Kropotkin is here… for your taxes!
At least somebody answered the particular question.
K: I trust you know the person I purposely named myself after…
Prince Peter Kropotkin… I was an anarchist for many years, and
I’ve read Kropotkin and Bakunin and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon…
Proudhon was the one who coined the phrase “property is theft”
and it was as simple step to “taxes are theft”…
I am still an anarchist at heart…and probably will be all my life…
with that said, I also understand that we don’t have complete freedom…
you don’t and I don’t and no one does… the freedom that we have in this
society is limited… and no one complains about that… you cannot shout
fire in a crowed theater…and we also accept that we have other limitations
in the state… we must obey the law… we must stop at stop signs…
to drive a car we need a licence…and there are punishments for not obeying
the law…we have a society… and we are a civilization… Just like ancient Rome
and Egypt and Greek…what did those civilizations have? a strong central
government…in fact, to be considered to be a civilization, one must have
a strong central government…and what makes up a civilization?
Roads and schools and hospitals and sewage plants and policeman
and garbage men…each of these play their role in making up
a civilization…to those like you who ask for, no demand the benefits
of civilization without having to pay for it, I say shame…
and to pay for all that civilization?
how else would you pay for all the benefits you get from civilization?
if you don’t like to pay for these benefits, I am sure you are most welcomed
to go to Somalia or some other African nation that is barely functional
and doesn’t have the infrastructure of a civilization…
I like my civilization and its infrastructure that allows me to live in
peace and prosperity…and to get that all civilization and infrastructure
I gotta pay for it… and I am ok with that…it is too bad you are selfish to
want the benefits of civilization without having to pay for it…
Kropotkin
Good for you, Peter, good for you.
I think we have our own Peter-the-Great here!
20% of those who have income pay 80% of the income tax; 20% of the employees of a company are responsible for 80% of the profit; 20% of the products of a supermarket represent 80% of the sales; 20% of the scientists get 80% of the quotations, 20% of the scientists write 80% of the scientific texts. And just: 80% of the links on the internet point to 20% of the webpages. So the 80%/20% distribution concerns the world wide web as well. 20% of all internet links attrac 80% of all internet links.
80% of all (currently 45800) ILP posts exist because of the fact that 20% of all ILP posts exist. 20% of all ILP posts deliver 80% of all really philosophical (which are a few) ILP posts. And if we assume that the number of the ILP main-posters (those ILP members who are mainly posting, regardless in which of the ILP subforums) is about 40, then 32 (80%) out of 40 (100%) main-posters post on ILP because of 8 (20%) out of 40 (100%) main-posters. This also means that this 8 ILP members are the only ones who really deserve to be called “philosophers”. But perhaps the number of the ILP main-posters is not 40, but 20, so that merely 4 ILP members are the only ones who really deserve to be called “philosophers”. 
[tab]I estimate that the average number of the really philosophical ILP posts per day is about 1.5.
Before becoming astouned, you should note that this “1.5 ILP posts per day” also mean “more than 9000 ILP posts since the bginning of ILP in 2001”.[/tab]
Right, most are here to consume and imbibe wisdom. The production of philosophy is rarer and requires distinct characteristics of individuals. Artistry is involved on many levels. But of course the core value is Reason. Without reasoning, advanced thought, then philosophy does not go far. And it is the reasoning faculty that, by popular decree, separates humanity from mere animals. Thus the ability to reason must not be underestimated.
Great philosophers are remarkable and easily recognized by such raw abilities. Philosophers have put the most amount of thought, reason, and examination into the most pivotal and important questions of life. Thus it seems that wisdom overflows from philosophers, and then consumed by the masses. Religion eventually stepped between the two and mediated the relationship between wisdom, wise men, and those of the general public. The religious agents of previous millenniums also became ‘politicians’. Thus religious agents and politicians are very much the enforcers of wisdom. And the wisdom they use has been garnered and collected from sources across centuries.
