We're All Ready Fascist.

[Patriot123]

No, really. We're all ready a fascist regime. What exactly is the definition of fascism in economic terms? A government that either controls businesses and corporations or controls them discretely. In other words, everything is either owned or controlled by the government.

So tell me. What say do airliners have over what they do? After September 11th, airliners barely had a say as to what the heck they did. They have to follow everything "Homeland Security" tells them. They have to suspend all air traffic if the government tells them to. They have to cooperate with the federal government in the event of backlogged flights. They have to regulate who flies and who doesn't (ie the watch list) and despite all of these rules that they're told to follow, they have to permit secret agents with guns on their airliners. How absurd is this?
Then we have things like automobile companies. Regulated by the government.
Weapon manufacturers? Regulated, and owned at times.
Gun shops? Regulated like hell.
The entire economy? Controlled like a puppet. Must I continue?


Does this strike anyone as odd? Really. By definition, we've all ready gone Fascist. Right after 9/11.

[Ex Post Facto]

I believe you are right. Our government went facist...this is the key point though. The people haven't gone facist. They are walking a thin line.

[Patriot123]

They are walking a thin line.

Yeah, and it's about to break :/

[torchbearer]

you are correct, its just not benficial to mention it in a media environment that is owned by the very fascist you'd be talking about...

[crackyflipside]

From Fascist philosopher Giovanni Gentile written in 1932 explaining fascism,


The State not only is authority which governs and molds individual wills with laws and values of spiritual life, but it is also power which makes its will prevail abroad. [...] For the Fascist, everything is within the State and [...] neither individuals nor groups are outside the State. [...] For Fascism, the State is an absolute, before which individuals or groups are only relative. [...] Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual

And he describes Fascism's rejection of democracy as:


the absurd conventional lie of political equalitarianism, the habit of collective irresponsibility, the myth of felicity and indefinite progress

We are living in a fascist state already.

[torchbearer]

They are fascist/collectivist. see video for details:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6015291679758430958

and yes, watch the whole hour and a half, you will be glad you did

[GunnyFreedom]

I have been calling our nation "collectivo-fascist" now for at least 6 months.

[cageybee]

No, really. We're all ready a fascist regime. What exactly is the definition of fascism in economic terms? A government that either controls businesses and corporations or controls them discretely. In other words, everything is either owned or controlled by the government.

So tell me. What say do airliners have over what they do? After September 11th, airliners barely had a say as to what the heck they did. They have to follow everything "Homeland Security" tells them. They have to suspend all air traffic if the government tells them to. They have to cooperate with the federal government in the event of backlogged flights. They have to regulate who flies and who doesn't (ie the watch list) and despite all of these rules that they're told to follow, they have to permit secret agents with guns on their airliners. How absurd is this?
Then we have things like automobile companies. Regulated by the government.
Weapon manufacturers? Regulated, and owned at times.
Gun shops? Regulated like hell.
The entire economy? Controlled like a puppet. Must I continue?


Does this strike anyone as odd? Really. By definition, we've all ready gone Fascist. Right after 9/11.

fascism comes to capitalism when corporations become so big that they become our government because of their economical influence and because of their financial strength they can influence constitution, presidential decisions, military actions, and so forth. no longer interests of the people become important. economy is a #1 concern and corporations are concern that's before the #1 concern.

therefore, fascism is a merger of the corporate and government power where corporations take a dominant role in government's actions.

for example, when pharmaceutical companies become too rich, they can get really creative on people. when oil companies need help in the middle-east, they call for military action. But the worst thing is - the tax payers are paying for needs of corporations.

in other words, at the beginning it is capitalism, then it becomes fascism/despotism.
what one thing imperialism, fascism, and despotism have in common? - Rich rule the poor.

In this case rich can be a king or a corporation. In both cases - these regimes are bad for people.

Communism is the best. I predict that soon, the whole world will unite unanimously to create a one world communism government. In capitalism, money has power over people. In communism, money has no power over people, and life is much happier.

[clouds]

"Do you wish to know when that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the measure of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compusion- when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from a men who produce nothing- when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors- when you see men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and yourlaws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you- when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice- you may know that your society is doomed."

-ayn rand

communism is the best? Money has no power over that society because it rejects ability and praises mediocrity.

Capitalism is excellent as long as you keep the force of government out of it. Communism is putting all of the force of government behind the economy.

[Anti Federalist]

I have been calling our nation "collectivo-fascist" now for at least 6 months.

As have I.

Aren't we lucky?

The worst of both worlds.

A welfare check delivered via a jackboot in your ass.

[raiha]

Thanks Torchbearer. I did just that!
Hmm "Armchair patriots are useless in this struggle," he said. He also pointed out why letters and petitions are useless.
I'm in the middle of "The Creature of Jekyll Island." It's all too creepy to believe...Dr Strangelove all over again and i never did like how THAT ended!

[cageybee]

"Do you wish to know when that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the measure of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compusion- when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from a men who produce nothing- when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors- when you see men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and yourlaws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you- when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice- you may know that your society is doomed."

-ayn rand

communism is the best? Money has no power over that society because it rejects ability and praises mediocrity.

Capitalism is excellent as long as you keep the force of government out of it. Communism is putting all of the force of government behind the economy.

wrong, capitalism is not excellent. i already explained: when individuals or corporations become too rich they get too creative. they also become a heavy weight that has a direct influence on country's economy and perhaps other countries' economies. when there are dependencies, there are consequences.

eventually it still turns in to rich rule poor - despotism. back at square one. and what is capitalism? capitalism is extraction of capital. from where? locally and from other countries. when we extract capital from other nations, they starve to death or live a poor life while we pat ourselves on the back for creating the best way of life at a cost of others. capitalism is a root of all physical, economic, and information wars. The constant greed, need, and love for capital is always forcing entrepreneurs to get creative so that they can find more way how to gain massive capital while taking it from someone else. capitalism is not a WIN/WIN solution. it is in fact unethical and immoral. that's what Andropov said about Americans to Ronald Reagan.

communism would work in the whole world without money. people just need to accept it.

if the whole would learn that communism is actually the best way to live and accepted it as a whole, then the whole world would be extremely happy.

in communism, no one is allowed to privatize anything. it belongs to the world. it belongs to the land. it belongs to the people.

why do we get greedy and why did we turn trade into purchase? money was created to simplify trade. money allowed us to get creative and create new technologies and new life. but in this new life we get creative in ways trying to protect our "money" with weapons of mass destruction, and all kinds of evil things. once all the people will stop worshiping money and will start appreciating the true values, then people will evolve.

[WilliamC]

Ok cageybee, you've got me convinced.

Why don't you start by sending me any excess monies you have that isn't absolutely necessary for your bare minimal survival?

I promise I'll share it ;)

The main problem with capitalism is that corporations are legal creations of the government and that is what allows them to accumulate more power than individuals.

Take away the laws that protect investors from the malfeasence of the individuals doing business and see how quickly corporations get their power cut down to size.

It would still be possible to do business but those doing it would have to be much more careful than they are now, especially board members who are essentially shielded from prosecution if the corporation they control engages in illegal activities.

[WilliamC]

communism would work in the whole world without money. people just need to accept it.

if the whole would learn that communism is actually the best way to live and accepted it as a whole, then the whole world would be extremely happy.



Unfortunately history has shown that in order to get people to accept it mass killings are required.

I'll wait until Universal Enlightenment to occur before communism becomes an option.

[cageybee]

Ok cageybee, you've got me convinced.

Why don't you start by sending me any excess monies you have that isn't absolutely necessary for your bare minimal survival?

I promise I'll share it ;)

The main problem with capitalism is that corporations are legal creations of the government and that is what allows them to accumulate more power than individuals.

Take away the laws that protect investors from the malfeasence of the individuals doing business and see how quickly corporations get their power cut down to size.

It would still be possible to do business but those doing it would have to be much more careful than they are now, especially board members who are essentially shielded from prosecution if the corporation they control engages in illegal activities.

you are forgetting one very important thing - money buys people's souls.

that's how we ended up with Bush today after the founding father founded this country.

eventually, people got rich and bored, but felt that they should rule the world because they are the best at exploiting the world.

[Mini-Me]

fascism comes to capitalism when corporations become so big that they become our government because of their economical influence and because of their financial strength they can influence constitution, presidential decisions, military actions, and so forth. no longer interests of the people become important. economy is a #1 concern and corporations are concern that's before the #1 concern.

therefore, fascism is a merger of the corporate and government power where corporations take a dominant role in government's actions.

for example, when pharmaceutical companies become too rich, they can get really creative on people. when oil companies need help in the middle-east, they call for military action. But the worst thing is - the tax payers are paying for needs of corporations.

in other words, at the beginning it is capitalism, then it becomes fascism/despotism.
what one thing imperialism, fascism, and despotism have in common? - Rich rule the poor.

In this case rich can be a king or a corporation. In both cases - these regimes are bad for people.

Communism is the best. I predict that soon, the whole world will unite unanimously to create a one world communism government. In capitalism, money has power over people. In communism, money has no power over people, and life is much happier.

COMMUNISM IS THE BEST?!? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FREAKING MIND?!? Please, for the love of God, tell me you are telling a funny joke just to see the resulting mayhem. You're right that we're headed for a one-world socialist state (if not Communist...which is essentially just an extreme version of socialism where the state outright owns and controls ALL industries), but if you genuinely think life will be happier, you should be spending your time in an economics 101 class, not on this message board. I mean, my own understanding of economics is amateurish at best, but advocating COMMUNISM?!? I also seem to recall a thread where you swore you were not promoting Communism...was this a lie? Are you making a joke today, or were you engaging in covert propaganda then?

What do imperialism, fascism, despotism, and Communism all have in common? The state is absolute, and it controls the sources of wealth. Regardless of your delusional fantasy that "there are no rich people under Communism," there are. Whenever the state controls everything, the elites in power are inherently rich and privileged, even if they have no "money" and they "dress plainly." They are given first priority to be provided with everything they need, ahead the common people they rule. That "first priority" is quite significant considering that under a Communist system, there WILL be shortages...MASSIVE shortages. Even benevolent central planning cannot capture the intricacies of a large-scale economy. The best central planner in the entire existence of mankind couldn't, and you can bet that in any government, your bureaucrats won't be the smartest people in the world anyway. Wasn't Mao's Cultural Revolution just the greatest friggin thing ever? Doesn't Dog Shit Food taste grand?!?

