DD5: Back to the original topic, this was posted 11 days ago on this Government Brainstorm website: "TAKE BACK THE POWER TO CREATE MONEY FROM THE PRIVATE BANKING INDUSTRY" http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/3648-4049
Back to the original topic,
this was posted 11 days ago on this Government Brainstorm website: "TAKE BACK THE POWER TO CREATE MONEY FROM THE PRIVATE BANKING INDUSTRY"
http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/3648-4049
And DD5 you have shown why calling it private is a problem. Thanks for the find.
I've heard this being circulated even among the "End the Fed" protesters. Some want the Federal Reserve to not be "private" but to be a central bank operated by the Federal Government. They say it will be better that why. This topic will come up more and more. And you watch the Federal Reserve. They will act like they are the innocent bankers being coerced by the government. The fed is not a free market spontaneous institution.
You ask the question: “Is the Federal Reserve privately owned or a government agency?” You must identify what part of the Fed you are talking about. If you are talking about the twelve regional FR Banks, they are normally construed to be, and have been adjudicated to be, privately owned. They each have a Board of (nine) Directors some of which are elected by the local commercial banks and some are appointed by the FR Board of Governors. Local banks pay for services of the FR Banks and are required to purchase non-transferable “stock” in the FR Bank. But the FR Banks are assessed “expenses” of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors (Ref. Title 12, Section 243---which they cannot verify or audit) and are subject to “supervision and regulation” by the BOG. Ref. Title 12, Section 248j. The FR Banks are mere franchises of the FR System. Control of the system is by the BOG. It is the BOG that claims to be a federal agency in court proceedings and in their ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BOG TO CONGRESS but fails to fall within many parameters of an agency. They have the same pension and health plan as the privately owned FR Banks. Employees are in large part not civil service employees. The BOG nor the Banks are audited by the GAO. The Fed does not depend upon the U.S. Treasury for any funding. By statute, no other government agency can control them. Ref. Title 12, Section 250. Control of the Fed by the President is limited to jaw-boning. Ref. LBJ. I believe all government agencies are subject to complete audit of their accounting books. The Annual Report contains considerable information on the Banks but contains a three page gloss on the BOG finances. Ref. This mathematically progression is the hallmark of any Ponzi scheme. All Ponzi schemes are doomed to eventually self-destruction. To hide the increase in interest payment from the public, the national debt must be increased. But the increase in the national debt increases the cost of interest that must be paid. The exponential increase cannot be outrun. The inescapable conclusion is runaway inflation. It has occurred many times in history. It is mathematically inescapable. And Bernacke knows it. http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/annual06/default.htm
You ask the question: “Is the Federal Reserve privately owned or a government agency?” You must identify what part of the Fed you are talking about.
If you are talking about the twelve regional FR Banks, they are normally construed to be, and have been adjudicated to be, privately owned. They each have a Board of (nine) Directors some of which are elected by the local commercial banks and some are appointed by the FR Board of Governors. Local banks pay for services of the FR Banks and are required to purchase non-transferable “stock” in the FR Bank.
But the FR Banks are assessed “expenses” of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors (Ref. Title 12, Section 243---which they cannot verify or audit) and are subject to “supervision and regulation” by the BOG. Ref. Title 12, Section 248j. The FR Banks are mere franchises of the FR System. Control of the system is by the BOG. It is the BOG that claims to be a federal agency in court proceedings and in their ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BOG TO CONGRESS but fails to fall within many parameters of an agency. They have the same pension and health plan as the privately owned FR Banks. Employees are in large part not civil service employees. The BOG nor the Banks are audited by the GAO. The Fed does not depend upon the U.S. Treasury for any funding. By statute, no other government agency can control them. Ref. Title 12, Section 250. Control of the Fed by the President is limited to jaw-boning. Ref. LBJ.
I believe all government agencies are subject to complete audit of their accounting books. The Annual Report contains considerable information on the Banks but contains a three page gloss on the BOG finances. Ref.
This mathematically progression is the hallmark of any Ponzi scheme. All Ponzi schemes are doomed to eventually self-destruction.
