What is a libertarian?

[Moonbeam]

D:

1. The Hobbesian myth of the 'warre' of all against all.

2. The myth of 'rule of law.'

3. The myth of absolute authority.

These are the three myths that I call the 'tripod of authoritarianism.' Although, the more sophisticated apologist of the state would replace myth 1 with an enhanced Hobbesian myth based on game theory. I call this myth 'Hobbes 2.0.'

M: Unfortunately I can't make heads or tails of this.

D: I was referring to the kind of society in which everyone knows everyone else.

I wonder, then if the problem is anonymity itself or scale though it could be something I haven't thought of. But if anonymity the spread of access to Big Brother data bases ought to remedy anonymity.

D: It leads pretty much nowhere. What I will say though is that there is a mutual understanding among most individuals as to what constitutes property. Sounds like mutual understanding could be replaced by shared delusional state or mass psychosis.

 

[ryudo]

Political libertarianism is essentially what this country was founded on. It is to favor limited government, property rights, free markets, and individual liberty. It is to be deeply skeptical of state power. Broadly speaking, political libertarianism is a combination of the economic right and the social left.

This is a libertarian group blog:

http://www.catallarchy.net/blog/

Check out some of the "popular entries" on the sidebar.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
M: Unfortunately I can't make heads or tails of this.

Why not? What do you not understand?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Votingisanillusion

Originally posted by: Vic
Yaknow, while the economic and "wage slave" issues, etc. are being forced forward, I guess I may as well address them.
It is considered desirable in the US to have a constantly "booming" economy, i.e. one that is continually growing. However, the primary symptom of a booming economy is overproduction. More is produced than is consumed. This is actually an economic inefficiency that becomes increasingly unhealthy as it creates a "spread" of wealth disparity leading to excessive credit load and inflation. The end result of a prolonged boom (or any economic inefficiency) is a bust or depression, followed by deflation. Hence, America's cycles of booms and busts. Ironically, the primary institution excerbating this problem in the US is that most un-capitalist of institutions created to stop these cycles, and the single powerful financial institution in the US today (if not the world). I am referring of course to the Federal Reserve Bank, a government-charted privately-owned cartel of elite bankers who have been given an unconstitutional* monopoly over the country currency and money supply.

* Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 5: "The Congress shall have Power To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"

"wage slave" issue not addressed!

Actually I did, just not in any detail. Overproduction means that total purchasing power of the consuming public is less than the total sales value of the goods produced for consumption. In other words, an artificial shortage of money in the marketplace created by our government and the elite bankers through the Federal Reserve. In "salarymen" or "wage slaves" (as your call them), this shortage is made up for with the availability of credit, or debt instruments placing a lien on the future purchasing power of the consumer and that with considerable interest. Through the system of fractional reserve banking, whereby a bank lends out considerably more than it has on deposit or reserve, banks essentially create money they don't have to lend at profit, using the spread of overproduction and their unconstitutional control of the money supply to place the public in their debt. The Federal Reserve, in particular, holds the entire country in debt and excerbates that situation by encouraging continued inflation, an ironic word that actually means the purchasing power of the public is steadily decreasing.
Does this make sense to you? And this is not a free market system, nor the system which our Founding Fathers intended. This is a fix as crooked as a shell game run by street hustlers, except the hustlers are the elite bankers and their bought politicians who, through the ignorance of the general public, abuse the democratic system to their favor, as ANY unlimited democratic system will always allow them to do.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Vic
And this is not a free market system, nor the system which our Founding Fathers intended. This is a fix as crooked as a shell game run by street hustlers, except the hustlers are the elite bankers and their bought politicians who through the ignorance of the general public abuse the democratic system to their favor, as ANY unlimited democratic system will always allow them to do.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

An article on the scam known as fractional reserve banking.

 

[iamskew]

Libertarians are practical anarchists. Most people are libertarians, they just don't know it because they're too busy rooting for the "better" team of the two that matter in today's politics.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Votingisanillusion

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Votingisanillusion
When you say "free market", you mean a free capitalist market. Freedom for corporations. Democracy is about freedom for the people. Corporations are structures within which most people are not free: they do not democratically decide how to run their workplace, they have to obey in a pyramidal authoritarian structure at the top of which we find the capitalists. So of course corporations limit the freedom of most people at least eight hours a day. Democracy would be much deeper is the workplace was entirely democratic: democracy would then be a daily experience. Today we can very well see how much capitalism corrupts democracy.
As for Parenti: as anyone else, he is not perfect. Most of what he writes is very interesting, as pointed by the top 1000 reviewer who severely criticizes him.

