An interesting perspective and well thought out argument... it is always risky summerizing another persons ideas but can is suggest you are talking about freeloading (-ers)? Ethiton is a design for an ethical city that eliminates freeloading by increasing accountability. The End Of Freeloading
Freeloading is taking things of value without any corresponding return being provided. Freeloading is a problem in many areas including our economics and political systems. We need a comprehensive response to freeloading. Piecemeal solutions do not work. Ethiton is the only source of comprehensive solutions to freeloading and other social problems because only Ethiton understands why the problem of freeloading exists and what to do about it.

@Edify

"We need a comprehensive response to freeloading."

I can look at the link by Ethiton (soon), but the idea here is conversation, or perhaps debate, or sharing words that intend to share perspectives, and I hope that the idea is to increase the quality of perception: to know better from worse. So what do you know?

At the time America turned decidedly toward "feeloading," the major "freeloaders" of the day were Warmongers, Central Bankers, and Slave Traders.

Take Slave Traders for an example of freeloading.

Those who loaded up people on ships in Africa made a killing on selling those people to people who made a killing on working those people in America: freeloading on the backs of people from Africa.

When America turned decidedly toward freeloading and decidedly away from freedom in liberty, the Warmongers, Central Bankers, and Slave Traders effectively enforced their freeloading turf by making everyone in America - other than those in their faction - slaves. Central banking was subsidized Nationally, making the slaves pay for the freeloading known as Central Banking. Warmongering (endless wars for endless profits) was subsidized Nationally, making slaves pay for the freeloading known as Aggressive Wars for Profit (which works very well when financed by Central Bankers), and finally, the example offered: Slave Trading.

When Slave Trading was almost driven out of America, at roughly the same time the British criminal army was driven out of America, the place called America turned decidedly in the other direction soon after the people regained freedom in liberty in America: 1787.

The criminal document known as The Constitution of 1789 was written by Central Bankers, Warmongers, and Slave Traders, and deviously written into the criminal document is the National enslavement of all Americans to pay for the maintenance of the Slave Trade for a number of years.

Talk about freeloading.

What are the solutions? I propose that keeping the record straight (the actual law power) is a good start.

(I listened to the link and I can comment on that link extensively, does that belong in another thread?)

@Josf-Kelley Are you saying you listened to the video? If so you have gone off on a tangent. What the video is about and what I am talking about is ending freeloading... the issue of entitlements is strongly immersed in the information on freeloading, in other words if you wish to reimburse someone for a cost you created or feel you are responsible for. I have no problems with that, but my video and my concern is with freeloading and eliminating it. ie any perception of some perceived historic wrong is a personal issue and not something I wish to comment on.

@Edify

"Are you saying you listened to the video?"

I can comment on the video if you care to know what I have learned, if not then not.

"If so you have gone off on a tangent."

I thought my words were clear - clear to me at least - I did not comment on the video, I commented on your words. After I commented on your words I then listened to the video, and then I edited my comment with a comment about the video (which I viewed after commenting on your words).

"What the video is about and what I am talking about is ending freeloading... the issue of entitlements is strongly immersed in the information on freeloading, in other words if you wish to reimburse someone for a cost you created or feel you are responsible for."

Here you have a serious problem explaining how I went on a tangent because the reason why "freeloading" is much more of a problem today is factually traced back to "freeloading" being subsidized in 1789. If you do not want to know this, then you can admit it. If you think I am wrong then you can explain how I am wrong, because I am not wrong, and you will then learn something worth knowing about "freeloading."

"I have no problems with that, but my video and my concern is with freeloading and eliminating it."

If you have no clue as to what causes it (what subsidizes it), then you are ignorant, and refusing to see what causes it is a choice you make, so that problem is your own.

If you have no clue as to what causes "freeloading," then how are you supposed to eliminate it? Do you depend upon blind luck?

"ie any perception of some perceived historic wrong is a personal issue and not something I wish to comment on. "

The so-called "perceived historic wrong," is current and more powerfully wrong than it was when it was "historically" started as a wrong: Subsidizing "Freeloading."

What do you think happens when the "freeloaders" are paid to "freeload," on the backs of those who produce anything worth stealling?

I will give you a clue but at this point my confidence in your ability to see the facts that matter is waning rapidly.