Consumers place trust in philosophers and philosophy, without even realizing it. It won’t make sense to many why and how they believe in god, or their world views, or hold core values, or have a distinct metaphysics. And the masses don’t really need to make sense of it. Because there is the action of life (representing the Body), versus the contemplation of life (representing the Mind).
A most fundamental lesson is obvious. If your thoughts betray you. If you are wrong and false. Then anything you do with your body, your actions throughout life, will be flawed as well. Any ‘good’ you accomplish would be pure accident, because it was never from what you originally intended (from false premises). This is how people invert their perspective and values, and end up justifying their means in reverse.
Some people, who give up on intelligence and thinking early in life, will then speak much about luck and fortune. That whether anybody does good, bad, or evil, is merely fate rather than what people intend.
Those with the highest intelligence, however, recognizing the causes and reasons underneath existence, will know better. It’s not a matter of luck. It’s a matter of understanding.
K: besides me, I wonder who the other three are? :-"
Kropotkin
Here are the other three:
:-"
Pandora, you seem to be describing cunning here ~~ not wisdom.
Wisdom to me has more to do with the natural and right flow of a moral and ethical life and how to carry that out for the good of all.
Wisdom has the maturity and intelligence to carefully and deliberately do no harm but to do the greatest good.
The other is again cunning.
So what would you say, surreptitious, is the missing link or ingredient here - whereby a wise one will have knowledge but the knowledgeable one may not be wise?
What does wise Yoda have to give to the brilliant student?
Arc wrote,
I don’t see the connection between “natural”, “ethical”, “good for all” and “do no harm”. The closest concept to that in nature would be balance, but that has nothing to do with any of the other concepts. For instance, in nature, balance may imply harm to many. The problem with man is that he always sees himself as an exception. He IS nature and all is made in harmony with his views, which he then calls wisdom.
I come here to spar, to try to get people to poke holes in my philosophy and to test how it will hold up to the kind of thinking or otherwise that others might apply to it. I try to doubt my thoughts as much as possible as I gather them together, but there will always be ways of which I do not think and I want my ways to be as infallible as possible.
Urwrongx1000, urwrongx1000. I think you speak for your self 
A good post.
I’m just here to try and gentrify this place and to leave nuggets of my wisdom for you guys to consume. No need to thank me. Your consumption of said nuggets over the years is thanks enough.
I don’t click on youtube or link responses.
If you want to respond then go ahead with text.
Here’s an example of human wisdom in action, for the good of all:
newatlas.com/dna-vaccine-flu-universal/52768/
Nobody wants to accept the possibility that epidemics might be a nature’s way to restore population balance. But, no, human life is too precious. We better turn everybody gay, instead.
You may have a point about my having inserted the word “natural” there along with " right flow of a moral and ethical life and how to carry that out for the good of all."
Perhaps there is nothing which comes natural to the second part of that.
Leading a moral and ethical life is not necessarily that natural or easy or without struggle.
Balance is a good word but I do not know, Pandora. Balance may not be the answer to everything but my subjective thinking is that it can help the cause of a moral and ethical life as opposed to being a hedonist and a narcissist who cares nothing for anyone.
True, in nature balance can imply harm to others. If you are speaking for instance of survival of the fittest in the animal kingdom, there is no morality or ethics there. Just nature being nature. Yes, there is harm to many unfortunately but there is also gain to many, no?
Animals are experimented on (I love animals) so that humans can lead a disease-free and healthy life. I cannot be reconciled to that either way. I just do not know what the answer is except for as much compassion as possible and as you say -balance. Too simplistic though, right?
There are no easy answers. Perhaps all we can do is try to find more of a balance.
Can we do better than that? I do not know.
This one kind of has me stymied. I can go along with that in part, Pandora.
At the same time, do you think that there can be a difference between actual wisdom and one who strives to exercise that, to be that ~~ and ~~ what would be considered to be someone else’s own brand of so-called wisdom or the right thing to do - if that made sense to you.
Maybe it all comes down to how much we want to utilize our consciousness and conscience.
There are so many questions without answers.
One of the greatet movie quotes of all time. 