The Morality of Free Energy
Comparing and contrasting electrical "free energy" with insider-trading among stockholders.
“When considering the morality of harvesting energy from the environment and what impact this will have on the universe at large and whether or not it is ethical to do so, consider that it may be more significant as to what use the energy is put to and what is the consciousness of the user rather than worrying about the ethics or morality of taking something for free. Because, there is an expression within the realm of spirituality that goes something like this, 'to he who has received much, much is expected of him.'”
“...If the energy is freely available for the taking, then why withhold the confiscation of that energy? It's not like the universe is not capable of making up the difference for the supply which we have depleted.” .... “But what if the universe has an unlimited potentiality of supplying anything? How can morality or ethics pertain to unlimited beneficence?”
Excellent questions for discussion! [Jeane Manning suggested I pose these questions at the head of this article. Thank you, Jeane!]
Why is in-house trading among stockbrokers illegal?
AI answers…
In-house trading, when referring to stockbrokers trading securities using material non-public information (MNPI), is illegal because it fundamentally undermines the fairness and integrity of the financial markets. Here's a breakdown of the key reasons:
Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Stockbrokers have a fiduciary duty to act in their clients' best interests. Using MNPI for personal gain constitutes a breach of this duty, as they are putting their own interests ahead of those they are entrusted to advise and represent.
Unfair Advantage: Trading on MNPI provides an unfair advantage over other market participants who don't have access to the same information. This can lead to significant financial losses for those on the other side of the trade.
Erosion of Market Confidence: If insider trading were allowed, investors would lose trust in the fairness of the market, potentially causing them to withdraw their investments and destabilizing the entire system.
Market Manipulation: In-house trading based on MNPI can also be considered a form of market manipulation. By trading on privileged information, brokers can artificially influence stock prices, creating a false impression of market activity.
Violation of Securities Laws: The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and subsequent regulations, enforced by the SEC, explicitly prohibit the use of MNPI for trading purposes. These laws are designed to protect investors and maintain fair and orderly markets.
Important Note: It's crucial to distinguish between legal and illegal insider trading. Insiders (such as executives, directors, or major shareholders) can legally buy and sell their company's stock, but these transactions must be:
Based on public information.
Disclosed to the SEC within specified timeframes.
Conducted in accordance with company policies and established trading plans (like Rule 10b5-1 plans).
Illegal insider trading, on the other hand, involves trading based on confidential information that gives an individual an unfair advantage in the market. The penalties for such violations can be severe, including substantial fines and imprisonment.
References
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/insidertrading.asp
https://www.easyllama.com/blog/why-insider-trading-is-illegal
https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/stock-market-manipulation
https://www.comply.com/resource/managing-conflicts-of-interest-in-financial-services/
https://www.defender.law/blog/2024/01/is-insider-trading-always-illegal/
https://www.classlawgroup.com/securities-fraud/stock/market-manipulation
AI answers…
Considering the legality and morality of in-house trading among stockbrokers on a cosmological scale leads to some interesting philosophical reflections:
1. Universality of Ethical Principles:
Do ethics apply beyond human society? Expanding the scale forces us to consider whether ethical principles like fairness and justice, which underpin laws against insider trading, apply to other potential intelligent life or even to the cosmos itself.
A “cosmic ethic” might exist, emphasizing self-sacrifice and nonviolence, as suggested by one philosophical exploration of theology and cosmology.
2. Scale and Perspective:
From a vast cosmic viewpoint, individual actions like insider trading appear insignificant. However, this perspective also reminds us that even small actions can have ripple effects.
The pursuit of profit and efficiency, while perhaps justifiable on a human scale, might seem trivial when considering the universe's ultimate goals or potential for good.
The cosmic perspective encourages us to seek understanding and wisdom, rather than just focusing on personal gain.
3. Fairness and Equality in a Cosmic Context:
Insider trading is considered unfair because it grants an advantage to those with access to non-public information.
On a cosmic scale, if there were a “universal market” or resource distribution system, ethical considerations of fairness and equality would be paramount.
The cosmic perspective challenges the human-centric idea that our species is at the center of the universe, implying that other potential life forms or entities should also be treated fairly.
4. The Difficulty of Applying Human Morality to the Cosmos:
Ethical frameworks are based on human experience and societal structures.
Applying these concepts to the cosmos is challenging. It requires abstract thought and potentially new ways of understanding moral principles.
A “cosmic perspective” that transcends traditional human notions of right and wrong might be needed, acknowledging the interconnectedness of all things.
Viewing insider trading from a cosmological scale raises questions about ethics, fairness, and the significance of human actions in the context of the universe. This prompts consideration of universal moral principles and the implications of choices beyond the immediate environment.