To hide the increase in interest payment from the public, the national debt must be increased. But the increase in the national debt increases the cost of interest that must be paid. The exponential increase cannot be outrun. The inescapable conclusion is runaway inflation. It has occurred many times in history. It is mathematically inescapable. And Bernacke knows it.
The FED cannot exist without the monopoly cartel license the state has given it. It is public in that it is given monopoly privilege by the people and only the people can withdraw that privilege.
The following paragraphs should have been in the above posting:
I believe Ed Griffin’s CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND (available online) and Eustace Mullins’ SECRETS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE (ebook available) contain allegations of private ownership of the BOG that can only be dispersed by a detailed review of the BOG accounting books. And the Fed will not allow that. But as to the damage the Fed does to society, let us review the nature of the Fed’s operation. If Congress wishes to spend more money than they have, they grant securities (bills, bonds, or notes) to the Fed and the Fed establishes a line of credit in the amount of the involved principal. Presto!! Fiat money has been created---by an act of Congress. Every “dollar” in circulation is created in this manner. The subtle mathematically progression will escape the casual reader. The understood agreement is that the security will be paid off and the debt canceled. The principal has been created but the promise is to repay the principal plus the interest. The interest does not exist. It is impossible to culminate the agreement. The only way to pay the interest on the initial issue is to issue additional securities for more principal and pay the initial interest from the secondary issue of principal. But since the interest deduction in the secondary issue effectively reduces the amount of fiat money available for government programs, the effective interest rate on the secondary issue is higher than the taunted percentage. And each time the debt is rolled over, the percentage increases. It is an exponential increase. (Note: this progression does not apply to a loan from Main Street Bank.) This mathematically progression is the hallmark of any Ponzi scheme. All Ponzi schemes are doomed to eventually self-destruction.
I believe Ed Griffin’s CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND (available online) and Eustace Mullins’ SECRETS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE (ebook available) contain allegations of private ownership of the BOG that can only be dispersed by a detailed review of the BOG accounting books. And the Fed will not allow that.
But as to the damage the Fed does to society, let us review the nature of the Fed’s operation.
If Congress wishes to spend more money than they have, they grant securities (bills, bonds, or notes) to the Fed and the Fed establishes a line of credit in the amount of the involved principal. Presto!! Fiat money has been created---by an act of Congress. Every “dollar” in circulation is created in this manner.
The subtle mathematically progression will escape the casual reader. The understood agreement is that the security will be paid off and the debt canceled. The principal has been created but the promise is to repay the principal plus the interest. The interest does not exist. It is impossible to culminate the agreement.
The only way to pay the interest on the initial issue is to issue additional securities for more principal and pay the initial interest from the secondary issue of principal. But since the interest deduction in the secondary issue effectively reduces the amount of fiat money available for government programs, the effective interest rate on the secondary issue is higher than the taunted percentage. And each time the debt is rolled over, the percentage increases. It is an exponential increase. (Note: this progression does not apply to a loan from Main Street Bank.)
I believe the issue is to the ownership and control of the Fed. It has clearly been granted a monopoly status by Title 12 and the BOG has isolated itself from any identified source of control, including Congress, the President (except to appoint a Governor from a preapproved list), and the GAO.
And the People have no control of the monolopy privilege that has been given by Congress. Only Congress can withdraw that privilege, and Congress now has an open-ended credit card that never has to be paid. That credit card is used to buy votes with pork or favors, such as removing Glass-Stengall act for Wall Street. Congress is not going to turn off the printing press that gives them money that steals purchasing power from the Citizens.
The operation of the Fed is based upon a Ponzi fraud. A contract based upon fraud is void from its inception.
Olde Reb:I believe the issue is to the ownership and control of the Fed.
Yes, we settled that earlier in the thread. The FED is not private.
If the state exists it IS a factor on the market; arguably the biggest factor.
Price-fixing is when an entity controls so much of a market that it is free to set its own prices regardless of supply and demand.
And my arguement goes like this; if JP owns a company that is doing well and sees another company doing well, he will be inclined to buy it. If he continues to do well he will continue buying more of the industry. People for the most part are not going to stop this because, in the short run, consumers will benefit by the lower prices and increased supply.
But then JP buys more and more of different markets. It gets to the point where he not only holds majority stake in the nations railroads, he also owns a large part of the food industry which ships on his rails, and the coal industry wich powers his trains, and worst of all the media, which investigates the various industries he is in control of.
