pioneer

One of the practical reasons for legalization, is it would cripple the black market for that product. The prohibition keeps the price high. This means it is very profitable for young entrepreneurs to get into that tax free business. There is plenty of money for all types of things, such as buying guns, etc. If I was in the black market (I am not), I would like having the government keep the price up. If they stopped the black market protectionism, which costs the tax payers billions, the price would fall, profits would be gone, there would be wide spread unemployment in the black market MJ industry, there would be no money for guns and no longer worth fighting and killing for. It would worth the black market's effort to put money into anti-legal-campaigns, since this will assure that their industry is here for the indefinite future. The system in placed not only provides the black market a lucrative tax free industry, but it also supports many other businesses. The prohibition creates a lot of jobs and revenue as reflected by the billions given to the support industries. For example, lawyers, judges, police, jails, etc., make billions. This trickles into the economy to buy cars, guns, computers, paper (plenty of paper), etc, There is also the entire rehab industry; hospitals, half way houses, therapy, legal drugs, who also benefit. If I was in those industries,( which I am not) I would lobby to make sure nothing changes this wonderful cash cow. Advertising would be useful to keep the case cow funding going. Maybe as way to see the effect is to go back into history to a similar prohibition; alcohol. This too created a lucrative black market industry. With the money coming in hand and foot, some was shared with local politicians and some bought guns and goons. The support industries also had many bumper years. When it was repealed what happened to the black market for alcohol? What about alcohol related violence? Did the country go crazy and all become alcoholics?

The original question was, is negative a manmade concept? Things like fractional cardinals are an invention with practical use. I nature, we can take a big rock and break it into fractions. Each now becomes a little rock and not a fraction of a big rock, unless humans define it like that. Negative has practical use but it not part of nature. Nature uses positive values. There is no need for the mirror world. However, the mirror world does create many practical applications which allows humans to leave the natural world. Nature can't borrow from the future. It is restrained to positive things in the present. It would be like the rabbit borrowing grass from next summer, via the mirror world, to eat now. Comes next summer, the grass that was borrowed is reflected by the field half chewed, having been vacuumed up by the mirror world last winter altering the life forming capability. That would be unnatural, yet humans do it all the time to build manmade reality.

Say the government decided it was important to help the American auto industry, and said everyone had to buy an America car. Not only do you have to buy American, but you need to buy a car by the 1st of next year, or go to jail or be fined. This would help the industry and give everyone a car, right? One should have the right to buy any type of auto they wish; free commerce. Free commerce is good for competition to help keep prices down. Also you shouldn't be forced to buy a car under the gun of a deadline. Say my car is working fine and is already an American car, why do I need to buy another one? I understand the value of everyone having access to health care. But if done using the free market, it is more efficient and less monopolistic. The health care industry is anticipating a big surge in demand for health care and is already gearing up, needing to raise cost. It would be like GM, Ford and Chrysler knowing there will be a forced demand for their cars. They will need to expand operations to meet the rise in demand. But since they also know they have a demand monopoly, enforced by the government, prices can go up. The government is not suppose to favor any industry, turning it into a monopoly, while also using bayonets to force people to buy. If the government took in taxes and built in own hospitals, this is different. But the medical industry would complain if this cut into their business. One would think that forcing a monopoly and forcing demand for a business would be supported by the republicans. But this cuts into other industry via costs. It is unfair for all the other businesses. Most business would not mind if the government set up hospitals, since they might be able to get their employees to sign up saving money. But the medical industry would cry unfair business practice. So what you need to do is see where the lobby money is going to see if this equates.

I would have to say Genghis Khan and the Mongolians. If I am not mistaken, one of their signature tactics was the army would form a huge circle around an enemy. They would march to the center killing everything, including animals trapped in the circle. They had plenty of manpower and could make huge circles. He breach the Great Wall of China and was able to conquer china and and the Korean peninsula, then moved westward and took the middle east and eastern Europe.

Have you ever tried to use a C reference as the ground state?