References
the cosmic perspective, kinship with the universe
why insider trading is illegal
the essential cosmic perspective
moral nature of the universe – Amazon
ethical considerations in cosmological research
cosmic discovery and human significance
the ethical dimensions of simulation theory versus creation
analysis of scales and measures of moral virtues
insider trading: what would Rawls do?
the information content of indirect insider trading
Editorial commentary…
When considering the morality of harvesting energy from the environment and what impact this will have on the universe at large and whether or not it is ethical to do so, consider that it may be more significant as to what use the energy is put to and what is the consciousness of the user rather than worrying about the ethics or morality of taking something for free. Because, there is an expression within the realm of spirituality that goes something like this, “to he who has received much, much is expected of him.”
In other words, we can pay for something up front with our consciousness or we can pay for it afterwards with our good karma. Either way, we will pay.
But if the energy is freely available for the taking, then why withhold the confiscation of that energy? It's not like the universe is not capable of making up the difference for the supply which we have depleted.
The ethics, or the morality, of taking something without paying somebody for it is a man-made contrivance predicated on the presumption that there is a limited supply of that thing and getting it for free might prohibit somebody else from getting it who may need it to a greater degree than oneself.
But what if the universe has an unlimited potentiality of supplying anything? How can morality or ethics pertain to unlimited beneficence?
You may want to consider whether or not Christ magnified the loaves and the fishes immediately prior to his giving His Sermon on the Mount, or whether or not Christ changed water into wine or raised the dead?
Is this a fairy tale, or is this a scientific fact, or science fiction?
Did He not say, “Greater things than I do, ye shall do?”
It may be worth considering that voltage is a potentiality of unlimited scale whose cost of magnification is insignificant. This is due to reactance possessing a similar potentiality of unlimited scale whose cost, although not zero, is clearly next to nothing.
Unlike voltage, current entails a cost when it is drained from a source exterior to oneself. So, this is where the morality comes into play, but is not involved with voltage, nor is it involved with reactance.
In fact, it's no mistake or coincidence that we name the object which represents the flow of our money with the word “currency” as it relates to the movement of wealth.
Like monetary currency, electric current is a form of wealth while voltage and reactance are potentialities for manipulating electric wealth.
This technology of manipulating electrical wealth is freely available to everyone regardless of who they are and whether or not they think they deserve it.
This is how the morality question comes into play when anyone begins to question whether or not they deserve, or have sufficient grace, to receive energy for free without paying for it.
But did not Christ say, “in My Father's House are many rooms. I go, now, to prepare a place for you. Ask, and you will receive. Up until now, you have not asked. Ask, now, that your joy may be full.”
I think socialism is the result of deciding in favor of such questions about what role we play in the universe and whether that role should be a competitive role of privilege that we have to pay for, or is it a role of grace in which we look out for one another.
https://tinyurl.com/apairofdeadbatteries2
Better than a pair of dead batteries are a pair of shaded solar cells (used for powering pocket calculators) since dead batteries eventually become fully charged making them useless for any further charging.
https://tinyurl.com/apairofshadedsolarcells
All we want is their voltage and not much voltage at that! The current will be provided by this circuit’s ground connection (in the lower right corner of the schematic). Its scopes are highlighted in blue to focus our attention on its periodic strobe pattern of current and its zero wattage due to this circuit’s connection to Earth ground is referencing a zero potential measured as zero volts.
Thanks go to Byron Brubaker, an electrical engineer from Wabash, Indiana, who initially gave this advice to Joseph Newman, but Newman refused to replace his dry cell batteries with solar cells at the constant expense of having to replace his batteries since they’re not intended to suffer from any attempt to recharge them. They’re intended for single-usage and consequent disposal and replacement.
And thanks go to David Bowling who has a keen interest in recharging and reviving dead batteries. You can find him under his pseudonym of “Turion” on Energetic Forum.
Simulated Models of Neon Bulbs and Transformers
From the standpoint of an electronic simulator, Earth can be represented by a voltage source whose voltage possesses the value of zero volts. From the simulator’s points of view, an earth ground poss…
Thanks for reading Is Free Energy for Real?! This post is public so feel free to share it.
Vinyasi, your editorial commentary says it best, so why bury your commentary at the end?
"When considering the morality of harvesting energy from the environment and what impact this will have on the universe at large and whether or not it is ethical to do so, consider that it may be more significant as to what use the energy is put to and what is the consciousness of the user rather than worrying about the ethics or morality of taking something for free. Because, there is an expression within the realm of spirituality that goes something like this, 'to he who has received much, much is expected of him.'”
"...If the energy is freely available for the taking, then why withhold the confiscation of that energy? It's not like the universe is not capable of making up the difference for the supply which we have depleted." ...."But what if the universe has an unlimited potentiality of supplying anything? How can morality or ethics pertain to unlimited beneficence?" Excellent questions for discussion!
I put it at the end for dramatic effect and also because I've had the experience with my critics that if I put such commentary at the beginning, then they'll stop reading and ignore the remainder.
Thanks for your compliments! I've had nothing but criticism for the past few weeks because I chose to go to a critical location for the stimulating conversation and, girl, did I get it!
But it was worth it...
It was like hiking up a mountain slope only sweatier, hahaha!