I already know your response about corruption, so don't even bother. "In the USSR, the KGB kept corruption in check by making sure the leaders were true ideological revolutionary Communists, blah, blah." It's bullshit, and you're utterly brainwashed if you actually believe a second branch of an utterly totalitarian government can adequately regulate the first. The KGB was not opposed to the state political power and corruption - it PROTECTED it under the guise of policing it. It was another branch of the state that worked alongside the Party, and their primary charge was to find and crush dissenters in the population through any means possible, including torture. Just like any other centralized authority, the KGB was easily corrupted by a lust for power and control over others. Yeah, the USSR was a real friggin utopia, wasn't it?

Communism, like all other state-run collectivist economic systems without exception, inherently degenerates into outright despotism. How could it not? The idea that "the people" collectively own everything under Communism is a mere myth designed to trick people into accepting and loving their poverty. It's a brilliant scam, really. The people are at the complete mercy of their rulers economically, and as such, they fall to the complete mercy of their rulers in every single other way. Political freedom is entirely unstable and unquestionably doomed in the absence of economic freedom. When you are completely dependent on the mercy of the Party or the state for survival, you become inescapably subservient to your "leaders." If you want to eat, you can't step out of line. Subservience kills dissent. You cannot possibly defy the whims of your leaders - if a Party leader wants to rape your whole family, there's nothing you can do about it (besides kill him, landing your whole family in the gallows). There's no legal recourse, because attacking a Party leader is the same as attacking the Party is the same as attacking the state. You're branded as a dangerous, counter-revolutionary dissident by anyone whose boots you don't lick.

Communism is the pinnacle of despotism and tyranny. Not even traditional fascism and National Socialism (Nazism) can compete with the sheer astronomical heights of totalitarianism offered by Communism.

The funny thing is...as David Boaz said, "The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community." You don't just want to freely practice living in communes with everyone who agrees with you - you want to force it on all of us! By all of us, I don't even just mean America - according to you, you want everyone in the entire WORLD to be subjugated by an almighty state. Who the hell are you to say one word about morality?

[cageybee]

Unfortunately history has shown that in order to get people to accept it mass killings are required.

I'll wait until Universal Enlightenment to occur before communism becomes an option.

mass killings were done because those people literally were traitors of humanity. they thought that despotism (capitalism) with its democracy is a great thing without understanding that these capitalists wanted to enslave the Russians. the poor decided that it is about time that life is in favor of not just 5%, but the whole country. they brought the revolution. But, then, every now and then some idiots would hear or see a life in america in some forbidden magazine and were corrupted by the idea of capitalism without realizing how truly bad it is. they started saying and spreading that life is great on the other side and got imprisoned or killed for it.

Napoleone, Hitler, Uncle Sam - all have one thing in common. All of them wanted to conquer Russia. Napoleone and Hitler did it by force. US has been trying it by covert force and and with financial force. So far - no one successful. Although, US did extract lots of capital and done way more damage than anyone in the world.

Hitler wanted to conquer the whole Europe and was financed by american, english, and german banks. if he would've conquer Russia - life could've been totally different today. US-Russian relations never been good after the WWII just because Russian knew who was sponsoring Hitler and for what purposes - conquer Russia either by force or by purchase.

But the worst thing is that those Nazi's that were brought to USA were brought because someone here said: "if we don't get those nazi's - russians will get them. and then, russia will be too dangerous"

yeah, right - Stalin would execute those criminals on the spot with his own hands. for hitler's joint venture sponsored by western globalists russia paid with 20,000,000 lives.

not one american today is thankful for what Russia did once for the whole world.

[cageybee]

COMMUNISM IS THE BEST?!? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FREAKING MIND?!? Please, for the love of God, tell me you are telling a funny joke just to see the resulting mayhem. You're right that we're headed for a one-world socialist state (if not Communist...which is essentially just an extreme version of socialism where the state outright owns and controls ALL industries), but if you genuinely think life will be happier, you should be spending your time in an economics 101 class, not on this message board. I mean, my own understanding of economics is amateurish at best, but advocating COMMUNISM?!? I also seem to recall a thread where you swore you were not promoting Communism...was this a lie? Are you making a joke today, or were you engaging in covert propaganda then?

What do imperialism, fascism, despotism, and Communism all have in common? The state is absolute, and it controls the sources of wealth. Regardless of your delusional fantasy that "there are no rich people under Communism," there are. Whenever the state controls everything, the elites in power are inherently rich and privileged, even if they have no "money" and they "dress plainly." They are given first priority to be provided with everything they need, ahead the common people they rule. That "first priority" is quite significant considering that under a Communist system, there WILL be shortages...MASSIVE shortages. Even benevolent central planning cannot capture the intricacies of a large-scale economy. The best central planner in the entire existence of mankind couldn't, and you can bet that in any government, your bureaucrats won't be the smartest people in the world anyway. Wasn't Mao's Cultural Revolution just the greatest friggin thing ever? Doesn't Dog Shit Food taste grand?!?

I already know your response about corruption, so don't even bother. "In the USSR, the KGB kept corruption in check by making sure the leaders were true ideological revolutionary Communists, blah, blah." It's bullshit, and you're utterly brainwashed if you actually believe a second branch of an utterly totalitarian government can adequately regulate the first. The KGB was not opposed to the state political power and corruption - it PROTECTED it under the guise of policing it. It was another branch of the state that worked alongside the Party, and their primary charge was to find and crush dissenters in the population through any means possible, including torture. Just like any other centralized authority, the KGB was easily corrupted by a lust for power and control over others. Yeah, the USSR was a real friggin utopia, wasn't it?

Communism, like all other state-run collectivist economic systems without exception, inherently degenerates into outright despotism. How could it not? The idea that "the people" collectively own everything under Communism is a mere myth designed to trick people into accepting and loving their poverty. It's a brilliant scam, really. The people are at the complete mercy of their rulers economically, and as such, they fall to the complete mercy of their rulers in every single other way. Political freedom is entirely unstable and unquestionably doomed in the absence of economic freedom. When you are completely dependent on the mercy of the Party or the state for survival, you become inescapably subservient to your "leaders." If you want to eat, you can't step out of line. Subservience kills dissent. You cannot possibly defy the whims of your leaders - if a Party leader wants to rape your whole family, there's nothing you can do about it (besides kill him, landing your whole family in the gallows). There's no legal recourse, because attacking a Party leader is the same as attacking the Party is the same as attacking the state. You're branded as a dangerous, counter-revolutionary dissident by anyone whose boots you don't lick.

Communism is the pinnacle of despotism and tyranny. Not even traditional fascism and National Socialism (Nazism) can compete with the sheer astronomical heights of totalitarianism offered by Communism.

The funny thing is...as David Boaz said, "The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community." You don't just want to freely practice living in communes with everyone who agrees with you - you want to force it on all of us! By all of us, I don't even just mean America - according to you, you want everyone in the entire WORLD to be subjugated by an almighty state. Who the hell are you to say one word about morality?

communism is for the love of God. capitalism is for the love of Money. in your first statement, you disagree with me and ask me to tell you for the love of God. I told you that Communism is the better choice for all mankind. capitalism is bad for the mankind.

[Kotin]

communism is for the love of God. capitalism is for the love of Money. in your first statement, you disagree with me and ask me to tell you for the love of God. I told you that Communism is the better choice for all mankind. capitalism is bad for the mankind.

hahah, hilarious!!

[kimo]

communism is for the love of God. capitalism is for the love of Money. in your first statement, you disagree with me and ask me to tell you for the love of God. I told you that Communism is the better choice for all mankind. capitalism is bad for the mankind.

:eek:KGB, don`t even think about it!:rolleyes:

[cageybee]

hahah, hilarious!!

laugh all you want, but remember these words:

USA will never see a true liberty and prosperity ever again.

Did you notice all the problems with economy that we're having? The big Russian bear just woke up and he is hungry. He is shaking our "economy tree" and wants some capital.

US has been whining about the Soviet lifestyle. They did everything they could to break it down. They did. After the break, they looted Russia for enormous amounts of capital and caused trillions of dollars in damages. they ruined millions of peoples' lives. many women had to become prostitutes. moscow at one time had more than 150,000 of them. almost all elderly people became beggars. many people died early. many people suffered unnecessary health problems. many people could not get basic medical care. russia lost millions of people to other countries and is now having a population crisis. they have ruined russia's economy.

now, do you think this will ever be forgotten? do you think that this did not create a "blowback" like Ron Paul says? do you think that they'll just sit there and forget about it???

Once our economy collapses - USA will be bought by Russia and China. If USA will not allow foreign investments, then it will have to close its borders and become a Fascist state with closed society. Russia and China will be preaching to the world that USA needs democracy, but USA will not want democracy because the moment it will open - it will be bought up because of its extremely low value. if USA will be bought up, then all of profits from all USA markets will be residual incomes for Russia and China.

so, it is either a Fascist state or "democracy". But, democracy would be destructive for the future of america since it will allow our business to benefit other nations and not ours. Democracy would allow a foreign nation or nations to colonize USA by purchase while all of US markets worth pennies.

If we'll chose to close our society to prevent democracy so that no one buys us, people will be running around saying "we want democracy, free speech, all that jazz", but the DHS will be catching these people and putting them away as enemies of state. And we will be ruled by the Rich under a Fascist dictatorship.

[GunnyFreedom]

Wow, talk about your deranged politopath.

When I was in the Marines, I was S2, or Intelligence. We had a sign on the wall in 1996 that said something like, the great Russian bear had not been destroyed, it has only gone to sleep, and awaits the day it will awaken and seek to take over the world once again. It was a quote from modern Stalinist.

Clearly we have seen an ideological infiltration of this nation by Leninists, Stalinists, and Trotskyites.

KGB's brand of "collectivism or die" is simply an example of the collectivo-fascism that has been building in the US since Korea.

Sadly, some of what the KGB is predicting here actually stands a chance of coming to pass, thanks in large part to the ignorance of the American people who will allow the very thieves and the very destroyers they fear to come and raid their own homes -- if only they are allowed to watch their American Idol and drink a cold Budweiser.

Ladies and gentlemen, please do look at this KGB fellow, and know that we as a nation have done this to ourselves. Indeed, you and me are the few who have not been brainwashed into believing that ripping out our own hearts and giving them to those who wish to destroy us is necessary "for the good of the state." But know also that those who have been, greatly outnumber those of us who have not.

The coming decade will be a dismal period of time, and I fear it will be marked by great depression and great violence. Depending on who does take office, in 3 years we may have death squads roaming our streets and charging the families of the slain for the bullets used to kill them.

But know also, that with each terrible step taken closer to the depths of this collectivo-fascist hell envisioned by the KGB, there will be more, and even more Americans energized by the spirit of Liberty and willing to give up their last breath to bring about restoration.

When the death squads come to *MY* neighborhood, I may not survive. But *MY* silence will cost them one whole hell of a lot more than a few bullets. Of that I can guarantee.