No, I mean a free market. As in a market that operates with a minimum of government interference except for protection from fraud, theft, corruption, crimes, etc. How the market decides to organize itself is up to itself, but of course it will be meritocratic. Making money and paying bills is not a popularity contest. If it were, it would be even more corrupt.
You have ideals about democracy which are not based in reality, or lessons from history. I have found that to be not unusual from people who claim to be believe in freedom and democracy on one hand and authoritarianism and communism/socialism on the other. Comes from trying to have your cake and eat it too. You see, democracy is not about freedom for the people. It is about control by the people. The 2 are not the same, and freedom is not an inherent quality of democracy.

That is what I said: you do not value freedom very highly. You just want more for yourself: you call that meritocracy; you are just greedily materialistic. Owning more than the majority is more important for you than the freedom of the others: your freedom to be a master and/or own more is more important than democracy in the workplace. You oppose direct democracy and meritocracy, as if direct democracy could not value merit, although many people agree that for example doctors deserve to earn more than the majority. The problem is that how merit is valued and how that is translated into money is decided by a tiny minority of the people, without a vote by the majority of the people who work and produce the majority of the wealth. You are not democratic. You are just a greedy person who refuses to view oneself in full light.
And of course you keep on repeating that a person who is much more democratic than you is authoritarian; that is so typical of the inversion of reality too often spilled out by neuroses.
You are just pathologically narcissistic: you want more for yourself and at the same time you want to have a good image of yourself.
As for the dumbing-down and the brainwashing of people: when workers owned many media a century ago, their media were enlightening them. Now that the media are owned by a few authoritarian billionaires and corporations, the media have become tools to brainwash and dumb-down people.

Personal wealth is not run by democracy.

 

[Votingisanillusion]

Personal wealth is not run by democracy.

How is this personal wealth created?
If it is directly creted by your own work (example: you cut wood and build your home yourself): fine.
If it is created through authoritarian power over wage slaves, who you undemocratically decide deserve to earn far less money than your narcissistic self for every hour of work: not fine by me.
Anyway, accumulating a lot of materialistic properties is some kind of madness: the planet Earth does not belong to us. We are on it for a minuscule fraction of the time it has been floating around the Sun. If wealth is more flatly spread through democratic sharing of what is produced and what exists, it may help a lot of people become far less alienated, and lead more meaningful lives.

 

[agentbad]

i don't really understand the logic in calling libertarians anarchists...if there isn't a gov't of the people, the one of nature is still in place. anarchy would be like a GTA simulator or worse. so far the rules of man have already been set it place by science but you can't worship something you don't have all the pieces too ie. scientology. the real problem is i don't think it's really possible to be a pure anarchist by thought or action. yes, you can go around murdering people, and eating babies. however, you still have to eat food and water to survive even if you are crazy or a republican. this makes you mortal and finite. further, some people even think when you die god gives you a free lunch if you say your sorry and kiss his holy ass. maybe god is the only true anarchist since he/she/it makes the rules that define anything and everything. maybe god is the only true government/dictatorship.

maybe we have too much time on our hands to be debating what peoples political views are and need a good dictatorship to step in and say stfu and do this or you don't eat. i guess you just find what works for you and try to find that happiness people keep talking about. if you can't find it then you submit and join a political party.

 

[Votingisanillusion]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Votingisanillusion

Originally posted by: Vic
Yaknow, while the economic and "wage slave" issues, etc. are being forced forward, I guess I may as well address them.
It is considered desirable in the US to have a constantly "booming" economy, i.e. one that is continually growing. However, the primary symptom of a booming economy is overproduction. More is produced than is consumed. This is actually an economic inefficiency that becomes increasingly unhealthy as it creates a "spread" of wealth disparity leading to excessive credit load and inflation. The end result of a prolonged boom (or any economic inefficiency) is a bust or depression, followed by deflation. Hence, America's cycles of booms and busts. Ironically, the primary institution excerbating this problem in the US is that most un-capitalist of institutions created to stop these cycles, and the single powerful financial institution in the US today (if not the world). I am referring of course to the Federal Reserve Bank, a government-charted privately-owned cartel of elite bankers who have been given an unconstitutional* monopoly over the country currency and money supply.

* Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 5: "The Congress shall have Power To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"

"wage slave" issue not addressed!

Actually I did, just not in any detail. Overproduction means that total purchasing power of the consuming public is less than the total sales value of the goods produced for consumption. In other words, an artificial shortage of money in the marketplace created by our government and the elite bankers through the Federal Reserve. In "salarymen" or "wage slaves" (as your call them), this shortage is made up for with the availability of credit, or debt instruments placing a lien on the future purchasing power of the consumer and that with considerable interest. Through the system of fractional reserve banking, whereby a bank lends out considerably more than it has on deposit or reserve, banks essentially create money they don't have to lend at profit, using the spread of overproduction and their unconstitutional control of the money supply to place the public in their debt. The Federal Reserve, in particular, holds the entire country in debt and excerbates that situation by encouraging continued inflation, an ironic word that actually means the purchasing power of the public is steadily decreasing.
Does this make sense to you? And this is not a free market system, nor the system which our Founding Fathers intended. This is a fix as crooked as a shell game run by street hustlers, except the hustlers are the elite bankers and their bought politicians who, through the ignorance of the general public, abuse the democratic system to their favor, as ANY unlimited democratic system will always allow them to do.

"Wage slave" issue still not addressed! Just some more mythical idealistic theoretical capitalist blahblah about how capitalism would be so beautiful without that dreaded creature of Satan called the Federal Reserve. Try to reinvent money without its corrupting power! I am watching you: if you pray hard, maybe Jesus Christ will come back to help you with this superhuman endeavor.
I prefer we get rid of money altogether.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Votingisanillusion

Originally posted by: Vic
Yaknow, while the economic and "wage slave" issues, etc. are being forced forward, I guess I may as well address them.
It is considered desirable in the US to have a constantly "booming" economy, i.e. one that is continually growing. However, the primary symptom of a booming economy is overproduction. More is produced than is consumed. This is actually an economic inefficiency that becomes increasingly unhealthy as it creates a "spread" of wealth disparity leading to excessive credit load and inflation. The end result of a prolonged boom (or any economic inefficiency) is a bust or depression, followed by deflation. Hence, America's cycles of booms and busts. Ironically, the primary institution excerbating this problem in the US is that most un-capitalist of institutions created to stop these cycles, and the single powerful financial institution in the US today (if not the world). I am referring of course to the Federal Reserve Bank, a government-charted privately-owned cartel of elite bankers who have been given an unconstitutional* monopoly over the country currency and money supply.

* Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 5: "The Congress shall have Power To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"

"wage slave" issue not addressed!

Actually I did, just not in any detail. Overproduction means that total purchasing power of the consuming public is less than the total sales value of the goods produced for consumption. In other words, an artificial shortage of money in the marketplace created by our government and the elite bankers through the Federal Reserve. In "salarymen" or "wage slaves" (as your call them), this shortage is made up for with the availability of credit, or debt instruments placing a lien on the future purchasing power of the consumer and that with considerable interest. Through the system of fractional reserve banking, whereby a bank lends out considerably more than it has on deposit or reserve, banks essentially create money they don't have to lend at profit, using the spread of overproduction and their unconstitutional control of the money supply to place the public in their debt. The Federal Reserve, in particular, holds the entire country in debt and excerbates that situation by encouraging continued inflation, an ironic word that actually means the purchasing power of the public is steadily decreasing.
Does this make sense to you? And this is not a free market system, nor the system which our Founding Fathers intended. This is a fix as crooked as a shell game run by street hustlers, except the hustlers are the elite bankers and their bought politicians who, through the ignorance of the general public, abuse the democratic system to their favor, as ANY unlimited democratic system will always allow them to do.

Isn't this something like the notion surfacing here?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Votingisanillusion

Originally posted by: Vic
Yaknow, while the economic and "wage slave" issues, etc. are being forced forward, I guess I may as well address them.
It is considered desirable in the US to have a constantly "booming" economy, i.e. one that is continually growing. However, the primary symptom of a booming economy is overproduction. More is produced than is consumed. This is actually an economic inefficiency that becomes increasingly unhealthy as it creates a "spread" of wealth disparity leading to excessive credit load and inflation. The end result of a prolonged boom (or any economic inefficiency) is a bust or depression, followed by deflation. Hence, America's cycles of booms and busts. Ironically, the primary institution excerbating this problem in the US is that most un-capitalist of institutions created to stop these cycles, and the single powerful financial institution in the US today (if not the world). I am referring of course to the Federal Reserve Bank, a government-charted privately-owned cartel of elite bankers who have been given an unconstitutional* monopoly over the country currency and money supply.

* Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 5: "The Congress shall have Power To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"

"wage slave" issue not addressed!

Actually I did, just not in any detail. Overproduction means that total purchasing power of the consuming public is less than the total sales value of the goods produced for consumption. In other words, an artificial shortage of money in the marketplace created by our government and the elite bankers through the Federal Reserve. In "salarymen" or "wage slaves" (as your call them), this shortage is made up for with the availability of credit, or debt instruments placing a lien on the future purchasing power of the consumer and that with considerable interest. Through the system of fractional reserve banking, whereby a bank lends out considerably more than it has on deposit or reserve, banks essentially create money they don't have to lend at profit, using the spread of overproduction and their unconstitutional control of the money supply to place the public in their debt. The Federal Reserve, in particular, holds the entire country in debt and excerbates that situation by encouraging continued inflation, an ironic word that actually means the purchasing power of the public is steadily decreasing.
Does this make sense to you? And this is not a free market system, nor the system which our Founding Fathers intended. This is a fix as crooked as a shell game run by street hustlers, except the hustlers are the elite bankers and their bought politicians who, through the ignorance of the general public, abuse the democratic system to their favor, as ANY unlimited democratic system will always allow them to do.

Isn't this something like the notion surfacing here?

Fractional reserve would happen under any market system you can imagine, except an authoritarian system that outlawed it. Any bank that didn't practice fractional reserve would go out of business.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
M: Unfortunately I can't make heads or tails of this.

Why not? What do you not understand?

1. The Hobbesian myth of the 'warre' of all against all.

2. The myth of 'rule of law.'

3. The myth of absolute authority.

These are the three myths that I call the 'tripod of authoritarianism.' Although, the more sophisticated apologist of the state would replace myth 1 with an enhanced Hobbesian myth based on game theory. I call this myth 'Hobbes 2.0.'

Dang, I just lost the post where I answered this in detail, but the bottom line is that I don't know any of these myths by these names. You are not talking in concepts but definitions pinned to them. I do not know your language.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I guess I am less interested in a word definition as what it is that makes them tick. What about traditional right and left causes them not really to fit, not that I really know what the left and right are. What do libertarians feel? That sort of thing if indeed that makes any sense. What are a libertarian's basic assumptions? How do they see the world...etc.

I took one of those political alignment tests, and it said I am a Liberal Libertarian. I don't know what that is, but let's run with it.

I view govt as a needed evil. There is nothing inherently evil about govt in the abstract, however the present administration shows why I do not trust it. Whoever wields the One Ring of governmental power must be watched closely. I therefore want a government who interferes minimally, however when it does so it needs to represent the interests of the people, and not just the favored.

I like social safety nets, however there are limits. Arguing that one is entitled to a monthly check when there is no need goes no where with me. On the other hand there are those who need a hand. I'll pay taxes to get people on their feet, to build roads, to do what needs to be done. I'll do so for the poor, the ailing, the elderly.

I don't like the idea of governments forcing people to think in the "favored" way. If people are ignorant, then so be it as long as they don't seek to use their free speech to incite violence. What good is free speech if the only speech allowed is what is popular? It has been said that a free country is one where it is safe to hold unpopular views, and that would be ones I disagree with.

It's sort of a golden rule. How would I want to be treated? What do I want out of a society? That is what I would have for others.

Does that make me a liberal libertarian? I have no idea. It's what seems right to me.

Nice post. I agree, as that's pretty much indicative of my political views, and what I imagine "libertarian" should mean. Unfortunately, the libertarian party itself is a haven for fundamentalist whackos and disaffected republicans who dont like the neocon spending. I have very little to nothing in common with those folks because their viewpoints are way too extreme.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Votingisanillusion
"Wage slave" issue still not addressed! Just some more mythical idealistic theoretical capitalist blahblah about how capitalism would be so beautiful without that dreaded creature of Satan called the Federal Reserve. Try to reinvent money without its corrupting power! I am watching you: if you pray hard, maybe Jesus Christ will come back to help you with this superhuman endeavor.
I prefer we get rid of money altogether.