Clue:

"The abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison thought the U.S. Constitution was the result of a terrible bargain between freedom and slavery. Calling the Constitution a "covenant with death" and "an agreement with Hell," he refused to participate in American electoral politics because to do so meant supporting "the pro-slavery, war sanctioning Constitution of the United States." Instead, under the slogan "No Union with Slaveholders," the Garrisonians repeatedly argued for a dissolution of the Union.

"Part of Garrison's opposition to continuing the Union stemmed from a desire to avoid the corruption that came from participating in a government created by the proslavery Constitution. But this position was also at least theoretically pragmatic. The Garrisonians were convinced that the legal protection of slavery in the Constitution made political activity futile, while support for the Constitution merely strengthened the stranglehold slavery had on America. In 1845 Wendell Phillips pointed out that in the years since the adoption of the Constitution, Americans had witnessed "the slaves trebling in numbers—slaveholders monopolizing the offices and dictating the policy of the Government-prostituting the strength and influence of the Nation to the support of slavery here and elsewhere—trampling on the rights of the free States, and making the courts of the country their tools." Phillips argued that this experience proved "that it is impossible for free and slave States to unite on any terms, without all becoming partners in the guilt and responsible for the sin of slavery."
Garrison's Constitution
The Covenant with Death and How It Was Made, Part 2
By Paul Finkelman

@Josf-Kelley I thank you for a serious attempt to be clear and explain your point but perhaps the video was not as clear as I hoped. Freeloading goes back 6000 years, I am sure many significant events took place between then and now. But I repeat, I am not interested. What I am interested in stopping freeloading, which is what the video was meant to be about. Am I to assume you are more interested in entitlements and externalizations because this is what I gather. Regardless it seems to me we have different agendas.

@Edify
As to the Video Presentation:

1. "Nobody like freeloading..."

Everyone who likes freeloading - as a rule - likes freeloading. Are people being forced into receiving the stolen property, or do they invest in the mechanism that moves the loot to them?

2. "Nobody knows exactly how to get rid of it."

Josiah Warren in a book titled Equitable Commerce offers information that may prove that statement wrong. In my opinion, the actual law - when it is used - is another way to get rid of it. So there are now 2 examples that work to prove the statement as false.

3. "Freeloading comes in many different forms..."

Rather than a pet peeve, how about an accurate measure of one of, if not the worst, major transfers of power (wealth measured in units of purchasing power) from those who produce anything worth stealing to those who freeload off the backs of all those producers? Then how about adding to the list so as to find the worst, then the next down on the list from the worst, and then work down to the bottom step where the least freeloading is accurately measured?

[usdebtclock.org]

That is the worst case of freeloading I know, and it is very well documented as anyone can see if they care to look.

4. "The government itself is a freeloader..."

If that is true then the "government" is organized crime, and then it might be worth the effort to find government forms that are not forms of organized crime: freeloading (subsidized slavery).

5. "...there's no accountability to the people that it lives off of..."

The so-called government (organized crime) keeps very detailed records on precisely how much can be stolen from everyone who dares to produce anything worth stealing, and that is accountability, and it is published for all to see. If people want to control the government, on the other hand, there are peaceful ways to do so, but most people don't want to know those ways. Most people prefer to ignore tried and true solutions to factual situations whereby criminals (freeloaders) take-over the government.

6. "...for what it is costing them..."

[apps.irs.gov]

7. "...we have no control over it, or the costs that it is creating..."

What you describe is organized crime, the proof is confessed by you, and as a rule, the victims of organized crime have no control over it, and no control over the costs that it is creating.

Actual government, on the other hand, is tried and true, and the people either pay for it or they do not pay for it.

8. "....freeloading...is capitalism..."

If you have a working definition of capitalism then your working definition of capitalism means - according to you - a form of freeloading. I think what you actually mean is something called Crony Capitalism, also known as fascism. Capitalism can be defined by capitalists who are strictly avoiding what you call freeloading. These capitalists refer to something called a free market, and they often use the word volunteerism. Free markets and volunteerism may have some freeloaders who freely freeload off of people who freely finance those freeloaders because that is what they volunteer to do in fact. Capitalists operating freely in a voluntary free market may give food to beggars for the mere pleasure (the profit) of seeing someone get a good meal.

9. "...the communist and socialist governments..."

The communists refuted the socialists in their Communist Manifesto, one is not the other one. The Communists freeloaded to the point at which they killed 20 million of their own, and as pointed out by Alexander Solzhenitsyn the Communists knew precisely how much they had to feed their slaves just to keep them working; speaking about keeping good records: accounts.

10. "...when they go bankrupt..."