[Mini-Me]

mass killings were done because those people literally were traitors of humanity. they thought that despotism (capitalism) with its democracy is a great thing without understanding that these capitalists wanted to enslave the Russians. the poor decided that it is about time that life is in favor of not just 5%, but the whole country. they brought the revolution. But, then, every now and then some idiots would hear or see a life in america in some forbidden magazine and were corrupted by the idea of capitalism without realizing how truly bad it is. they started saying and spreading that life is great on the other side and got imprisoned or killed for it.

Napoleone, Hitler, Uncle Sam - all have one thing in common. All of them wanted to conquer Russia. Napoleone and Hitler did it by force. US has been trying it by covert force and and with financial force. So far - no one successful. Although, US did extract lots of capital and done way more damage than anyone in the world.

Hitler wanted to conquer the whole Europe and was financed by american, english, and german banks. if he would've conquer Russia - life could've been totally different today. US-Russian relations never been good after the WWII just because Russian knew who was sponsoring Hitler and for what purposes - conquer Russia either by force or by purchase.

But the worst thing is that those Nazi's that were brought to USA were brought because someone here said: "if we don't get those nazi's - russians will get them. and then, russia will be too dangerous"

yeah, right - Stalin would execute those criminals on the spot with his own hands. for hitler's joint venture sponsored by western globalists russia paid with 20,000,000 lives.

not one american today is thankful for what Russia did once for the whole world.

Dude, Stalin had people killed for fantastic reasons like the fact that they were taller than him. In addition, haven't you ever heard, "never be the first one to stop clapping?"

Think about what you're advocating: You like the idea of imprisoning, torturing, and killing people for merely having different ideas from yours. Do you not see how psychotic that is? How immoral it is? How evil it is? In your world, are the extremes of cruelty and oppression perfectly okay just so long as there's no such thing as money? The country of your dreams is not a utopia. It is an inconceivably hellish nightmare on earth where nobody's inherent human rights are recognized or protected. I am not sure exactly where my breaking point is, but a despotic Communist government is light years past it. I would fight to the death with everything I can against such brutal tyranny. People who advocate the free market are not traitors to humanity. In reality, they're just...smarter than you are. However, people who condone killing other people for dissent ARE traitors to humanity. Seriously, how much of your life did you spend in the USSR and Russia? I thought the ordinary American sheep were brainwashed and indoctrinated, but your sociopathic opinions are simply off the charts.

Although my own understanding of economics is amateurish at best, yours is completely backwards. Allow me to cure your appalling ignorance by explaining in excruciating detail WHY our current system results in the abuses it does. First of all, I want to clarify three things:

There's no such thing as a debate between "Capitalism and Communism," because no economic system exists that is not capitalistic. Capital merely refers to wealth. As such, communism is a form of capitalism - the difference is that capital - or wealth - is owned and controlled "collectively" (i.e. by the state) rather than by individuals, as it is in a totally free market. Under systems like socialism and national socialism, it's a mixed bag of both (and differences arise between ownership and control over capital).
On wealth redistribution in general: Wealth redistribution implies that you can keep only what the government LETS you keep - in other words, the government becomes your master rather than your servant, and this is unacceptable. The easiest way to subjugate the people is to put them at the mercy of the state economically...everything else follows by itself.
Once again, aside from despotism and human rights abuses, Communism results in abject poverty for the entire society. This is because, even if a central economic planner is brilliant, it's impossible to plan the production and distribution of goods in a way that can account for the inherent complexities of a large-scale economy. Capital is inevitably mismanaged, misallocated, etc. Efficiency suffers from this, and it also suffers from the fact that some people will do the least amount of work necessary to not get in trouble. Other than not being tortured or killed, there's no selfish incentive to work harder. Sure, some people will work hard because they care about everyone else in the commune, but the inefficiency and shortages inherent in Communism create an environment of low morale, which destroys the camaradarie and team spirit the system tries to instill in the people. Besides, it's inherently wrong to force people to be a part of a system they don't want to be a part of. Coercion is evil. This is a huge reason why I advocate a government that leaves you the hell alone and doesn't steal your wealth - that way, people who want to participate in the free market can, and people with Communist ideals can form their own insulated communities where they own everything collectively and ignore the free market in other communities.


We do indeed have a terrible pattern of wealth and business consolidation in this country. The more big businesses merge, consolidate, and crush small competition, the less free market competition we have. Under our current system, costs of market entry are insanely high, keeping out new competitors to replace the ones lost. When there are fewer companies competing, that means there are fewer companies competing for both consumers AND workers. Therefore, prices rise, wages fall, temporary profits rise, and more and more wealth gravitates towards the few remaining megacorporations - but gradually, the impoverishment of the general population works to slow down the economy and economic activity in general starts to depreciate at an accelerating rate.

Before leading into the true sources of our pattern of consolidation and monopolism, it's important to note that there are other factors directly impoverishing the middle class. Most obviously, the income tax steals wealth from individual citizens to pay for unnecessary warfarism and welfarism. More importantly, our monetary policy centers around the issuance of credit-based inflationary fiat money. When money is lent, it is created out of thin air, and vice versa. This process happens when people take out a loan for a house, when megacorporations take out massive loans for acquisitions, and when the government takes out loans to cover its outrageous spending deficits. When loans are repaid, this created credit is extinguished. The government is "special" here in that it routinely gets away with taking out more loans to pay its old ones off. As such, rather than the money supply expanding and contracting in a regular cycle or staying relatively constant (assuming stable levels of borrowing), the money supply continues to expand at an accelerating rate. Obviously, monetary inflation is directly tied to subsequent price inflation once the economy takes note of the debased money supply, although this almost perfect correlation can be masked by fiddling with the way price inflation is calculated and by exporting our dollars overseas (which we do en masse...these extra dollars are not currently effecting prices so much in the domestic market, but they will eventually come to bite us in the ass and come flooding back in once other countries lose their faith in the dollar). Before price inflation occurs and the money loses its value though, the borrowers get to spend their money. Obviously, the amount of money that government and large corporations spend is several orders of magnitude larger than the amount of money that home-buyers and middle-class debtors spend, so they get the greatest benefit here. Large, government-favored corporations benefit doubly, since a lot of the money spent by the government is spent doing business with them. As the new money circulates through the economy, demand for goods and services begins to greatly exceed the natural rate of increase in production potential, and this leads to shortages. These shortages are not exactly severe, but they're large enough that the pricing mechanism gets a whiff of what's going on. The economy as a whole therefore realizes that the currency has become debased, so prices increase to compensate for the flood of paper and credit. By the time the money reaches the poorest in society, it has less buying power than it did when it was first created. Even worse, every dollar ordinary people store in savings loses value similarly. Today's rate of monetary inflation is somewhere shy of 15% annually, meaning people's savings are worth almost 15% less every single year. That adds up quickly! At the same time ordinary citizens are having their life savings stolen from them, huge corporations are making acquisitions and such with the borrowed money, which they can pay back later in cheaper dollars! While they quickly buy up real wealth (businesses, property, etc.), they're quickly handing off the borrowed money, and it depreciates in value in someone else's hands. The situation is even worse for those living on fixed nominal income, like many senior citizens. While their income stays fixed, their cost of living skyrockets.

As you can see, our monetary policy destroys the savings of the poor and middle classes by redistributing their wealth and buying power in an overwhelmingly upward direction. However, that's unfortunately not all. Under inflationary pressure, both prices and wages rise - but prices rise faster than wages (for reasons which I won't go into here, partially because I'm not confident enough in my understanding of them to explain why - let it suffice to say that this phenomenon occurs). In other words, inflation not only steals the wealth you currently own - it also creates a trend where your costs of living start to increase faster than your wages can keep up!

Obviously, this monetary system encourages an economic culture of "borrow and spend," and it prohibitively discourages savings. The dollar is like the "hot potato," and everyone's trying to get rid of it as quickly as possible before it loses value. Most people aren't perceptive enough to think this way on a conscious level, but the spending culture molds their subconscious anyway. In case you haven't noticed, since money is created as debt, banks are at the center of our economy. Rather than entrepreneurs, banks are the movers and shakers. You cannot slowly accumulate wealth by saving it the way you could under an honest system (with a stable money supply based on wealth rather than debt). Since people cannot accumulate wealth from savings, they cannot use this saved wealth to start up a company, either. Other than recruiting private investors (which means giving up a huge portion of your business to a rich person), the only way the average person can start up a business is to borrow money - and the less capital you have to put up for collateral, the smaller your loan and the smaller the company you can start. When the only way to finance a business is through borrowing, huge and established corporations have an inherent advantage over smaller businesses in that they can borrow excessive amounts of money and buy real wealth with it, the proceeds of which will pay for the loan. Of course, under a savings-based system larger corporations would also be able to save and accumulate money quicker, but there's another HUGE difference: Under our current system, you have the "Wal-Mart effect." Whenever Wal-Mart comes into a town, banks loan tons of money out to it, and they cease loaning any money to its smaller competitors, anticipating that the competitors will soon be driven out of business and unable to repay their loans. Because of some other terrible policies we have, this is possibly true anyway, but our monetary policy makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy. In other words, under our system, companies are entirely dependent on banks, and this greatly favors big business over small business. In other words, our monetary policy not only directly impoverishes people - it is also one of the major reasons behind our trend of consolidation.

There are other extremely important reasons why businesses America are merger, acquisition, and consolidation-happy as well:

Corporations exist in the first place. This is a huge problem, because corporations are actually ALIEN to free-market capitalism based on contracts. They're government constructs - government is what gives them privileges and immunities that ordinary citizens do not have. Government created the "corporate veil."
Corporate taxes are high. Only larger companies can afford the overhead of hiring teams of lawyers to find every possible loophole and exemption. Meanwhile, small companies get raped. Of course, the funny thing is, due to corruption inherent in any centralized government, corporations are practically the ones writing these loopholes.
Regulations and red tape are excessive. Complying with them creates so much additional overhead (including legal work) that they significantly increase the barriers to market entry, thereby increasing the minimum size a company must be to compete. Of course, even worse, the corruption inherent in any centralized government means that big corporations are essentially writing loopholes for themselves through their representatives in government. In other words, people cheering about regulations think that they just "stuck it" to Wal-Mart, but really, they just stuck it to mom and pop shops and drove them out of business.
Corporate welfare is rampant. The larger your corporation is, the better it can lobby for a government contract, or even better, a handout. This gives an obviously unfair competitive advantage to the recipients of government largesse.

Why do mergers, acquisitions, and consolidations occur? They occur because the barriers to competitive market entry are extremely high right now, for the reasons I listed above.