Once again, people unaware of this hegemony and of any corrupt practices he may be employing will see only a benefit by the decrease in prices. It is only when they realize they dont own anything that they may try to stop this. But with him in control of the nations media, there is a good chance they will never realize anything.
But first let me inform you that, although i fundamentally disagree with your explanations and policiies, we both fight the same enemies; monopolies, bankers, the raging irrational mob, corruption, and all the various forms of (virtual) slavery (the rental economy, as opposed to the ownership economy).
Hermes on the day of your death: we both fight the same enemies; monopolies, bankers, the raging irrational mob, corruption, and all the various forms of (virtual) slavery (the rental economy, as opposed to the ownership economy).
we both fight the same enemies; monopolies, bankers, the raging irrational mob, corruption, and all the various forms of (virtual) slavery (the rental economy, as opposed to the ownership economy).
All are products of government power.
Hermes on the day of your death: Price-fixing is when an entity controls so much of a market that it is free to set its own prices regardless of supply and demand.
Do you know what the law of supply and demand is? Any price that does not confer to supply and demand is inefficient, doesn't satisfy consumers, and has no place in a free market economy. Your entity that is so big is a fiction of your imagination.
Hermes on the day of your death: People for the most part are not going to stop this because, in the short run, consumers will benefit by the lower prices and increased supply.
People for the most part are not going to stop this because, in the short run, consumers will benefit by the lower prices and increased supply.
Impossible situation! Consumers will not benefit from anything. See above supply & demand comment.
Hermes on the day of your death: But then JP buys more and more of different markets. It gets to the point where he not only holds majority stake in the nations railroads, he also owns a large part of the food industry which ships on his rails, and the coal industry wich powers his trains, and worst of all the media, which investigates the various industries he is in control of.
Without the power to keep competitors out by use of force, or coerce consumers into buying its products, such a scenario cannot occur. In a free market, even the unlikely scenario of a monopoly must continue to satisfy consumers in order to exist. You are mistakenly associating coerced monopolies with free markets, not realizing that they can only exist with government licenses.
Also a single corporation cannot just expand forever to the point that there is no more market economy. This is due to the economic calculation problem of socialism. But this is way over your head. Learn what supply & demand is and how it works? Browse through some of the many free books here.
In distorting it.
I.e. never, or only with government sanction. Supply and demand continue to function regardless, and consumers will only consume until the product fails to satisfy them, i.e. becomes too costly to be worth the expenditure. The firm is still limited by how much output it can produce. Whether it chooses to produce more or less is something any and every firm does. If it is wary of competitors it will produce more or be undercut.
No problem then.
And here we enter the realm of fantasy, if only because of diseconomies of scale and the firm's increasing lapse into calculational chaos.
Sounds like a failure to stay vigilant to me...
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
What a great topic. It's usually people like Alex Jones who I hear repeating uneducated nonsense about exposing the "private federal reserve". I agree that they are misunderstanding the issue and probably doing harm.
It's funny too, because I literally was just explaining via email to someone about this very same topic. The following is the body of the email:
Lots of people who don't know much about the subject assume that the Fed is part of the government, which is wrong. There are also many people who claim that it's a totally private separate banking institution, and this is also wrong. They both have some truth but neither is totally correct. The Fed is basically a government bureaucracy that was originally intended to be independent politically but yet it is held in place by government power that grants it monopoly powers to counterfeit money and protects it from competition. It's like it's trying to be two things at once. It is an artificial creature of government yet it's supposed to stay out of government affairs. A sort of mutant bastard child. lol I think it's a pipe dream to ever think that the Fed could ever truly stay totally independently minded and not become abused by presidents and politicians who want to avoid recessions with stimulus in order to get re-elected. It's like a cookie jar in the kitchen with lots of kids who are home alone - they are going to eat those cookies. The possibility and the power is their and it's too tempting. And it's not too hard for presidents and politicians with a lot of pull to get their big business and big banking buddies into positions of power within the Fed because they are hand picked. The free market doesn't choose the leaders of the Fed. I think that Bush delayed the pain from the tech-bubble in the early 2000s with stimulus because he probably wouldn't have been re-elected if the country went through the badly needed recession that we were due for. So today we are in more pain because we didn't take the recession then. Sure, you can try to say that the Fed is independent and that as an institution it's acceptable even to those that don't want the government involved in the economy because it's not actually the government that is involved in the economy, it's just the private Fed. But I think that's shortsighted because you and I couldn't just start our own central bank and compete with the Fed. If we did what the Fed did we would be thrown in jail for counterfeiting! The idea that it's private is like playing make believe and ignoring all of the government strings that are attached to it. If the Fed had stuck true to it's original aims it might not be so bad, but it would still nevertheless be unnecessary interference in the free market in my opinion. We've just gotta get rid of it. All we'd miss out on is inflation and bailouts for big business.