How about an example, such as "too big to fail?" A so-called capitalist Bank, for example, adds money to their accounts by adding zeros when they please. They get caught with their pants down when "loaning" this fictitious money to home buyers who prove that they can't pay off the loan (liar loans), and rather than go "bankrupt," the criminal organization that looks the other way when they add zeros to their accounts and the criminal organization that looks the other way when they lend out these liar loans, is the same criminal organization that "bails" the Capitalist Bank out, avoiding bankruptcy.

How about another example in a Capitalist venture known as The Liberty Dollar. The Liberty Dollar was a competitor offering higher quality and lower cost (less freeloading) compared to the previously mentioned "too big to fail," Capitalist Bank. The Capitalist Liberty Dollar went out of business; bankrupt. Was this another example of freeloading bankruptcy? What mechanism is at work to cause the freeloading in a specific bankruptcy case you have in mind?

That is enough for now, and I think there is merit in the concept of accurate accountability, something spoken of at the end of this video presentation. Accurate accountability of the facts that matter in any case, including any freeloading case, is the goal of actual law. Avoiding accountability is a known process employed by criminals. Those who avoid accountability, for example, propegate a lie that says that democracy is the tyranny of the majority.

@Josf-Kelley I am not sure of what we are doing here, I have 8 books, three web sites and about 80 videos not including all the essays and blog posts. If you think this video encompasses the entirety of my thought it does not. It is about freeloading. I am sure it does not answer all possible questions relating to freeloading, it was not intended to do this. it states freeloading can be eliminated, you say there is an alternative way, perhaps there is, I did not address this, I do not agree there is but it is not a rebuttal of my claim or my system. As to money, I distinguish between money and currency. if you want to know more about this I produced a video titled, What Is Money. As to my definition of capitalism this is tied up in my views on ownership, not gone into here but you can look for my videos on ownership. Obviously in a small video on freeloading I did not deal with this. You seem determined to discredit my views, let me inform you, this is not possible. obviously you can point out that the video did not cover all of the sciences in total detail nor did it answer every possible question in the universe, however my theory does encompass all sciences from Ontology down to a business model and is beyond rebuttal, so if you want to know more I suggest you look for more videos as I will not be expanding on every point that was skimmed over too lightly in your opinion. Let me add this, government is a Crime Against Humanity. Look up my videos on democracy to clarify why democracy is inherently evil and therefore all that derives from this is of necessity evil as well, and I define evil and sin very clearly.

@Edify

"You seem determined to discredit my views, let me inform you, this is not possible."

Why would someone willfully ignore the facts that matter in any case?

If you ask a question on a public forum, such as:

"What Happened To Us (on the road to civilization)?"

Then when you are given an answer, you ignore the answer, and instead of dealing with the information offered in the answer, you accuse the one volunteering to answer your question with failing to know the answer to the question you asked.

"We need a comprehensive response to freeloading. Piecemeal solutions do not work. Ethiton is the only source of comprehensive solutions to freeloading and other social problems because only Ethiton understands why the problem of freeloading exists and what to do about it."

So...your bait is to act as if you are asking a question (begging the question) when in reality you only want to propagate the "only" solution that is your "only" solution.

If you do not want to entertain competitive answers to the question you ask, then perhaps you ought to simply state why you are engaged on a public forum; soliciting.

Your bait is to ask "What Happened To Us (on the road to civilization)?" and other more detailed questions when your absolutely correct "only" answer was already waiting in the wings.

Freeloading is the only correct answer to your question, all other answers are to be discredited by you, and you will blame other people for trying to discredit your views?

If I were as confused about "What Happened To Us (on the road to civilization)?" as you are, then I would ask for help. I would ask questions seeking accurate answers.

Example:
"...nobody likes freeloading..."

That is clearly wrong. Why would someone have such a clearly wrong view? If someone is claiming that the only cause in the context of the question asked is "freeloading," and that same someone claims that the only solution to this only cause concerning the question asked is an as-yet-to-be explained solution, then perhaps that someone ought not defend a clearly wrong view, such as the view stated as "...nobody liked freeloading...", when clearly there are plenty of people who not only like receiving freeloading benefits, there are also those who like giving free stuff to freeloaders depending of course on what exactly is the measure of value according to those who like freeloading enough to be giving to freeloaders.

Then the view that (if it were my view) I would prefer to have someone correct this wrong view is the one where the claim is made that the (so-called) government isn't accountable.