The easiest way to explain it, is by using the assumption that C is the ground state of the universe. Mass, by being less than C will set a potential with C, with the action of gravity reflecting one means to lower the potential with C. Mass can not directly go to C; spontaneously go poof!, so it needs to use other means to reach C. Say the entire universe was at C. Time and space don't mean anything, since there is only a point-instant. To create finite time and space, we need to break away from C, with the further from C we go. the more time and space can expand. Mass has this property of being below C and part of extended time and space. Mass can't back track, since it would take infinite energy to return to the C reference. Instead it needs to move forward using other means to lower the potential with C, such as trying to cause time and space to return to the point-instant reference of C. The black hole is one resolution.

The most abundant molecules in the universe are H2 and H2O. That just so happens to be the energy range limit for life on earth; food/energy (<H2) and a final product (H2O). It would make sense that life would become part of that universal energy economy. In the diagram below one can see H, O, C, Fe, N, Mg, Ca, etc as being way up there in abundance. It is not coincidental that chlorophyl and hemoglobin use central atoms taken the top ten of the universe. Life is simply an extension of the universe. P or phosphorus is a bit down the line, with As or arsenic even further down the line. These may not be as critical for exchanging, although the abundance of P compared to As would make it more likely.

Although all numbers are manmade, in practical reality only the positive concept implies substance. Negative implies a mirror world where there is a deficient of substance. If I borrow $1000, I now have negative $1000. Yet I can buy positive things with this negative money. I don't have to buy only negative apples from the mirror world. Therefore it is actually, positive money, therefore I don't owe anything. This logic doesn't add up, because we have defined negative to mean this was a loan of a positive thing that we will call negative when we write it on the paper. In nature, behavior is part of the natural balance. Humans will define behavior as positive (good) and negative (evil). A good deed plus a bad deed might cancel. But in nature, the same two deeds can add to create a positive effect on substance. Humans define a convention to get a different result. Did the concept of plus and minus help separate humans from nature? It added a mirror world from which the deficit of substance, could be used to tweak substance to create new types of substance. Deficit spending makes use of the mirror world. Pay as you go stays in positive reality. The mirror world of deficit spending create a void in positive reality which will then suck future taxes out of the pocket into the mirror world. Conceptually it alters time, with the future tax money going back into time, via the mirror world, where it comes out of the mirror world, into today, to create new positive substance for today.

Try this experiment. Hypothetically, we turn off the pain sensation in a child's hand so he feels no pain. Next, we have a candle in the room. The child is curious and touches the fire, but since he does not feel anything, he plays with the flame. Since we know this will bur/scare n him, we try to reason with the child about the hazard of the flame. In the second scenario, we turn his pain sensation back on, and let him get punished near the flame with pain. Which lesson will be learned quicker? The fire has a natural cause and effect, with fire the cause of the pain, with pain the consequence of violating this cause and effect. The idea is to define a righteous cause and effect, so the entire process of cause and effect can be experienced. As long as the entire process is rational and teaches cause and effect it is the quickest way to learn cause and effect. If we try to coax and reason the lesson will take longer and may result in extra damage before the lesson is learned. The problem with physical punishment is it is not always metered out based on consistent cause and effect. It could metered out as the result of subjective whim. At that point the child will not learn cause and effect from the lesson, but could be made irrational by the process. For example, say a father is moody so somedays he spanks for breaking the window, and on other days he is easy going and does not. There is no point to this punishment since there is no cause and effect to be learned, other than break windows on good days. It can be counter productive. Not all rules are rational. If you use physical punishment to teach the cause and effect of an irrational rule, that does not teach cause and effect. For example, say the parent requires all the DVD's need to be in stored in reverse alphabetical order. If the child fails to do so, "slap!!". This lesson is irrational even of it uses a method for teaching cause and effect. The child may learn to order DVD's this way, but that would only make him irrational in the process. But if the rule is rational, like playing on the stairs with your tricycle is dangerous, "slap", this will teach the cause and effect of a rational relationship. It is not always clear cut, yes or no, but has a subset where it works wells.

In math, the concept of negative numbers is an important concept. But if you look at natural reality, what is a negative apple? If you look at tree, it may not have any apples and it may have some apples, but you won't find a tree with negative apples. Although we all understand the concept of negative, does this reflect natural or man-made?