liberty student: Because we are up against legions of Alex Jones fans, and he spends every show screaming about the PRIVATE FEDERAL RESERVE and the PRIVATE BANKERS. For as much good as he does, he spreads just as much disinfo.
Because we are up against legions of Alex Jones fans, and he spends every show screaming about the PRIVATE FEDERAL RESERVE and the PRIVATE BANKERS.
For as much good as he does, he spreads just as much disinfo.
Amen
Don't forget - they also think the FED "owns" the US government.
I find these people also think the best way around the FED's monopoly would be to resort to barter or to create local fiat currencies. They also regard debt as bad, without any mention of whether it is created through savings or a printing press, whether it is serviceable or a giant unsustainable bubble.
So they would eliminate credit markets and money altogether. They are not socialists. They are primitivists.
Check my blog, if you're a loser
BTW, this is what I email people when they tell me the FED is a private corporation, etc...:
Hermes on the day of your death:But first let me inform you that, although i fundamentally disagree with your explanations and policiies, we both fight the same enemies; monopolies, bankers, the raging irrational mob, corruption, and all the various forms of (virtual) slavery (the rental economy, as opposed to the ownership economy).
Wait, you fight yourself?
Knight_of_BAAWA: We're saying that, absent the state, monopolies either won't exist or won't exist for very long.
We're saying that, absent the state, monopolies either won't exist or won't exist for very long.
What do you define as not very long?
I see nothing wrong with agreeing that to the extent the market acts on imperfect information or coercion by any group including private groups in a free society that we will see adverse results for some parties. The leftist conclusion is what fails in that they suggest they can create a superior regulatory framework than the market. There is no harm in acknowledging the market is imperfect but it is still the superior mechanism for maximizing human potential.
Maxliberty: Knight_of_BAAWA: We're saying that, absent the state, monopolies either won't exist or won't exist for very long. What do you define as not very long? I see nothing wrong with agreeing that to the extent the market acts on imperfect information or coercion by any group including private groups in a free society that we will see adverse results for some parties. The leftist conclusion is what fails in that they suggest they can create a superior regulatory framework than the market. There is no harm in acknowledging the market is imperfect but it is still the superior mechanism for maximizing human potential.
I would say a monopoly would only last as long as either (1) other business efforts can't tolerate being coerced by another private firm anymore and they rise up against it or (2) instantly cause for any private company to make it, it would need to play by the rules with others or else others turn their back on that company and the consumer makes it go bankrupt. or (3) No rising up against it when the tolerant level disappears, no need for violence, therefore same as #2 consumers make it go bankrupt.
#1: In a free market, #1 happens cause the private company is being violent against others to get it's way so self-defense is enacted.
meambobbo:BTW, this is what I email people when they tell me the FED is a private corporation, etc...:
Can I reprint that?
wilderness: Maxliberty: Knight_of_BAAWA: We're saying that, absent the state, monopolies either won't exist or won't exist for very long. What do you define as not very long? I see nothing wrong with agreeing that to the extent the market acts on imperfect information or coercion by any group including private groups in a free society that we will see adverse results for some parties. The leftist conclusion is what fails in that they suggest they can create a superior regulatory framework than the market. There is no harm in acknowledging the market is imperfect but it is still the superior mechanism for maximizing human potential. I would say a monopoly would only last as long as either (1) other business efforts can't tolerate being coerced by another private firm anymore and they rise up against it or (2) instantly cause for any private company to make it, it would need to play by the rules with others or else others turn their back on that company and the consumer makes it go bankrupt. or (3) No rising up against it when the tolerant level disappears, no need for violence, therefore same as #2 consumers make it go bankrupt. #1: In a free market, #1 happens cause the private company is being violent against others to get it's way so self-defense is enacted.