The only real argument for wealth redistribution is if you claim that free market capitalism inherently results in consolidation rather than competition. Hopefully, I've adequately dispelled the myth that perpetual consolidation is inherent in a free market by briefly explaining its ties to overtaxation, overregulation, corporate welfare, etc., and giving a detailed explanation on our monetary system's role. However, let's assume for the sake of argument that the factors I listed do not account for the whole story. If so, this would be tied to the fact that capital is often accrued through inheritance rather than through merit, and money works to make more money (both through investments and through the ability to create businesses and surpass the market's financial entry barriers). However, the important thing to understand is that the only competitive advantage rich people have is their ability to overcome market entry barriers. Once you're wealthy enough (or can acquire enough venture capital) to overcome these barriers and compete, you're on equal ground. In other words, the optimal size of a company is not "as big as possible" in free market capitalism, like the case is now (to overcome artificial hurdles) - rather, it's "big enough to overcome entry barriers, and everything after that is a matter of who does the best job."

Several other points logically follow from this. The most important one is that, although companies do consolidate to achieve a minimum competitive size, this process isn't perpetual (to the point of monopoly) in all industries of a free market. Instead, free market consolidation rests at a near-equilibrium with the point of viable market entry. There are five major types of business models I can think of at the moment, and they each have their own natural costs of entry. From the most expensive to the least expensive:

Utilities and other industries relying on massive physical infrastructure. The ultimate example is roads...which is why roads are public property in almost every society. Privatizing them might make for a fun experiment, but only in a limited jurisdiction. (Such experimentation is part of what makes decentralization of policy great, though!)
Non-physical empires based on copyrighted or patented technological infrastructure, where other businesses create their products to fit in with a specific copyrighted platform (i.e. Microsoft).
Production of manufactured goods
Agriculture
Services


Obviously, you have to be a big company to compete as, say, a utility (thankfully, there's a natural countermeasure that I'll explain below). However, the key point here is that redistributing wealth does NOT fix that. No amount of downward redistribution from the "big boys" will give middle class people the amount of capital necessary to create a startup in high-entry-cost industries. Regulating the market and raising the bar of entry even further doesn't fix it, either (in fact, it makes those costs much WORSE!). You're always going to have to be big for some kinds of markets, but if we react by preventing companies from getting big enough, the industry simply won't exist, rather than falling to smaller companies. Because of that, wealth redistribution for the purpose of increasing competition in such industries is futile. That's completely aside from the moral argument that it is theft (and therefore wrong) and the additional practical argument that the inherent and inevitable corruption of government results in a phenomenon where all meaningful wealth redistribution goes upwards.

However, under a sound monetary system, there are mitigating factors that help the general public maintain wealth in the presence of the "big boys." For instance, the bigger a company is, the greater the odds it's publicly owned, so anyone can get a piece of the action. As far as wages go, huge companies are particularly susceptible to the negotiative demands of unions, so [non-coercive] unions level the playing field in that category. As far as meaningfully lowering costs of entry to promote competition, there are in fact free-market solutions to costs of entry in production, such as cooperative buying groups.

On the subject of cartels and monopolies:
Coercive cartels and monopolies are sometimes effective in markets with high costs of entry, but they're utterly ineffective in markets with reasonable costs of entry (because another competitor will just come in and ruin their parade). There are thankfully some natural countermeasures that people can take in the events of cartels and monopolies, however:

In infrastructure-based models, private companies frequently thumb their noses at people because "Haha, our infrastructure is our private property, and you have to acquiesce to our terms to use it!" However, except in the case of cell phone companies, they forget: They must run their infrastructure through PUBLIC property (i.e. roads :D) if they want to have an infrastructure at all. This is not their right - this is a privilege, and it means that these companies have to bow to the terms and conditions "we the people" impose on their use of that privilege. The property rights argument swings both ways. :)
In copyright-based business models, we'd do well to remember that copyrights, patents, and trademarks are government constructs used to promote the progress of the arts and sciences. Such grants of exclusivity are useful, but like all government-granted privileges, they can be abused coercively. The simple solution to monopolistic practices in such markets is to revoke a monopoly's exclusive privilege to such "intellectual property" (a term I loathe). Personally, I think copyright laws would work better if they were decentralized and each state competed in the strictness of their composition and enforcement - that would lead to the minimal restriction of competition necessary to provide a financial incentive for progress - but that's another discussion entirely.
In terms of the production of manufactured goods and to a lesser extent, agriculture, cartels are sometimes effective under our current system, but it remains to be seen how bad they'd be with all of the above problems with our economy resolved. I don't imagine natural monopolies would occur here, but if they do, state-level antitrust laws would be more than sufficient to handle them.
In the services sector, cartels are pretty nonexistent.



Wow, that took forever to write. Thankfully, I don't live in cageybee's "happy Communist world," because I'm sure he'd love to see me drawn and quartered for espousing such "dangerous" ideas.

[Conza88]

I have been calling our nation "collectivo-fascist" now for at least 6 months.

It's called Nationalist Socialism...
Third Reich....

[GHoeberX]

I also tend to agree that the USA can be regarded as 'soft'-fascist state. It would be interesting to see a poll on this issue; is there a majority on this forum which agrees with this view?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

No, really. We're all ready a fascist regime. What exactly is the definition of fascism in economic terms? A government that either controls businesses and corporations or controls them discretely. In other words, everything is either owned or controlled by the government.

So tell me. What say do airliners have over what they do? After September 11th, airliners barely had a say as to what the heck they did. They have to follow everything "Homeland Security" tells them. They have to suspend all air traffic if the government tells them to. They have to cooperate with the federal government in the event of backlogged flights. They have to regulate who flies and who doesn't (ie the watch list) and despite all of these rules that they're told to follow, they have to permit secret agents with guns on their airliners. How absurd is this?
Then we have things like automobile companies. Regulated by the government.
Weapon manufacturers? Regulated, and owned at times.
Gun shops? Regulated like hell.
The entire economy? Controlled like a puppet. Must I continue?


Does this strike anyone as odd? Really. By definition, we've all ready gone Fascist. Right after 9/11.

We can either waste our time trying to solve our problems in legal futility like they do over in the eastern hemisphere; or, we can choose the American way of civil transcendentalism to move away from legal tyranny altogether.
One of the characterizations of legal tyranny will be that living in such a soulless entity will mirror every kind of negative government whether that be fascism, a dictatorship or an Aristocracy. Still, this kind of complex, legal politicking really plays into the hands of the law makers, legal experts and lawyers.
The American solution to this problem has always been transcendentalism. We have transcended such problems in the past through movements away from complex legal tyrannies back towards the simple civil purpose that our founding father's intended in the Constitution.
One such movement happened almost immediately at the birth of our nation when Thomas Jefferson and James Madison created the 2 party system; while, another movement took place by Ralph Waldo Emerson the father of American transcendentalism himself, when he suggested that we adopt the Native American's culture of simplicity and happiness.
Another such movement took place when our nation moved away from the "Social Darwinism" of the Great Depression towards the Constitution's civil purpose regarding the collective contentment of all Americans.
In regards to political idealism and the futile complexity it creates, I think Americans are fortunate in that our Continental philosophy has broken away from the Eastern Hemisphere. We have basically figured out the problem by isolating legal tyranny as the culprit. This culprit amounts to imprisoning our lives in the legal chaos of a courtroom.
In other words, while we should detest legal tyranny as a metaphorical hell -- at best a necessary evil -- our American character should also desire any freedom outside of a courtroom as a metaphorical heaven.
We acheive this transcending away from a complex legal tyranny by hiring inexperienced law makers and judges, by firing our lawyers, notifying prosecutor that he or she is not invited onto our private property, legally assembling to paying less taxes and fines . . . etc..

[mrsat_98]

I also tend to agree that the USA can be regarded as 'soft'-fascist state. It would be interesting to see a poll on this issue; is there a majority on this forum which agrees with this view?


Mazi , Fascist, Communist , Socialist they are all the same some just work faster than others. IMHO the US is all of the above. For an eye opening experience
See LRS 14:358 -14:390

14:390 http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=78503

Bear in Mind this section has several sections, So press next section to get your eyes opened. It has been held unconstitutional by the US supremes however it has had a published decision trying to apply it to government agents. I have had wittnessed several interesting confrontations using this on the battle field, It rocks.

[ThePieSwindler]

fascism comes to capitalism when corporations become so big that they become our government because of their economical influence and because of their financial strength they can influence constitution, presidential decisions, military actions, and so forth. no longer interests of the people become important. economy is a #1 concern and corporations are concern that's before the #1 concern.

therefore, fascism is a merger of the corporate and government power where corporations take a dominant role in government's actions.

for example, when pharmaceutical companies become too rich, they can get really creative on people. when oil companies need help in the middle-east, they call for military action. But the worst thing is - the tax payers are paying for needs of corporations.

in other words, at the beginning it is capitalism, then it becomes fascism/despotism.
what one thing imperialism, fascism, and despotism have in common? - Rich rule the poor.

In this case rich can be a king or a corporation. In both cases - these regimes are bad for people.

Communism is the best. I predict that soon, the whole world will unite unanimously to create a one world communism government. In capitalism, money has power over people. In communism, money has no power over people, and life is much happier.

...

You're not... ACTUALLY serious.. are you? This just sounds like the typical unsubstantiated Marxist drivel, devoid of any real knowledge of how economics as a science actually works. Thanks for the ignorant opinion, though.

[cageybee]

...

You're not... ACTUALLY serious.. are you? This just sounds like the typical unsubstantiated Marxist drivel, devoid of any real knowledge of how economics as a science actually works. Thanks for the ignorant opinion, though.

actually, i explained it very logically, that when big oil giants are a part of US economy and when they start whining that they are not making money and that they may lose their contracts in the middle-east and that will cause US to lose the US dollar's backing - this prompts a military action. So, to summarize, it was corporation's interest that military is defending, and we, the taxpayers are paying for this venture.

when russian FSB turned taliban leaders against USA at a critical moment when US oil companies wanted to run an oil pipeline through Afghanistan and when the taliban started asking for big money - US had to dispatch our military forces to switch afghanistan leadership again to be pro-American.

So, when corporations become our government - it is fascism. Therefore, in a capitalist nation, when corporations become too big and their well-being becomes important because it affects our lifestyle - corporations start to influence the direction of our government. Therefore, every capitalist nation is set to become a fascist nation eventually.

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini, Fascist dictator of Italy

Fascism in full swing will come to America when its economy will crash and when all the markets will be cheap and when all the foreigners will be trying to buy our country. Capitalists/Fascists will push for the close of democracy to make sure that no one can buy this country for pennies after the crash of economy.

That's why the president gave himself an ability to declare a public emergency and to impose a martial law in case of a financial crisis.

Since Canadian and Mexican economies are dependent on US economy - their economies will crash too.

Since USA will be closing its borders and relations with Eurasia, it will need to make sure that the trade between USA, Canada, and Mexico is easy - that's why they need North American Union and NAFTA Superhighway, and AMERO.