And you are still trolling with mindless stupidity. I did explain the issue, you just can't read it seems.
BTW, Cambodia tried outlawing money in 1976. Just 3 years later, at least 2 million people, roughly 25% of the population, were dead, either from murder or starvation.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
Unfortunately, the libertarian party itself is a haven for fundamentalist whackos and disaffected republicans who dont like the neocon spending. I have very little to nothing in common with those folks because their viewpoints are way too extreme.

:roll:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Fractional reserve would happen under any market system you can imagine, except an authoritarian system that outlawed it. Any bank that didn't practice fractional reserve would go out of business.

Fractional reserve is only a small part of the issue. Apparently the point of my post was missed.

Let's try this again: Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 5: "The Congress shall have Power To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Fractional reserve would happen under any market system you can imagine, except an authoritarian system that outlawed it. Any bank that didn't practice fractional reserve would go out of business.

Fractional reserve is only a small part of the issue. Apparently the point of my post was missed.

Let's try this again: Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 5: "The Congress shall have Power To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"

Oh that's fine - a government monopoly on currency isn't necessary, though at times it may be useful as a matter of trust and inter-operability.

Only when the government uses printed money to pay down debts through inflation, is there a major probem, and arms-length federal banks should look after this (of course they haven't; America has devalued its currency a number of times to reduce the value of foreign debts).

To be honest, I'm not sure of the best solution; you want to have a currency that is widely accepted, but physical goods like gold are just as prone to inflation/deflation issues as paper money (Dissipate's argument here is hilarious - because gold has appreciated by something like 40-50% in the lst two years, this somehow makes it a stable currency!).

You want something universally accepted, and trustworthy, but there isn't anything in nature that is like this. Government currency is certainly prone to abuses, but it's hard to imagine a private money-provider putting more effort than the Feds do into keeping money secure.

You're right, fractional reserve isn't the whole problem; it's not even part of the problem.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Fractional reserve would happen under any market system you can imagine, except an authoritarian system that outlawed it. Any bank that didn't practice fractional reserve would go out of business.

Fractional reserve is only a small part of the issue. Apparently the point of my post was missed.

Let's try this again: Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 5: "The Congress shall have Power To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"

Oh that's fine - a government monopoly on currency isn't necessary, though at times it may be useful as a matter of trust and inter-operability.

Only when the government uses printed money to pay down debts through inflation, is there a major probem, and arms-length federal banks should look after this (of course they haven't; America has devalued its currency a number of times to reduce the value of foreign debts).

To be honest, I'm not sure of the best solution; you want to have a currency that is widely accepted, but physical goods like gold are just as prone to inflation/deflation issues as paper money (Dissipate's argument here is hilarious - because gold has appreciated by something like 40-50% in the lst two years, this somehow makes it a stable currency!).

You want something universally accepted, and trustworthy, but there isn't anything in nature that is like this. Government currency is certainly prone to abuses, but it's hard to imagine a private money-provider putting more effort than the Feds do into keeping money secure.

You're right, fractional reserve isn't the whole problem; it's not even part of the problem.

Your argument is contradictory. It's not gold that is unstable, it's our paper money. It's not just that gold has gone up, it's that our paper money has gone down (done intentionally by the Bush admin to reduce our foreign debts).
The primary problem with the Fed is that everytime our economy increases in value or our paper money decreases in value we have to go back to the Fed to borrow from them. They create money "out of the inkwell" to lend to us and burden us with debt. You see, money is the ONE thing that government should control entirely, because it is the one thing that the people are truly collective about. Money is a debt from all of us to all of us. Giving control of that debt to an elite few is fascism, pure and simple.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Fractional reserve would happen under any market system you can imagine, except an authoritarian system that outlawed it. Any bank that didn't practice fractional reserve would go out of business.

Fractional reserve is only a small part of the issue. Apparently the point of my post was missed.

Let's try this again: Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 5: "The Congress shall have Power To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"

Oh that's fine - a government monopoly on currency isn't necessary, though at times it may be useful as a matter of trust and inter-operability.

Only when the government uses printed money to pay down debts through inflation, is there a major probem, and arms-length federal banks should look after this (of course they haven't; America has devalued its currency a number of times to reduce the value of foreign debts).

