Aqua, you don’t understand the comment about the “market”. It is the people deciding what to buy in aggregate, Or what happens as a result of decisions. The “market” can never be wrong because it is what it is.

Regarding the farmer, why doesn’t he/she stock water for any dry spells or balance the cost of insurance as all farmers are on EQUAL footing that way?

You see, the axiom is absolute. Now, the gov’t distorts this by telling the farmer, We will take $ by force from your neighbor if you fail to plan for droughts, so don’t worry. THUS, as I said earlier, unless the gov’t illegally interferes, badly run businesses will fail.

Similar happens in the housing market. The Gov’t robs Peter to pay Paul (year after year) to build his house on the beach where hurricanes regularly wash away anything built.

Which is why the Founders made it ILLEGAL for the Fed Gov’t to do all those things.

Actually, I just realized that what I illustrated above is a false equivalency to your point.. A poorly run business will fail and be put out of business and replaced by another, etc., but a farmer can run his farm perfectly and still fail because of circumstances beyond his control. Your point was correct and not inclusive of circumstances beyond the business owner’s control, like the weather.

Hmmm…”The market is ALWAYS right”. For the most part, I agree with you. Some aspects of the free market could be debated though. For example, what about weather conditions that wipe out crops? Or should these farmers be solely responsible and carrying insurance for this sort of thing? I’m not knowledgeable about such matters but it would appear to me that hurricanes, floods, droughts, etc., that wipe out or severely impact crops would need some government help to stabilize the scene. But I suspect you’re not going to agree . I don’t know why I think that 🙂

The soup, silly! The kind of waves that are all roiled up and foamy. Or am I totally off in my surfer lingo? When I lived in Hawaii back in the day, that’s what my roommates boyfriends who were surfers used to call that foam. They’d say things like, “Damn, I fell in the soup”.

You got it! “Making the stupid more able to be stupid”. LOL!

Well, I can’t agree there. Someone can try to make someone else a slave but it can’t be done without the person’s agreement. Without agreement even physically captured and forcibly driven people are not slaves. Slavery is a state of mind.

Yes, wayc, the inch wives. I wouldn’t even call them “bitches” because that’s too real, too human. Dead-eyed, soul-less, heart-less …bots, I suppose – for lack of a better term. And the men are the same. There’s just nothing there, really. Hard to explain.

🙂

You’re 100% right, Wyn, I DO know that. What I had in mind but didn’t include in my comment was the orgs being subsidized by Int Mgmt, which has BILLIONS.

In other words, I was thinking with Co$ jettisoning the “each org for itself” business model and adopting instead the support system used by the Roman Catholic Church, and possibly a number of other religious organizations wherein the individual churches don’t have to completely rely on their own income (donations) but are instead supported in full or in part by the “Mother” Church or the organizations’ headquarters.

After all, in Scientology, all money flows UPWARD. If the powers that be were SERIOUS about expansion, would it make ANY sense to have ALL of the money that comes in to headquarters REMAIN there? ( A stuck flow, in Scientologese?)

Honestly, call it what you like, but this is a recipe for failure in ANY business or organization attempting expansion, i.e., .all the money that goes to headquarters STAYS there? Headquarters is rolling in dough and the orgs, the “factories” charged with producing auditors and Clears, are impoverished? Seriously, its nuts.

Of course, to change this business model would be “out admin” per Hubbard, but you know, if it were THAT important, wouldn’t they do it? Wouldn’t Co$ AT LEAST subsidize making AUDITORS? LRH did write somewhere that “purpose is senior to policy”.

And, last but not least, all of these arguments are predicated on the completely false premise that David Miscavige actually WANTS Scientology to expand, is actually sincere and honest and not an utterly devious, soul-less and amoral criminal.

So the nitty gritty is what I ALWAYS struggle to understand, to wit:

I know all of the above, you know all of the above , WE ALL DO, and yet again it comes down to the mind-blowing-to-me question of how the Still Ins don’t, or can’t figure this out, just as we have. NONE of this is complicated!

Aaaaahhhhh!!!! (Me face-palming.)