Someone already knew about this outcome and had thought and planned for it for years before.

They knew that Russia would eventually comeback and would be asking for the money that was stolen from it long time ago. The thing is that all these plans show that USA is not going to pay its debts and is ready to get away from the Eurasia and lose its trade and relations with Eurasia. People in NAU will not be free to travel to Eurasia. Eurasia will be NAU's enemy. There may even be a war between NAU and Eurasia, because USA will owe lots of money to China and Russia.

Even if USA will have a revolution that would destroy a Fascist government to restart a government with liberty and justice for all with capitalism - Eurasia is not going to accept USA and will still be demanding its money and will be demanding that the USA does not start a regime that eventually turns into Fascism. They will be asking that in order for there to be peace - there must be one world government and communism is the only way of life because it is great when no one is rich and life is not about money.

American globalists want a one world government where rich rule the poor and is more like a one world kingdom with Rothchild and Rockefeller being the secret kings of the world.

Eurasian globalists want a one world government where no one is rich, not even the leaders of the world. They want for the wealth to belong to the world and to the people. They don't want to be kings. They want people to own the world and to choose a leader.

[GunnyFreedom]

yeah, he's actually serious.

[TastyWheat]

I just want to throw it out there. As bad as the neo-cons are I still hate Democrats even more.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

...

You're not... ACTUALLY serious.. are you? This just sounds like the typical unsubstantiated Marxist drivel, devoid of any real knowledge of how economics as a science actually works. Thanks for the ignorant opinion, though.

Look. Try to relax please. Take a deep breath. Now, just imagine what kind of paradise we would all be living in today if we just elected a lot of inexperienced law makers to office in Washington DC. Okay. First off, they wouldn't know what they were supposed to be doing in regards to legal precedent because, well, they wouldn't know much about legal issues. They wouldn't be lawyers after all. Now, this is a great thing. Secondly, they wouldn't know how to spend trillions and trillions of dollars. This is an even better thing.
Now. Try to imagine what would happen if we elected a lot of inexperienced judges to sit on the bench. They would obviously be ignorant of the prosperous functions of the court for one. They would probably throw out a lot of stupid cases that mean absolutely nothing for another. They don't have anything to do with the civil contentment for all Americans.
This is what we should be trying to achieve. We need to move, as in a movement, out from the legal tyranny we live today as both liberals and conservatives who support Dr. Ron Paul. This movement we are part of today as both liberals and conservatives is likened to having the proverbial lightning in a bottle. So, we need to be diligent in our efforts to Unify this fragile movement by stopping our silly political bickering.
The process of strengthening our common American culture as defined in the U.S. Constitution amounts to working together; while, the process of bickering about ourselves amounts to us entertaining ourselves.
The first process is responsible in that it is uphill. Even like mountain climbing perhaps, a professional manner; while, the second process is irresponsible in that it is hypergolic. This is all downhill in comparison. It amounts to easily obtained gratification. Amateur like. Childish even.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I just want to throw it out there. As bad as the neo-cons are I still hate Democrats even more.

Please read above post.

[clouds]

Has anyone stated the obvious, that communism is a tight rich class that governs by force the lives of a large lower class? That putting limits on productivity and wealth kills the incentive to work? That creativity is good and not to be punished? Communism is a society built off the idea that all humanity is evil... except a few planners who think their plan for humanity is best, even if you don't agree. It is a destruction of the mind and spirit. Look at the Chinese. They operate on more of a free market than us nowadays and their economy is booming, communism is slipping fast, and the government's hold on their culture waning.

However, I have never heard someone who speaks of communism with such respect speak with any real logic. They are worried with their fellow man and his suffering, and don't realize how much suffering their plans cause him.

The hardest thing I think communists and socialists struggle with is the idea that competition is good. Communists would rather the government had a monopoly on who produced and where the money went, and, well, socialists would too. These are the same people who say we need to limit business so as to keep out monopolies.

[torchbearer]

This is John Galt speaking... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_qQt9IrUc0
Very well done piece.

[clouds]

i'm almost done with atlas shrugged. Such an eye opening book. The funny thing is it helped me solidify my beliefs instead of remove them.

[torchbearer]

i'm almost done with atlas shrugged. Such an eye opening book. The funny thing is it helped me solidify my beliefs instead of remove them.

there are some good things to get out of her writings... did you know they were producing an atlas shrugged movie for 2008?

[torchbearer]

link to movie being developed: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480239/

[cageybee]

Has anyone stated the obvious, that communism is a tight rich class that governs by force the lives of a large lower class? That putting limits on productivity and wealth kills the incentive to work? That creativity is good and not to be punished? Communism is a society built off the idea that all humanity is evil... except a few planners who think their plan for humanity is best, even if you don't agree. It is a destruction of the mind and spirit. Look at the Chinese. They operate on more of a free market than us nowadays and their economy is booming, communism is slipping fast, and the government's hold on their culture waning.

However, I have never heard someone who speaks of communism with such respect speak with any real logic. They are worried with their fellow man and his suffering, and don't realize how much suffering their plans cause him.

The hardest thing I think communists and socialists struggle with is the idea that competition is good. Communists would rather the government had a monopoly on who produced and where the money went, and, well, socialists would too. These are the same people who say we need to limit business so as to keep out monopolies.

well, i recently had an enlightenment. i now believe in a one world government, but not under a despot or a puppet of despot, but in communism where everything belongs to the people.

just because you were told that communism doesn't work and it sucks, doesn't mean it is true.

usa never let it work because they wanted to break down russian communism to conquer russia by purchase. capitalists are nothing but exploiters of cheap resources around the world. they go around and tell everyone that people must have democracy. But why??

"If American democracy ceases to move forward as a living force, seeking day and night by peaceful means to better the lot of our citizens, fascism will grow in strength in our land." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

That's why we are running around the world and spreading democracy. We want democracy in communists nations not because we care about its people. We want them to bring down the walls so that we can come and buy up their businesses and resources so that we can have residual income for the rest of the days and so that those communists become colonized by US.

Look at what we did to Iraq. NO ONE GIVES A SHIT ABOUT IRAQIES. They only care about oil contracts. Fucking noble liberators.

[torchbearer]

in communism where everything belongs to the people.


Nothing belongs to anyone in a communist society. There is no property.
Welcome to a world of no wealth and no value.
What is yours is mine and what is mine is not mine at all...not if you want it...but wait... that's property.
Some things work better in theory than in practice.

[clouds]

communism is a pretty idea, but it has no bearing on reality at all.

[torchbearer]

In a free property respecting capitalist society, everyone can own their own lil' slice of the world.. and what they get is according to how much work they give.
That is the libertarian society.
A world owned by the people.

[sophocles07]

As bad as the neo-cons are I still hate Democrats even more.

I hate them both. They're bad in different ways.

[cageybee]

Nothing belongs to anyone in a communist society. There is no property.
Welcome to a world of no wealth and no value.
What is yours is mine and what is mine is not mine at all...not if you want it...but wait... that's property.
Some things work better in theory than in practice.

actually, it worked in russia. i lived there. i know it did. the only reason why the Soviet Union broke down was this http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=125157

[torchbearer]

actually, it worked in russia. i lived there. i know it did. the only reason why the Soviet Union broke down was this http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=125157

It works in the sense that you can coerce a slave into labor by starving them and then promising bread and milk stamps in exchange for labor.. controlled by a ruling class of priviledged citizens who delegate the resources for everyone's "good".

[cageybee]

In a free property respecting capitalist society, everyone can own their own lil' slice of the world.. and what they get is according to how much work they give.
That is the libertarian society.
A world owned by the people.

and then people like rockefellers rise and start fucking up the world.

[torchbearer]

Besides USSR wasn't a communist country, it was a totalitarian socialist country.
Think of a monk commune when you think of communism in the purest meaning of the word.

[torchbearer]

and then people like rockefellers rise and start fucking up the world.

rockefellers are not libertarians and they don't respect the constitution.
they are tyrants and the problem. don't confuse them with people who respect other's property.

[cageybee]

It works in the sense that you can coerce a slave into labor by starving them and then promising bread and milk stamps in exchange for labor.. controlled by a ruling class of priviledged citizens who delegate the resources for everyone's "good".

no one was a privileged citizen in Russia. everyone was on a sallary. Stalin never wore fancy suits or lived in a huge palace and enjoyed trips around the world and spent money everywhere. that's a fact.

for you it is hard to understand that no one was forced to be a slave in Russia. people had different values.

for most people here important things are big homes and big cars. over there was education, peace, and a great social life.

[Mini-Me]

actually, i explained it very logically, that when big oil giants are a part of US economy and when they start whining that they are not making money and that they may lose their contracts in the middle-east and that will cause US to lose the US dollar's backing - this prompts a military action. So, to summarize, it was corporation's interest that military is defending, and we, the taxpayers are paying for this venture.

when russian FSB turned taliban leaders against USA at a critical moment when US oil companies wanted to run an oil pipeline through Afghanistan and when the taliban started asking for big money - US had to dispatch our military forces to switch afghanistan leadership again to be pro-American.

Under our current system, this is true.



So, when corporations become our government - it is fascism. Therefore, in a capitalist nation, when corporations become too big and their well-being becomes important because it affects our lifestyle - corporations start to influence the direction of our government. Therefore, every capitalist nation is set to become a fascist nation eventually.

This is where you go wrong. The problem is not the existence of money or a free market - the problem is that government is inherently coercive, and that centralized government is inherently overtaken by special interests. The problem is the power of the state, and this is a principle universal to all systems, including and especially Communism.



"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini, Fascist dictator of Italy

This is true. The problem here is that, although corporations "seem" independent, they actually become part of the state apparatus. This is oppressive because wealth becomes controlled, if not directly owned, by the state. Along with other totalitarian practices like big brother surveillance and the violent elimination of dissent, this is the same problem shared by ALL collectivist systems, and this is why they are all so evil.



Fascism in full swing will come to America when its economy will crash and when all the markets will be cheap and when all the foreigners will be trying to buy our country. Capitalists/Fascists will push for the close of democracy to make sure that no one can buy this country for pennies after the crash of economy.

"The close of democracy?" First of all, this is a constitutional republic. Secondly, the political freedom of democracy has absolutely no bearing on whether foreigners can buy the country for pennies on the dollar - rather, economic freedom and trade policy dictate whether this is possible, and individual choices dictate what is actually bought and sold. You're not speaking of the close of democracy - you're speaking of the close of the free market and the opening of the tyranny of central planning.



That's why the president gave himself an ability to declare a public emergency and to impose a martial law in case of a financial crisis.

Yes, it is - martial law allows for central planning by subjugating the population and forcing them to be subservient.



