple can in an environment like that, can calculate their own productive worth], but in a union, they surrender their own ability to negotiate their worth to an employer to some idiot with an agenda of his own. Why shouldn't people just be taught to know their own worth and negotiate themselves? Socialism does not even allow such an individual act. When I was in the corporate world 25 years ago, I taught my employees how to calculate their productivity and, thus, what their payment was worth. Made my job of assessment interviews a lot easier, too. I just asked for their calculation and how they arrived at it, and thus what they thought their raise should be. mostly, they low-balled, at first. I had to increase their raise in many cases, and was glad to do it. I knew my budget and what I could do for them if it was deserved. Socialism would never, ever do that. They want to keep people thinking the same. A hive mentality.