"...there's no accountability to the people that it lives off of..."

That is clearly false.

"You seem determined to discredit my views, let me inform you, this is not possible."

In your view, I am out to discredit. In my view, I am not, so that is another clear error in your view. I am sharing information that may help you deal with errors in your view as you express your view (assuming it is you in the video) with words such as the words quoted above.

To address the behavior of people who freeload, and to address the behavior of the people who give to freeloaders, it may be a good idea to avoid wishing them away into the cornfield as if they never existed.

If it is a good idea to understand just exactly how much the government is doing (freeloading as you say) to each individual captured by the government, then it might be a good idea to look at the records kept by the government as it freeloads on each slave captured into the fraudulent government, since they keep very good Public Records concerning just exactly how much is freely loading to the National Fund from each individual who produces anything worth stealing: freeloading. Wishing away those accurate accounts as if there was no such thing is something an individual can do, like perhaps sticking their head into the sand. The fact is that the so-called government accounts to the people that it lives off of, as a matter of fact.

@Josf-Kelley I am sorry you think I made errors, there are no errors nor have you pointed out any errors, there are things you do not understand, that was not expounded on deeply enough, but there are no errors.

I agree i asked a specific question, then answered it. The question is answered. Now if you want to expand on it or ask a question relating to the answer, that would lead to a productive discussion, if you want to try and demonstrate something you did not understand or was not delved into deeply enough is an error that (as I trust you are stsarting to realize) is not going to get us anywhere. I understand you have no idea how extensive this theory is or how detailed but assuming this short video in anyway represents anything but a mimsecule introduction to a tiny aspect of it is once more, going to create a lot of wasted dialogue.

Other than that I honestly see nothing worth responding to. You have your opinion, and no doubt you have an agenda that to some degree conflicts with my own. I offered the video as a foundation to build on, if it conflicts with what you are doing, I suggest you go plow a different field because nothing is going ot grow here.

@Edify

"You have your opinion, and no doubt you have an agenda that to some degree conflicts with my own."

"Words are the principal means of our intellectual intercourse, and they form the basis of all our institutions; but here again this subtle Individuality sets at nought the profoundest thoughts and the most careful phraseology. There is no certainty of any written laws, or rules, or institutions, or verbal precepts being understood in the same manner by any number of persons. This Individuality is unconquerable, and therefore RISES ABOVE ALL INSTITUTIONS. To require conformity in the appreciation of sentiments, or in the interpretation of language, or uniformity of thought, feeling, or action where there is no natural coincidence, is a fundamental error in human legislation—a madness that would be only equalled by requiring all to possess the same countenance or the same stature.
Individuality thus rising above all prescriptions, all authority, every one, by the very necessities of nature, IS RAISED ABOVE, instead of being under institutions based on language. Institutions thus become subordinate to our judgment and subject to our convenience; and the hitherto inverted pyramid of human affairs thus assumes its true position! Are you alarmed at this sudden plunge into an unknown, an uncultivated region? You are alarmed at your own redemption! After many years of patient watchfulness of the world’s movements and of laborious experiments, we see in this Individuality the germ of a future so magnificent, so bright and dazzling, that the eye can scarcely look upon it. We see that, as it is both inexpedient and impossible to overcome this Individuality, we must conform our institutions TO IT! Man-made laws thus become suggestive—not tyrannical masters, but useful co-operators. Institutions will be “made for man, not man for institutions!” Their introduction will be peaceful, and their progress proportioned to the benefits they confer! We see by it the violence of all disputes and controversies, whether religious, political, or domestic, or pecuniary, suddenly neutralised by a power as soft and genial as the gentle breath of a beneficent spirit! We see a remedy for the antagonisms of Individuals and of Nations!—a conservative against the decay of Empires!—a check to desolating ambition, and the whole field of human enterprise opened for beneficence! We discover a reasonable explanation of the antagonisms between ruled and rulers, between despotism and liberty! and we have found the deep seated, unseen causes of the political, religious, and pecuniary confusion and sufferings of the race, and of the disastrous defeats of Revolutions and reformatory movements."

"We behold in INDIVIDUALITY the long-sought principle of order, harmony, and progress!"

Equitable Commerce
A New Development of Principles, As Substitutes For Laws And Governments, For The Harmonious Adjustment and Regulation Of The Pecuniary, Intellectual, And Moral Intercourse Of Mankind. Proposed As Elements Of New Society.
Josiah Warren

The problem stated, the solution offered, and it is voluntary association. If you and yours remain peaceful, you and yours can call the problem "freeloading," and you and yours can solve the problem of "freeloading," as you please among yourselves.