Since Canadian and Mexican economies are dependent on US economy - their economies will crash too.

True.



Since USA will be closing its borders and relations with Eurasia, it will need to make sure that the trade between USA, Canada, and Mexico is easy - that's why they need North American Union and NAFTA Superhighway, and AMERO.

You're missing the point again here. The North American Union is needed to consolidate the political and economic power of the US for the benefit of the few at the expense of everyone else's freedom and prosperity. The point of the NAU isn't to make "trade" between the US, Canada, and Mexico easy - the point is to centralize politial power and enslave all three populations all at once. The European Union was created for the same reason. While the individual rulers in these entities may compete with each other for dominance the way Republicans and Democrats do (e.g. NAU vs. EU), they are still part of the same system and cooperating to bring about one-world government.



Someone already knew about this outcome and had thought and planned for it for years before.

They knew that Russia would eventually comeback and would be asking for the money that was stolen from it long time ago. The thing is that all these plans show that USA is not going to pay its debts and is ready to get away from the Eurasia and lose its trade and relations with Eurasia. People in NAU will not be free to travel to Eurasia. Eurasia will be NAU's enemy. There may even be a war between NAU and Eurasia, because USA will owe lots of money to China and Russia.

Yes, this is true. Russia and China are not part of the NWO, and they have certainly been slighted by the west. China holds a lot of our debt - they know our dollar is about to crash, and they have the power to make it happen. Their hope is that they'll be able to buy the US out from under us when we default; however, if we childishly close ourselves off to them, they and Russia are probably fully prepared to make war on us to collect. Although Russia and China have been given a raw deal by US dominance, that essentially means that our rulers have been screwing over their people just as badly as they've been screwing over ours. However, that does not automatically make the Chinese or Russian governments the "good guys" as you seem to think - they're simply the other bad guys, exploiting their people and wanting to create a different NWO with them at the center rather than western bankers.



Even if USA will have a revolution that would destroy a Fascist government to restart a government with liberty and justice for all with capitalism - Eurasia is not going to accept USA and will still be demanding its money and will be demanding that the USA does not start a regime that eventually turns into Fascism. They will be asking that in order for there to be peace - there must be one world government and communism is the only way of life because it is great when no one is rich and life is not about money.

Okay, here's where you totally fly off the handle. Repeat after me: Every fricking economic system in the world, including Communism, is technically capitalism. Free market capitalism does not inherently turn into fascism - rather, unchecked centralized government power turns free markets into corporate-fascist markets. When it does, the biggest reason why this is a bad thing is because the people are exploited just like they are under every other collectivist system, including Communism. Read my last post which actually EXPLAINS why our system has turned fascist, and why it's a product of government, not the free market.

You are very correct that China and Russia will want us to repay our debts - however, you then jump to the absolutely ridiculous conclusion that to do that, we must become Communists. That is a baseless assertion. If the NWO fails, freedom will return to America, we will become prosperous again, and we will make good on our debts to foreign countries.

From Ayn Rand (who's not always my favorite, but she was definitely right here):

"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Anconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money?"

The world revolves around money and power. When money doesn't exist, the world revolves around material goods and power. No matter what, elites own and control everything in a collectivist system. The idea that "the people" collectively own everything and hold hands and live happily ever after under Communism is a myth that Communist rulers use to enslave people to their whims.



American globalists want a one world government where rich rule the poor and is more like a one world kingdom with Rothchild and Rockefeller being the secret kings of the world.

Yeah, pretty much.



Eurasian globalists want a one world government where no one is rich, not even the leaders of the world. They want for the wealth to belong to the world and to the people. They don't want to be kings. They want people to own the world and to choose a leader.

I'm going to be frank here. Since your mind seems entirely impervious to logic and reason, I'm going to rephrase in words you can understand:
You are unbelievably fucking naive if you actually believe this bullshit. This is not how it happened under Communism the last time, and it's not how it will ever happen under Communism. Read my second-to-last post again. I am not debating with you. I debate with people who are merely misinformed and brainwashed, like ordinary Americans. You, on the other hand, are so delusional that you are in a league of your own. It's impossible to "debate" you, because you're so indoctrinated to believe empty Communist platitudes that you've shut the rational part of your mind completely off to repress all logic contrary to your worldview. Instead of debating you, I'm trying to teach and deprogram you.

The funny thing is, you're so delusional that you actually seem to think Russia and China are still Communist (and that they're going to spread it all over the world). News flash: They're not. Outright Communism failed so miserably that Russia and China's economies are now mostly "free markets." They certainly have some fascist elements, like a centralized monetary policy - and China in particular has until recently been suppressing the true value of their currency. Sure, they're still run by the "Communist Party," but the only part kept largely intact is their complete disrespect for the natural rights people possess (free speech, etc.)...although this is not nearly as bad as it was under full-blown Communism. They've lightened up...a little. Anyway, the point I'm trying to make in this paragraph is that even Russia and China aren't backwards enough to share your pro-Communist viewpoints anymore.

[Mini-Me]

actually, it worked in russia. i lived there. i know it did. the only reason why the Soviet Union broke down was this http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=125157

It worked in Russia? At the expense of MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WHO DIED OF FAMINE (aside from the millions who were killed for dissent). That's what happens under Communism - the people who get in line first live comfortably, and everyone else dies when the food runs out. Centralized planning cannot properly manage the production and distribution of goods.


no one was a privileged citizen in Russia. everyone was on a sallary. Stalin never wore fancy suits or lived in a huge palace and enjoyed trips around the world and spent money everywhere. that's a fact.

for you it is hard to understand that no one was forced to be a slave in Russia. people had different values.

for most people here important things are big homes and big cars. over there was education, peace, and a great social life.
No, of course not. Stalin didn't wear fancy suits or travel. Instead, Stalin spent his days being worshipped by his personality cult, imprisoning the people who stopped clapping for him first, and killing the people who were taller than him. Just another day in a utopian society where everyone is equal, isn't it?

People had different values in Russia? Their social lives were so terrific because, as long as they agreed with everything their leaders said, they probably wouldn't be thrown into the gulag and/or executed "for the greater good." If nobody was forced to be a slave, then how come people couldn't opt out of the system if they wanted to? They were enslaved to it, and the only way to "opt out" was to be killed for your beliefs.

[clouds]

well, i recently had an enlightenment. i now believe in a one world government, but not under a despot or a puppet of despot, but in communism where everything belongs to the people.

just because you were told that communism doesn't work and it sucks, doesn't mean it is true.

usa never let it work because they wanted to break down russian communism to conquer russia by purchase. capitalists are nothing but exploiters of cheap resources around the world. they go around and tell everyone that people must have democracy. But why??

"If American democracy ceases to move forward as a living force, seeking day and night by peaceful means to better the lot of our citizens, fascism will grow in strength in our land." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

That's why we are running around the world and spreading democracy. We want democracy in communists nations not because we care about its people. We want them to bring down the walls so that we can come and buy up their businesses and resources so that we can have residual income for the rest of the days and so that those communists become colonized by US.

Look at what we did to Iraq. NO ONE GIVES A SHIT ABOUT IRAQIES. They only care about oil contracts. Fucking noble liberators.

Funny you should quote FDR, a socialist to the core, or someone else's core. Democracy is not the goal, but a republic, where people have representation in their government. I forgot who it was that said democracies last until people discover they can vote themselves into power and wealth. It is actually one of the precursors to fascism.

And the only person who ever told me communism doesn't work was someone who lived under a communist regime. they were willing to call it a nice idea, though.
And you'll find in this forum that we do care about the iraqis. We are against the war that has created the influx of al quaeda in Iraq and the unneccessary killing of thousands of iraqi civilians.

No one broke Russia down. If it was really a viable plan economically, it would never have crumbled.

[cageybee]

Besides USSR wasn't a communist country, it was a totalitarian socialist country.
Think of a monk commune when you think of communism in the purest meaning of the word.

it later had to become a totalitarian state because USA kept trying to sneak in propaganda that "life on the other side is better" omitting the fact that life on the other side is immoral and where money is God with no true democracy.

some people were stupid and started believing these lie about a life on the other side. those that started spreading this lie ruined the country for everyone and ruined their own lives. they got put in prison as traitors of humanity and a country had to step up the measures to make sure that no one continues with this propaganda.

but, money is so powerful. it corrupts people because it has power over people. eventually, once US succeeded with the plan of stressing Russia financially, people started to wonder if life was really better on the other side.

[torchbearer]

I still don't see how people can believe in this stuff... its like its "cool" or something... I love old USSR artifacts, i have some... my faves are the propoganda posters. but that doesn't mean they had a great system. they in fact had one of the worst systems.
Our current country is getting closer to what the USSR was... Obama wins, you'll have your "paradise" made manifest. by that time, i won't bother telling you.. i told you so... i won't waste the words.

[cageybee]

Funny you should quote FDR, a socialist to the core, or someone else's core. Democracy is not the goal, but a republic, where people have representation in their government. I forgot who it was that said democracies last until people discover they can vote themselves into power and wealth. It is actually one of the precursors to fascism.

And the only person who ever told me communism doesn't work was someone who lived under a communist regime. they were willing to call it a nice idea, though.
And you'll find in this forum that we do care about the iraqis. We are against the war that has created the influx of al quaeda in Iraq and the unneccessary killing of thousands of iraqi civilians.

No one broke Russia down. If it was really a viable plan economically, it would never have crumbled.


It worked in Russia? At the expense of MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WHO DIED OF FAMINE (aside from the millions who were killed for dissent). That's what happens under Communism - the people who get in line first live comfortably, and everyone else dies when the food runs out. Centralized planning cannot properly manage the production and distribution of goods.


No, of course not. Stalin didn't wear fancy suits or travel. Instead, Stalin spent his days being worshipped by his personality cult, imprisoning the people who stopped clapping for him first, and killing the people who were taller than him. Just another day in a utopian society where everyone is equal, isn't it?

People had different values in Russia? Their social lives were so terrific because, as long as they agreed with everything their leaders said, they probably wouldn't be thrown into the gulag and/or executed "for the greater good." If nobody was forced to be a slave, then how come people couldn't opt out of the system if they wanted to? They were enslaved to it, and the only way to "opt out" was to be killed for your beliefs.

Centre for Research on Globalisation

According to this 1998 interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, the CIA's intervention in Afghanistan preceded the 1979 Soviet invasion. This decision of the Carter Administration in 1979 to intervene and destabilise Afghanistan is the root cause of Afghanistan's destruction as a nation.

M.C.
The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser

Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998
Posted at globalresearch.ca 15 October 2001

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

Translated from the French by Bill Blum

The URL of this article is:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

Copyright, Le Nouvel Observateur and Bill Blum. For fair use only.