My point being that these things may take longer than you think to get turned around. They turn around the fastest in the free market but that could in many cases be a matter of years. Given the human life span you might find yourself spending 20-30% of your adult life under such duress. I think we make a mstake when we don't acknowledge the real human costs of the free market. Again, to acknowledge the imperfection of the market is no more than to acknowledge the imperfection of our own humanity but to minimize it only feeds the enemies of freedom. We can acknowledge imperfection without diminishing our advocacy of free markets.
Maxliberty: I think we make a mstake when we don't acknowledge the real human costs of the free market.
I think we make a mstake when we don't acknowledge the real human costs of the free market.
This assertion makes no sense! Why? You give the answer yourself in the following statement:
Maxliberty: Again, to acknowledge the imperfection of the market is no more than to acknowledge the imperfection of our own humanity
Again, to acknowledge the imperfection of the market is no more than to acknowledge the imperfection of our own humanity
Exactly, so the costs of the market are no more then the costs of being human and alive. Life is not free! So what is so important to acknowledge here?
Maxliberty: I see nothing wrong with agreeing that to the extent the market acts on imperfect information or coercion by any group including private groups in a free society wilderness: (1) other business efforts can't tolerate being coerced by another private firm anymore and they rise up against it
I see nothing wrong with agreeing that to the extent the market acts on imperfect information or coercion by any group including private groups in a free society
wilderness: (1) other business efforts can't tolerate being coerced by another private firm anymore and they rise up against it
(1) other business efforts can't tolerate being coerced by another private firm anymore and they rise up against it
How does a private firm coerces another private firm? Or for that matter, how does a free individual coerce another free individual into an exchange without resorting to violence? The use of violence is banned in a free market. Those who use them are criminals, and the free market has mechanisms to deal with criminals. So coercion is not a trait of free markets. Once coercion takes place, the market is violated and in NOT free.
We are not utopians, criminals will always exist, but they will be outlawed and not inherently part of the system.
liberty student: The FED cannot exist without the monopoly cartel license the state has given it. It is public in that it is given monopoly privilege by the people and only the people can withdraw that privilege.
DD5: Exactly, so the costs of the market are no more then the costs of being human and alive. Life is not free! So what is so important to acknowledge here?
What is important to acknowledge is that the free market solution isn't without suffering. This aspect is too often minimized. Too often the freedom lovers ignore life's reality and this just adds fuel to the idea that we are detached from reality. If you look at the leftist arguement in this thread he rightly points out that there will be excesses in the free market, large companies will try and create monopolies and we can sit back in the macro sense and say yeah but it wont last in the long run but the long run on the micro level that could be most of your life and could destroy your livelihood and your family or whole host of other negative offshoots. These little micro destructions if you will lay the seeds for advocating government.
DD5: How does a private firm coerces another private firm? Or for that matter, how does a free individual coerce another free individual into an exchange without resorting to violence? The use of violence is banned in a free market. Those who use them are criminals, and the free market has mechanisms to deal with criminals. So coercion is not a trait of free markets. Once coercion takes place, the market is violated and in NOT free. We are not utopians, criminals will always exist, but they will be outlawed and not inherently part of the system.
Yes, that is the point there will be criminals and these crimes won't always be immediately punished and they will do real damage. So by your own definition a free market is impossible because it would assume that which man universally is incapable of which is perfection. There will be criminals and there will be times when the line between criminal activity and freedom will be blurred so an immediate remedy will not be apparent. The point being that the free market despite these human failings is superior to the government making decisions.
Your last statement is exactly what I am talking about you claim not to be utopian yet your society could be nothing other than that, criminals are inherently part of the system because humans are imperfect.