That is fine by me.

If you are a paying member of the Cult of Might Makes Right, your solution involves deception (which has already been confessed in my view), your solution involves threat of aggressive violence for those failing to obey your dictates (again you have already confessed a dictatorial mindset), and if your solution involves the use of force (so-called government or otherwise rationalized) to whip your members into shape, then that is not fine by me, and the least I can do is speak out against it.

Does your solution to your problem involve membership in the Cult of Might Makes Right, and the use of deception, threat, and violence to enforce membership?

@Josf-Kelley You made my point. I have no idea what you read or heard if you really listened to the video, but your question drives home my point the discussion is a waste of time. I spent my 70 years struggling to find a way to combate the power people have over others. The search ultimately led me to Christ who says we are to be brothers and sisters not lord and servant and you accuse me of subscribing to a might makes right philosophy.

@Edify

"The question is answered."

The question was begged, and you then provided your answer.

"I have no idea what you read or heard if you really listened to the video, but your question drives home my point the discussion is a waste of time."

I spelled out in quotes exactly what was said in the video, and I then responded: to deaf ears.

"The search ultimately led me to Christ who says we are to be brothers and sisters not lord and servant and you accuse me of subscribing to a might makes right philosophy."

I wrote the word "if," as in "If you are a paying member of..." You heard accusations.

I also pointed out what appears to be a dictatorial mindset, which you may also ignore, or twist; a dictatorial mindset example.

As to Christian Scripture:

"8 Hear, my son, your father's instruction And do not forsake your mother's teaching ; 9 Indeed, they are a graceful wreath to your head And ornaments about your neck. 10 My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent. 11 If they say, "Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause ; 12 Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit ; 13 We will find all kinds of precious wealth, We will fill our houses with spoil ; 14 Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse," 15 My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, 16 For their feet run to evil And they hasten to shed blood. 17 Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird ; 18 But they lie in wait for their own blood ; They ambush their own lives. 19 So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence ; It takes away the life of its possessors."

That is reinforced here:

"I commend your tenderness and modesty; yet must tell you, these are but general and weak excuses.
As for your time and trouble, it is not much; and however, can it be better spent than in doing justice, and serving your country? to withdraw yourself in such cases, is a kind of Sacrilege, a robbing of the public of those duties which you justly owe it; the more peaceable man you have been, the more fit you are. For the office of a Juryman is, conscientiously to judge his neighbour; and needs no more law than is easily learnt to direct him therein. I look upon you therefore as a man well qualified with estate, discretion, & integrity; and if all such as you should use private means to avoid it, how would the king and country be honestly served? At that rate we should have none but fools or knaves entrusted in this grand concern, on which (as you well observe) the lives, liberties, and estates of all England depend.
Your tenderness not to be accessary to any man's being wronged or ruined, is (as I said) much to be commended. But may you not incur it unawares, by seeking this to avoid it? Pilate was not innocent because he washed his hands, and said, He would have nothing to do with the blood of that just one. There are faults of omission as well as commission. When you are legally called to try such a cause, if you shall shuffle out yourself, and thereby persons perhaps less conscientious happen to be made use of, and so a villain escapes justice, or an innocent man is ruined, by a prepossessed or negligent verdict; can you think yourself in such a case wholly blameless? Qui non prohibet cum potest, jubet: That man abets an evil, who prevents it not, when it is in his power. Nec caret scrupulo sosietatis occultae qui evidenter facinori definit obviare: nor can he escape the suspicion of being a secret accomplice, who evidently declines the prevention of an atrocious crime."

Englishman’s Right: A Dialogue between a Barrister at Law and a Juryman, John Hawles, 1763

In other words, if your solution to the problem involves you becoming the problem, then you are the problem.

Does your solution to your problem involve the use of deception, threat, and violence to enforce membership?

@Josf-Kelley You seem desperate for conversation but I am done here, if yo uare trying to be honest and helpful thanks but the comments are getting so far off base i have no idea what you are even talking about or referring to. To be honest I think you have created a great problem and you are well on your way to solving it. I think it is best I do not intrude as it is only going to confuse things further. I do hope you can solve all the problems you have invented and have a good time doing so... I really need to do something constructive.

@Edify

"You seem desperate for conversation but I am done here,..."

You were not done, you had to publish libel.