[cageybee]

I still don't see how people can believe in this stuff... its like its "cool" or something... I love old USSR artifacts, i have some... my faves are the propoganda posters. but that doesn't mean they had a great system. they in fact had one of the worst systems.
Our current country is getting closer to what the USSR was... Obama wins, you'll have your "paradise" made manifest. by that time, i won't bother telling you.. i told you so... i won't waste the words.

our country will never become like USSR because of greedy people. It will become a Fascist totalitarian state though because of the greed.

[clouds]

So a totalitarian regime fell. okay. I would rather you explain how good it is to live in China, which was actually a communist regime, not socialist.

[clouds]

our country will never become like USSR becomes of greedy people. It will become a Fascist totalitarian state though because of the greed.

so it will never become like the USSR because it will become like the USSR?

[cageybee]

so it will never become like the USSR because it will become like the USSR?

USSR was not a fascist state. You are poorly educated.

USSR was the biggest peace advocate and US kept waging wars from another side of the world just like we do right now.

And don't forget that it is Russia that saved the world from Hitler who was supported by USA and UK.

[cageybee]

So a totalitarian regime fell. okay. I would rather you explain how good it is to live in China, which was actually a communist regime, not socialist.

China's poor life is because they refuse to be immoral and fall for lies of capitalists.

[torchbearer]

USSR was not a fascist state. You are poorly educated.

USSR was the biggest peace advocate and US kept waging wars from another side of the world just like we do right now.

And don't forget that it is Russia that saved the world from Hitler who was supported by USA and UK.

So Stalin was better than hitler? USSR's version of collectivism was better than hitler's version of collectivism.
funny how both forms of collectivism was the cause of millions of innocent people slaughters... add in Pol Pot to that mix too and you have a super-sized butcher's paradise of the good ol' collectivist communism/socialism/facism. It sickens me to see people cheer on their own demise...

[cageybee]

So Stalin was better than hitler? USSR's version of collectivism was better than hitler's version of collectivism.
funny how both forms of collectivism was the cause of millions of innocent people slaughters... add in Pol Pot to that mix too and you have a super-sized butcher's paradise of the good ol' collectivist communism/socialism/facism. It sickens me to see people cheer on their own demise...

you still did not address whether or not it was ethical or moral or noble for USA to destroy Afghanistan for having a 60 year old relation with USSR and dragging Russians into a very costly war in Afghanistan.

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

[torchbearer]

China's poor life is because they refuse to be immoral and fall for lies of capitalists.

so... before the capitalist were even around... back in dynasty china... the impoverished condititions was because of the capitalist and not the totalitarian family rule of oppression over people?

[clouds]

And if I choose to be moral instead of immoral? morality is rational. When you reject morality you accept murder, you accept that man is merely animal and has no choice to his own destiny. You ssurrender society to an unthinking monster that would kill, steal, and destroy in the name of the common good.

[clouds]

you still did not address whether or not it was ethical or moral or noble for USA to destroy Afghanistan for having a 60 year old relation with USSR and dragging Russians into a very costly war in Afghanistan.

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

The man you are quoting has more in common with you than with our beliefs. I do not see how you think this condemns capitalism or glorifies the ussr.

[cageybee]

And if I choose to be moral instead of immoral? morality is rational. When you reject morality you accept murder, you accept that man is merely animal and has no choice to his own destiny. You ssurrender society to an unthinking monster that would kill, steal, and destroy in the name of the common good.

and when you pay your taxes - you state that it is ok to spread democracy so that we can exploit cheap nations, it is OK to ruin other nations with covert operations that destroy nations, it is ok to bomb innocent civilians, etc, etc.

don't start proving your morality to me.

[cageybee]

The man you are quoting has more in common with you than with our beliefs. I do not see how you think this condemns capitalism or glorifies the ussr.

no, it shows how immoral USA is.

[cageybee]

so... before the capitalist were even around... back in dynasty china... the impoverished condititions was because of the capitalist and not the totalitarian family rule of oppression over people?

chinese actually love their people. they changed from despotism to communism.

if a country changes from despotism to capitalism with democracy, then it will eventually transform into fascism. Fascism is really a despotism. In Fascism, a goup of individuals (corporations) become despots and dictate lives of the people future.

so, the chinese actually did a noble thing by giving the wealth to the country and the people instead of creating another capitalist regime that's set to become a fascist state.

[LibertyEagle]

well, i recently had an enlightenment. i now believe in a one world government, but not under a despot or a puppet of despot, but in communism where everything belongs to the people.


Your choice, but I think you need to educate yourself a bit more on Communism and its implementation. Communism does not result in the people owning everything. It is total government control. Don't be fooled.

May I ask you why you are in Ron Paul Forums, if you advocate Communism? Because you are advocating something that is totally opposite of individual liberty.

[torchbearer]

chinese actually love their people. they changed from despotism to communism.

if a country changes from despotism to capitalism with democracy, then it will eventually transform into fascism. Fascism is really a despotism. In Fascism, a goup of individuals (corporations) become despots and dictate lives of the people future.

so, the chinese actually did a noble thing by giving the wealth to the country and the people instead of creating another capitalist regime that's set to become a fascist state.

the people were still impoverished. china still has peasants.. millions of them. there was no division of wealth equally to the people.
the nobles, stayed noble... only now elected nobility with a welfare system that passes for charity.
But what you don't understand... charity is not taking from one person to give to another... charity is the giving of your own money/value to someone else by choice.
Your system requires people participate by force.. because anyone who refuses to obey.. they get gunned down.
Tiananmen Square style... they LOVE their people.. let me tell you.
http://www.accountabilityutah.org/IssuesAlerts/LegAlerts/2006/tiananmen-square-tanks.jpg

[Mini-Me]

you still did not address whether or not it was ethical or moral or noble for USA to destroy Afghanistan for having a 60 year old relation with USSR and dragging Russians into a very costly war in Afghanistan.

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

NO, it was not ethical or moral. Brzezinski is one of the most evil men on the face of the earth! Do you seriously think any of us here are cheerleaders of US warfare? It was atrocious, JUST like it was atrocious for the Soviets to enslave all of their people and kill millions, and BOTH types of GOVERNMENT ABUSE are what we are fighting. You're viewing the world through the rose-tinted glasses of an "us vs. them" false dilemma between the US and the USSR, and because the US did evil things as well, you're falling to the side of "them" by default.

The problem is government.

[Mini-Me]

no, it shows how immoral USA is.

You're lumping people in with government. It doesn't work that way. All centralized governments are immoral, and the US government is just one particular example.

[cageybee]

NO, it was not ethical or moral. Brzezinski is one of the most evil men on the face of the earth! Do you seriously think any of us here are cheerleaders of US warfare? It was atrocious, JUST like it was atrocious for the Soviets to enslave all of their people and kill millions, and BOTH types of GOVERNMENT ABUSE are what we are fighting. You're viewing the world through the rose-tinted glasses of an "us vs. them" false dilemma between the US and the USSR, and because the US did evil things as well, you're falling to the side of "them" by default.

The problem is government.


You're lumping people in with government.

by paying your taxes, you support the government in whatever it does.

[clouds]

One of the main problem's I have found is people's desire to equate society with government. This is how they justify high taxes, i believe.

[torchbearer]

by paying your taxes, you support the government in whatever it does.

if taxes were voluntary, you'd have a really good point, but guess what... you don't pay your taxes.. they will storm your bunkered house to drag your ass to prison. so, your point is moot.

[clouds]

by paying your taxes, you support the government in whatever it does.

If I paid someone to guard my house, but instead they attacked the neighbouring house, would I be supporting that action?

edit: also good point, torchbearer

[cageybee]

if taxes were voluntary, you'd have a really good point, but guess what... you don't pay your taxes.. they will storm your bunkered house to drag your ass to prison. so, your point is moot.

that just proves that you are not free - you are a slave of the big brother - you do whatever he wants you to do - he does whatever he wants to do.

[clouds]

...


this is only hurting your argument

[cageybee]

...


this is only hurting your argument

how???

i proved to you that you are immoral and unethical. how does it hurt my argument.

[clouds]

You proved that our government is too big and has too much control. You failed to mention how complete control and a complete tax would be a better option.

[cageybee]

You proved that our government is too big and has too much control. You failed to mention how complete control and a complete tax would be a better option.

no, i proved that US government is a mafia that has no respect for humanity and does things that are immoral and unethical, and you are just like it by paying your taxes and supporting whatever it does.

some guy I was talking to about a year ago and he was talking about how he is not happy about a war in iraq and that he does not want to associate himself with US government. I asked him to stop with the lies, because he is paying the taxes to make sure that US government does what it does. he told me that everyone has to pay taxes. i told him to either shut the fuck up about what he is saying about iraq or go to prison for not paying taxes or leave USA.

[clouds]

And how does this contradict your system? You are trying to condemn me us by telling us we adhere to your ideal already.

[Mini-Me]

that just proves that you are not free - you are a slave of the big brother - you do whatever he wants you to do - he does whatever he wants to do.

Yes, you're right. Nobody is disagreeing with you here. Where you go wrong is insisting this is the fault of "capitalism" when it's really the fault of government. The only way out of slavery is to severely downsize the government and make it as difficult as possible for the government to ever grow so powerful again.

[torchbearer]

WHy do I get the feeling we are talking to a 12 year old kid? I've illustrated(even with a photo) the evil of the system he praises and all he can say is well, you guys have bad people too...

Yeh, our bad people are the same as your bad people.. and they both want the same thing. power.

What we want here... the people who support ROn Paul... we want freedom, we want our god given rights, and we want to live unmolested by others...
If you can't agree with that... your are brainwashed severely or just not intellectually developed enough... which usually comes with age... thus the assumption that i must be talking to a 12 year old.
these concepts are not hard to grasp to someone who can think in the abstract.

[Mini-Me]

no, i proved that US government is a mafia that has no respect for humanity and does things that are immoral and unethical, and you are just like it by paying your taxes and supporting whatever it does.

Your "proof" is obscenely fallacious.
We are not just like the government because we pay taxes. We are forced to pay taxes at the point of a gun, and we resist as strongly as we can without foolishly killing ourselves off early and leaving the world to the mercy of tyrants. As you said, the government controls us and steals our wealth for its own purposes - and so it is under Communism. As I said in my last post...the only solution is to greatly downsize and decentralize government.



some guy I was talking to about a year ago and he was talking about how he is not happy about a war in iraq and that he does not want to associate himself with US government. I asked him to stop with the lies, because he is paying the taxes to make sure that US government does what it does. he told me that everyone has to pay taxes. i told him to either shut the fuck up about what he is saying about iraq or go to prison for not paying taxes or leave USA.