To be honest, I'm not sure of the best solution; you want to have a currency that is widely accepted, but physical goods like gold are just as prone to inflation/deflation issues as paper money (Dissipate's argument here is hilarious - because gold has appreciated by something like 40-50% in the lst two years, this somehow makes it a stable currency!).

You want something universally accepted, and trustworthy, but there isn't anything in nature that is like this. Government currency is certainly prone to abuses, but it's hard to imagine a private money-provider putting more effort than the Feds do into keeping money secure.

You're right, fractional reserve isn't the whole problem; it's not even part of the problem.

Your argument is contradictory. It's not gold that is unstable, it's our paper money. It's not just that gold has gone up, it's that our paper money has gone down (done intentionally by the Bush admin to reduce our foreign debts).
The primary problem with the Fed is that everytime our economy increases in value or our paper money decreases in value we have to go back to the Fed to borrow from them. They create money "out of the inkwell" to lend to us and burden us with debt. You see, money is the ONE thing that government should control entirely, because it is the one thing that the people are truly collective about. Money is a debt from all of us to all of us. Giving control of that debt to an elite few is fascism, pure and simple.

You need to prevent the hyperinflation of government spending 'created' money into the economy; mybe the best way is with a fed that works on a budget so tht no one there cn make an extra penny by printing more or less money.

If I trusted government without oversight, I would say you're completely right.

 

[Votingisanillusion]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Votingisanillusion
"Wage slave" issue still not addressed! Just some more mythical idealistic theoretical capitalist blahblah about how capitalism would be so beautiful without that dreaded creature of Satan called the Federal Reserve. Try to reinvent money without its corrupting power! I am watching you: if you pray hard, maybe Jesus Christ will come back to help you with this superhuman endeavor.
I prefer we get rid of money altogether.

And you are still trolling with mindless stupidity. I did explain the issue, you just can't read it seems.
BTW, Cambodia tried outlawing money in 1976. Just 3 years later, at least 2 million people, roughly 25% of the population, were dead, either from murder or starvation.

As if wage slaves did not exist anywhere on Earth before Satan offered America the Federal Reserve for X-mas.
As if Cambodians died because of a financial reform. A dictatorship killed them. Direct democracy without capitalist money would be interesting: it would lead to the creation of alternatives. Many such alternatives are currently used locally in many countries, and they killed noone.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Votingisanillusion
As if wage slaves did not exist anywhere on Earth before Satan offered America the Federal Reserve for X-mas.
As if Cambodians died because of a financial reform. A dictatorship killed them. Direct democracy without capitalist money would be interesting: it would lead to the creation of alternatives. Many such alternatives are currently used locally in many countries, and they killed noone.

Do you always just use ignorant talking points as your method of arguing? It doesn't make you right, it just makes you sound like a stupid asshole.

"Wage slaves" is a null term. A political incitement that has nothing to do with the reality of economics. The very concept was devised from Marx, the genius who was wrong about everything, who hinged his entire flawed idea of economics on the premise that the value of any given thing is worth the amount of time in labor it takes to create it. As though efficiency, productivity, and intelligence/technique don't count!! As if you could labor picking your nose, mining for little nuggets of "gold," and they would be worth the exact same amount as real gold that took the exact same amount of time and labor to produce. This false logic, and the mysticism that an inanimate abstract concept like money is somehow evil, is the beginning of where you are wrong about everything. And you try to make mocking religious jabs at me! :roll: Moron...

 

[rahvin]

Endless printing of money would create hyper inflation. Do you have any idea what hyper inflation does to a country? Can you explain what the agenda of the Fed is? What is their mission? Who do they report to? What is their interest?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: rahvin
Endless printing of money would create hyper inflation. Do you have any idea what hyper inflation does to a country? Can you explain what the agenda of the Fed is? What is their mission? Who do they report to? What is their interest?

Not endless money, debt-free money. There's a difference. What is their interest? Interest, of course.

edit: And to give you historical perspective, did the US have an inflation problem prior to the creation of Fed in 1913? No. Quite the opposite in fact, there had been a deflation problem for almost 50 years prior to.

 

[Howard]

" 'Bread and Circuses' " is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs, to an invader - the barbarians enter Rome."

- Jubal Harshaw, from To Sail Beyond the Sunset, by Robert A. Heinlein

(to no one in particular )