Although RNA replicators may have defined the inception of basic life, a question to comes to mind is connected to ATP. In modern times, there are thousands of proteins that use ATP. If the earliest proteins formed first, say from the dehydration of animo acids in clays, is it possible that the concentration of ATP and other nucleoside triphosphates would remain too low to support active replicators? ATP is an electron acceptor. All that would be needed to bleed its energy potential is a suitable electron releasing group such as -OH. Since this group is built into so many different proteins, isn't it likely that even a random protein distribution, would quickly react with ATP, depriving the RNA replicators? What this suggests is that proteins needed to evolve beyond being a nuisance until they could help regenerate or even increase the concentration of ATP and other nucleoside triphosphates. Then the RNA replicators had a shot at evolving.

Taxes are very similar to the school bully who shakes down the smaller kids at school for their lunch. The little boy works to make his P&J sandwich, he puts in some cookies, a small bag of chips and an apple. As he enters the school yard, the big bully kid takes his lunch bag (able to use force if needed), steals his chips, apples and cookies but leave him the P&J sandwich. If he gives back the apple, is the bully being generous? Maybe in some abstract way the bully is being generous by giving the boy's apple back to the boy. Say this happens every day. Since the boy is held hostage, he may develop the Stockholm syndrome, where it begins to relate to the bully who pillages his lunch. Now getting the apple back is a big treat, with the bully so generous. The bully is this scenario is not alone, but has a gang that he feeds. None of this gang will prepare their own lunch, but they all depend on the bully for their free lunch. If the bully was to give back the apple to the boy from which he took it, they may feel that they got short changed with their fair share given away. The gang may be hungry and dependent on other kids to pack lunches so they can feed. They may ask the bully not to give the apple back. Say the principle decides to help the little kids and looks out for them, so the bully gang can not take their lunch. Now the small boy has his entire lunch. The bully and his gang are hungry, but it never dawns on them to get up early and pack their own lunch through fund raising. They are so used to taking what they need. The little boy who is not used to so much food to eat, finds that he now has cookies, chips an an apple ,beyond the P&J sandwich he has gotten used to. Since the Stockholm syndrome will take time to dissipate, he will feel affinity for the bully and give him some cookies.

Another way to look at it is the status quo is easier to follow. One doesn't need to fully understand everything, but simply needs to memorize and follow. Even without understanding, one has the weight of the bigger group behind you, therefore that choice gives one a secure place to stand, right or wrong. The emergent requires more effort and skill since it is evolving quickly. Simply memorizing and following will be no match when the other team outnumbers you. It will be a slaughter. However, those who do their work have a strategic advantage. It sort of analogous to the movie Spartan, where the few find a pinch point to funnel the might of that huge army, thereby shifting the battle in their favor. The skilled Spartans were better equipped to battle when the battle come down to one on one or two on one. As the huge army gets exhausted the ranks begin to unravel. The emergent may then may become the new status quo, where the herd once again memorizes and depends on the size of this growing army to overcome others with smaller armies that use the same battle plan. But emergence appears again and again, finding the skills and pinch point to win.

Say you are playing a sport where the officials are making sure nobody cheats and all play by the same rules, will the game always be boring? The answer is no. Say we put together a game of ball, where we have a few ringers and many low skilled players, would the game be boring? Or would the game be more interesting if all the players were more tightly bunched with respect to their skill levels? From the point of view of the players, it gets boring playing against low skilled players or against players who are too good. The first doesn't challenge you or bring out your best, and the second never gives you a chance to practice your skills and improve. If the players are closer, the game can be exciting for all. The game of life is no different. If life is a battlefield instead of a game, the rules of war are different. There is no such thing as cheating. There is no requirement for a fair fight, since only winning the battle and war matter. But games are more fun and much more relaxing.

I have listened to both conservative and liberal talk radio. There is a difference. The conservative talk shows tend to slant a little more toward fresh logic and argument, while the liberal tends to slant a little more toward emotional appeal. Emotional appeal tends to get old faster, while fresh logic and argument seems to allow continuous nuance that makes it interesting. I am not saying conservative radio doesn't also use emotional appeal, but it tries to balance this with enough new ideas and logic to keep from getting stale. Rather than complain or try to use the government to force equal time, liberal radio should use the Rush template by doing their research and coming up with new angles to say the same thing.