Maxliberty: DD5: Exactly, so the costs of the market are no more then the costs of being human and alive. Life is not free! So what is so important to acknowledge here? What is important to acknowledge is that the free market solution isn't without suffering. This aspect is too often minimized. Too often the freedom lovers ignore life's reality and this just adds fuel to the idea that we are detached from reality. If you look at the leftist arguement in this thread he rightly points out that there will be excesses in the free market,
What is important to acknowledge is that the free market solution isn't without suffering. This aspect is too often minimized. Too often the freedom lovers ignore life's reality and this just adds fuel to the idea that we are detached from reality. If you look at the leftist arguement in this thread he rightly points out that there will be excesses in the free market,
What suffering are you talking about? Being human? "free market solution isn't without suffering" as compared to what? In my opinion, you make no valid point.
What "excesses" do you have in mind exactly? The only ones I can think off would be a result of entrepreneurial errors, which the market efficiently regulates against by profit & loss.
Maxliberty: large companies will try and create monopolies and we can sit back in the macro sense and say yeah but it wont last in the long run but the long run on the micro level that could be most of your life and could destroy your livelihood and your family or whole host of other negative offshoots. These little micro destructions if you will lay the seeds for advocating government.
large companies will try and create monopolies and we can sit back in the macro sense and say yeah but it wont last in the long run but the long run on the micro level that could be most of your life and could destroy your livelihood and your family or whole host of other negative offshoots. These little micro destructions if you will lay the seeds for advocating government.
It's almost as if you are trying to understand markets through the lens of a Marxist, while still advocating for them. Nobody will sit back and say "it won't last in the long run" . Nobody will force you to patronize any firm or business. Your analysis is simply false. No, you cannot understand markets through the lens of a Marxist, because that is not how markets work.
Maxliberty: Yes, that is the point there will be criminals and these crimes won't always be immediately punished and they will do real damage. So by your own definition a free market is impossible because it would assume that which man universally is incapable of which is perfection.
Yes, that is the point there will be criminals and these crimes won't always be immediately punished and they will do real damage. So by your own definition a free market is impossible because it would assume that which man universally is incapable of which is perfection.
By my own definition, a free market is possible since I don't assume any such utopian vision of "perfection". If I did, I would not mention "mechanism to deal with criminals" (Defense agencies, courts, etc...) and I would not use the term "outlawed" for criminal activity. On the contrary, I implied that the free market would give rise such services of law enforcement and defense agencies.
You misunderstand the concept of a free market completely. A free market is precisely a system that deals with human imperfection. Do not take these Marxists seriously as if their claims have any merit. They don't.
Maxliberty: My point being that these things may take longer than you think to get turned around.
My point being that these things may take longer than you think to get turned around.
I don't even know what I think how long it would take - so how do you know what I know?
Maxliberty: They turn around the fastest in the free market but that could in many cases be a matter of years. Given the human life span you might find yourself spending 20-30% of your adult life under such duress. I think we make a mstake when we don't acknowledge the real human costs of the free market. Again, to acknowledge the imperfection of the market is no more than to acknowledge the imperfection of our own humanity but to minimize it only feeds the enemies of freedom. We can acknowledge imperfection without diminishing our advocacy of free markets.
They turn around the fastest in the free market but that could in many cases be a matter of years. Given the human life span you might find yourself spending 20-30% of your adult life under such duress. I think we make a mstake when we don't acknowledge the real human costs of the free market. Again, to acknowledge the imperfection of the market is no more than to acknowledge the imperfection of our own humanity but to minimize it only feeds the enemies of freedom. We can acknowledge imperfection without diminishing our advocacy of free markets.
Whatever dude... I have no clue what you said here, but you said "without diminishing our advocacy of free markets" which sounds ok to me.
Its funny. No one picked up on the hint? JP? Could that be JP Morgan and the Standard Oil of Ohio Trust; currently known as bp/amaco, shell, etc. This was a real situation that developed long before the FED, income tax, or the New Deal. It was not the government that allowed Morgan to monopolize the american economy. In fact, it was the Teddy Roosevelt progressives that broke up the trust. (Your more libertarian presidents in fact supported the large firms that virtually controlled the market.)
In fact, it is because of these more libertarian policies that we could only break the trust and not the control. The Morgan family still controls these companies, as well as having a hand in the member banks of the FED.
The definition of the state, at least the way i learned it, is simply our system of laws and policies, our established state religion (secularism), and our military structure (tragically a standing army). This wouldn't change in a libertarian country, it would still be the state. The State = soveirgnty of a people or territory. Unless you argue we should get rid of our soveirgnty, then your not arguing against the state.
And in case you think warfare only happens because of the state; research the Mundurucu of Brazil. They war with each other for nothing other than that their ancestors warred with each other.
Its a simple fact; the strength of the state is directly proportional to the growth of civilization. To weaken our system of enforcing our laws and contracts will take us back to tribalism and aggrarianism.
Maybe if more of you were realists like MaxLiberty, people would take you a little more seriously.
MaxLiberty, Ron Paul, and Mises; these are people i could consider compatriots. The rest of you are as fanatical as the Taliban.
Criminals are already outlawed. If you're a criminal you operate OUTside the LAW; OUTLAW. I don't understand your analogy DDS.
People will never take anarchistic policy seriously if you fail to realize the inherent corruption, greed, and callousness in the human race.
Governments don't kill people; people do.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Hermes on the day of your death:The rest of you are as fanatical as the Taliban.
Think carefully before you post again.
ad homineum
Hermes on the day of your death:Criminals are already outlawed.
depends on the criminal.
Hermes on the day of your death: If you're a criminal you operate OUTside the LAW; OUTLAW.
Non sequitor.
Hermes on the day of your death:People will never take anarchistic policy seriously if you fail to realize the inherent corruption, greed, and callousness in the human race.
Wait, thats why people make governments, because they are that way and they want to exploit. And anarchistic policy, with no government, will make this unprofitable.
Hermes on the day of your death: Governments don't kill people; people do.
But governments are comprised partly people that kill others
Schools are labour camps.
Hermes on the day of your death: And in case you think warfare only happens because of the state; research the Mundurucu of Brazil. They war with each other for nothing other than that their ancestors warred with each other.
Strawman. That is not the only reason for war. The state just makes it profitable.
Hermes on the day of your death: Its a simple fact; the strength of the state is directly proportional to the growth of civilization. To weaken our system of enforcing our laws and contracts will take us back to tribalism and aggrarianism.
Correlation != causitation. While it may have followed that trend (correlation), it does not imply a causitation.
Hermes on the day of your death: It was not the government that allowed Morgan to monopolize the american economy. In fact, it was the Teddy Roosevelt progressives that broke up the trust.
But government by definition creates monopoly, even with anti-trust.
Hermes on the day of your death:(Your more libertarian presidents in fact supported the large firms that virtually controlled the market.)
Nope. It was the use of government they did not support. They may have felt bad about the situation.
Hermes on the day of your death:In fact, it is because of these more libertarian policies that we could only break the trust and not the control. The Morgan family still controls these companies, as well as having a hand in the member banks of the FED.
More liberterian poicies? Correlation != causitation.
Hermes on the day of your death:The definition of the state, at least the way i learned it, is simply our system of laws and policies, our established state religion (secularism), and our military structure (tragically a standing army). This wouldn't change in a libertarian country, it would still be the state. The State = soveirgnty of a people or territory. Unless you argue we should get rid of our soveirgnty, then your not arguing against the state.
That is not the state. And what is the meaning of soveirgnty? People can choose to create a "soveirgn nation" as long as others can contractually enter and exit at will.
If a nation declares and is recognized in its soveirgnty, and creates a system of enforcing peace, laws, and contracts; that is a state. Wether or not it is anarchistic.
Right, enforcing peace sounds like an oxymoron. But only an oxy moron would think that is so. You and your brother are fighting over something stupid and your father says "settle down or im whoopin both of you." Boom, enforcing peace. No violence involved. You call it coercion, and it is. But quit fightin with your brother over who gets to play with the GI Joe today.
Actually if I recall correctly, wasn't one of Rothbard's books showing how Teddy Roosevelt was in league with JP Morgan and that is why he went after Morgan's competition, Rockefeller.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard66.html
There we are.
So we ought to grant them a monopoly in certain markets, like law and order? Maybe it's statist policy that should not be taken seriously until it realises the above.
Indeed. People who enjoy a monopoly over the provision of law and order, who call themselves the "government".
Could that be JP Morgan and the Standard Oil of Ohio Trust;
Which is the free market "monopoly"? The latter? Read up on Dominick Armentano's work on antitrust if you seriously think it is.
Hermes on the day of your death:If a nation declares and is recognized in its soveirgnty, and creates a system of enforcing peace, laws, and contracts; that is a state. Wether or not it is anarchistic.
What do you mean by nation?
Hermes on the day of your death:Right, enforcing peace sounds like an oxymoron. But only an oxy moron would think that is so. You and your brother are fighting over something stupid and your father says "settle down or im whoopin both of you." Boom, enforcing peace.
false analogy.
liberty student: Hermes on the day of your death:The rest of you are as fanatical as the Taliban. Think carefully before you post again.
Are you threatening violence LS? Or is he to be banned for comparing your fanaticsm (in his mind) to another group?
DD5: By my own definition, a free market is possible since I don't assume any such utopian vision of "perfection". If I did, I would not mention "mechanism to deal with criminals" (Defense agencies, courts, etc...) and I would not use the term "outlawed" for criminal activity. On the contrary, I implied that the free market would give rise such services of law enforcement and defense agencies. You misunderstand the concept of a free market completely. A free market is precisely a system that deals with human imperfection. Do not take these Marxists seriously as if their claims have any merit. They don't.
What you don't understand is how power works in any society. Your belief that the rich and powerful in a free society will not at times use that power in ways contrary to a free market are misguided. The rich and the powerful have the ability to committ crimes and get away with them. The everything works out in the long run thinking is great for philosophy but on the street, what happens in the short term really does matter and to casually act as if it doesn't is a mistake. The left feeds on this short term suffering and its real, not something imagined. I am no advocate of the state in any incarnation but in general people prefer action over the inaction of letting things sort themselves out. We as people who want greater freedom need to be more aware of that in our discussions and deal more directly with that issue.
wilderness: Maxliberty: My point being that these things may take longer than you think to get turned around. I don't even know what I think how long it would take - so how do you know what I know? Maxliberty: They turn around the fastest in the free market but that could in many cases be a matter of years. Given the human life span you might find yourself spending 20-30% of your adult life under such duress. I think we make a mstake when we don't acknowledge the real human costs of the free market. Again, to acknowledge the imperfection of the market is no more than to acknowledge the imperfection of our own humanity but to minimize it only feeds the enemies of freedom. We can acknowledge imperfection without diminishing our advocacy of free markets. Whatever dude... I have no clue what you said here, but you said "without diminishing our advocacy of free markets" which sounds ok to me.
The point is simple, the short term matters to people. The idea that everything will be ok in the long run is fine but people do make decisions based on the short term and to pretend only the long term matters is misguided.
Maxliberty: What you don't understand is how power works in any society. Your belief that the rich and powerful in a free society will not at times use that power in ways contrary to a free market are misguided. The rich and the powerful have the ability to committ crimes and get away with them.
What you don't understand is how power works in any society. Your belief that the rich and powerful in a free society will not at times use that power in ways contrary to a free market are misguided. The rich and the powerful have the ability to committ crimes and get away with them.
What you don't understand is how the free market economy works, which is why you keep repeating this stuff like a broken record.
Until you become more willing to familiarize yourself with how the market works (or what it is, for that matter), such back and fourth exchanges are pointless.
Maxliberty: The everything works out in the long run thinking is great for philosophy but on the street, what happens in the short term really does matter and to casually act as if it doesn't is a mistake.
The everything works out in the long run thinking is great for philosophy but on the street, what happens in the short term really does matter and to casually act as if it doesn't is a mistake.
Did you even read my responses to you? I never implied that anything just "works in the long run".
Maxliberty: I am no advocate of the state in any incarnation but in general people prefer action over the inaction of letting things sort themselves out. We as people who want greater freedom need to be more aware of that in our discussions and deal more directly with that issue.
I am no advocate of the state in any incarnation but in general people prefer action over the inaction of letting things sort themselves out. We as people who want greater freedom need to be more aware of that in our discussions and deal more directly with that issue.
Well, I wish you were an advocate of the state. With freedom advocates like you, who needs Socialists?
It's better to learn about your product before trying to sell it.
liberty student:Can I reprint that?
Of course. Be sure to add that the FED chairman must be "reapproved" by the President every 4 years. I seem to have forgotten that bit.