False dilemma. There are three major options here:

Live under tyranny oblivious to or accepting of your predicament
Foolishly lash out against the government by refusing to pay taxes or feed the monster before you actually have a chance of winning. Somehow, "attacking your enemy when you're at your weakest and they're at their strongest" doesn't seem to be a good long-term strategy. It makes a moral point, but it doesn't achieve anything else.
Live under tyranny in full awareness of your predicament and do whatever you can, within legal means, to change the system. If you're lucky, you can wake enough people up that, in time, they will rise up and peacefully downsize the government. If you're unlucky, society will eventually reach a "point of no return" on its road to tyranny...and then, you have to start making the really hard decisions.

[cageybee]

And how does this contradict your system? You are trying to condemn me us by telling us we adhere to your ideal already.

you do not adhere to my ideals.

i want to live free in a world where money is not God for people. where all people are equal with no one hungry. where people judge men not by their cars or homes, but by their characters, education, and values. where people that win elections are not those that had lots of money for advertising to idiots, but those that actually have brains to be the global leaders. i want to live in a world where i don't have to work 3 jobs to make sure that my family gets food - why does rothschild or rockefeller have trillions laying around while we are killing ourselves at 3 jobs??? i want to live in the world without millions of SUVs that eatup the gas and drive the prices of oil up and where people share transportation. i want to live in a world without hypocrites like al gore who make movies about global warming, but pay $30,000/year on home utility bills. etc, etc, etc.

[torchbearer]

you do not adhere to my ideals.

i want to live free in a world where money is not God for people. where all people are equal with no one hungry. where people judge men not by their cars or homes, but by their characters, education, and values. where people that win elections are not those that had lots of money for advertising to idiots, but those that actually have brains to be the global leaders. i want to live in a world where i don't have to work 3 jobs to make sure that my family gets food - why does rothschild or rockefeller have trillions laying around while we are killing ourselves at 3 jobs??? i want to live in the world without millions of SUVs that eatup the gas and drive the prices of oil up and where people share transportation. etc, etc, etc.

where do i sign up? sounds like paradise! tomorrow i'll be by to pick up your property so i can give it to some people i know that need it more than you do.. in fact, i took a vote on it.. and you were out voted 999999 to 1 which means the greater good demand the things you have belong to me because i have nothing to eat and you do and that's not fair, so just pm me your street address and i'll be by tomorrow to make your dreams come true.

[cageybee]

Your "proof" is obscenely fallacious.
We are not just like the government because we pay taxes. We are forced to pay taxes at the point of a gun, and we resist as strongly as we can without foolishly killing ourselves off early and leaving the world to the mercy of tyrants. As you said, the government controls us and steals our wealth for its own purposes - and so it is under Communism. As I said in my last post...the only solution is to greatly downsize and decentralize government.



False dilemma.

no one is holding you under a gun. the doors are open. you are free to go. except, you do not wish to go, because you like this way of life and don't mind paying taxes.

hypocrite!

[cageybee]

Yes, you're right. Nobody is disagreeing with you here. Where you go wrong is insisting this is the fault of "capitalism" when it's really the fault of government.

ok, how do you propose we defend ourselves if we don't pay taxes? i mean, there are so many "terrorists" out there.

people are scared sheep. if they stop paying taxes today, tomorrow, someone will create another fear for these sheep and people will start paying the taxes again!

[cageybee]

where do i sign up? sounds like paradise! tomorrow i'll be by to pick up your property so i can give it to some people i know that need it more than you do.. in fact, i took a vote on it.. and you were out voted 999999 to 1 which means the greater good demand the things you have belong to me because i have nothing to eat and you do and that's not fair, so just pm me your street address and i'll be by tomorrow to make your dreams come true.

a true capitalist for whom money is God just spoken.

[Mini-Me]

no one is holding you under a gun. the doors are open. you are free to go. except, you do not wish to go, because you like this way of life and don't mind paying taxes.

hypocrite!

Where should I go that is not similarly falling to tyranny? No free country exists in the world anymore. I stay here because this is my HOME, this is where my loved ones live, and this is the only country in the world that was EVER built on the ideal of freedom. I will not flee like some coward, but nor will I foolishly lash out like some brainless idiot. As I mentioned in my last post, once I edited it to elaborate, lashing out only makes a moral point. It changes nothing...my aim is, together with other like-minded people, to affect real change. The only way to succeed is with a sound strategy based on logic, rather than by throwing an emotional temper tantrum like you suggest.

[Mini-Me]

ok, how do you propose we defend ourselves if we don't pay taxes? i mean, there are so many "terrorists" out there.

people are scared sheep. if they stop paying taxes today, tomorrow, someone will create another fear for these sheep and people will start paying the taxes again!

...you're making no sense. The whole point of this revolution is to show people that they do not NEED to fear terrorists if our country merely treats the rest of the world with respect. The whole point is to change the hearts and minds of people so that they will no longer tolerate a leviathan government that finds excuses to tax and spend and subjugate the people.

[clouds]

You don't even know what money is. It is supposed to represent what we produce. It is our production that money symbolizes. Elimination of money is like saying you will eliminate production.

[Mini-Me]

a true capitalist for whom money is God just spoken.

Are you dense? He was satirizing Marxism.

[Elliott]

Can somebody correct this thread title to read: "already" instead of "all ready." That's making my ears bleed.

[clouds]

to elaborate, money's only meaning is what it is backed by. Ayn rand does put it quite eloquently in the same speech from earlier:

"Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit piece of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it bounces, marked:'Account overdrawn.'"

[torchbearer]

Are you dense? He was satirizing Marxism.

Correct he is dense. That is the trap i set.

[Mini-Me]

WHy do I get the feeling we are talking to a 12 year old kid? I've illustrated(even with a photo) the evil of the system he praises and all he can say is well, you guys have bad people too...

Yeh, our bad people are the same as your bad people.. and they both want the same thing. power.

What we want here... the people who support ROn Paul... we want freedom, we want our god given rights, and we want to live unmolested by others...
If you can't agree with that... your are brainwashed severely or just not intellectually developed enough... which usually comes with age... thus the assumption that i must be talking to a 12 year old.
these concepts are not hard to grasp to someone who can think in the abstract.

Based on his apparent picture (http://digg.com/users/cageybee/gallery/4645389), I don't think he's a 12 year old, but I do think he has really unstable thinking processes with an uncommonly loose grip on logic. I think he's likely the product of Soviet indoctrination, a chemical imbalance, or both. His hysteria and disjointed irrationality actually remind me a bit of ghemminger, but at least George isn't a totalitarian asshole. Over a month ago, I noticed some posts he made on digg, and I thought to myself, "Wow...childish and hysterical rantings like his are definitely making us look like morons. I really wish he was supporting Obama or something instead of Ron Paul." Well, I guess my wish pretty much came true - I mean, Obama, Stalin...either way, you end up with totalitarianism in the long run. Stalin just wastes less time. :rolleyes:


Correct he is dense. That is the trap i set.
Yeah...basic reading comprehension skills seem to be lacking. I wonder if he thinks Colbert is the spitting neocon image of Bill O'Reilly?

[clouds]

Does he actually believe that capitalism works that way?

[clouds]

Based on his apparent picture (http://digg.com/users/cageybee/gallery/4645389), I don't think he's a 12 year old, but I do think he has really unstable thinking processes with an uncommonly loose grip on logic. I think he's likely the product of Soviet indoctrination, a chemical imbalance, or both. His hysteria and disjointed irrationality actually remind me a bit of ghemminger, but at least George isn't a totalitarian asshole. Over a month ago, I noticed some posts he made on digg, and I thought to myself, "Wow...childish and hysterical rantings like his are definitely making us look like morons. I really wish he was supporting Obama or something instead of Ron Paul." Well, I guess my wish pretty much came true - I mean, Obama, Stalin...either way, you end up with totalitarianism in the long run. Stalin just wastes less time. :rolleyes:

My problem is that he reminds me of the state intellectuals in Atlas Shrugged. i couldn't help but use quotes from it(I'm still reading, almost done) but it all feels inadequate compared to someone reading the book.

[cageybee]

Are you dense? He was satirizing Marxism.

exactly, only capitalists would make fun of communism. what's your point???


Where should I go that is not similarly falling to tyranny? No free country exists in the world anymore. I stay here because this is my HOME, this is where my loved ones live, and this is the only country in the world that was EVER built on the ideal of freedom. I will not flee like some coward, but nor will I foolishly lash out like some brainless idiot. As I mentioned in my last post, once I edited it to elaborate, lashing out only makes a moral point. It changes nothing...my aim is, together with other like-minded people, to affect real change. The only way to succeed is with a sound strategy based on logic, rather than by throwing an emotional temper tantrum like you suggest.

we don't need to flee. we need to stand up to fix this world and create a one world without borders and countries and governments that actually hate people, and a world in which money has no power over people and is not idolized like God. people must unite in one world to eliminate all wars and need for weapons of mass destruction.


...you're making no sense. The whole point of this revolution is to show people that they do not NEED to fear terrorists if our country merely treats the rest of the world with respect. The whole point is to change the hearts and minds of people so that they will no longer tolerate a leviathan government that finds excuses to tax and spend and subjugate the people.

our country has risen above all countries in the world because it is the most rich country in the world. when rich become paranoid, they start to think of ways how they can protect themselves from the poor (third world countries). "Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism'. I'm afraid, based on my own long experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security." - Sen. Huey Long

You must understand that USA can not afford to be a FREE country anymore. USA must become a Fascist nation to prevent being conquered by purchase after the collapse of our economy!
If USA will stay free, it will be exploited by foreign capitalists and American people will never have a future, because all businesses will be benefiting foreign nations with monthly residual fortunes.

[clouds]

and how did we get those riches?

[clouds]

wait, i know how you will answer, because to you riches are not important.

[clouds]

God, this isn't even a debate

[cageybee]

and how did we get those riches?


wait, i know how you will answer, because to you riches are not important.

You must understand that USA can not afford to be a FREE country anymore. USA must become a Fascist nation to prevent being conquered by purchase after the collapse of our economy!
If USA will stay free, it will be exploited by foreign capitalists and American people will never have a future, because all businesses will be benefiting foreign nations with monthly residual fortunes.

[clouds]

On the contrary, we must reestablish our freedom if we are to avoid this.

[cageybee]

On the contrary, we must reestablish our freedom if we are to avoid this.

yeah, and we now have 2 freaking major problems - we want freedom but can't afford to be free, do you get it???

warren buffett explained that countries can be conquered by conquest and purchase.

[WarDog]

Here's is a great link to read

http://www.apfn.net/Doc-100_bankruptcy.htm

[cageybee]

Here's is a great link to read

http://www.apfn.net/Doc-100_bankruptcy.htm

what's coming to USA is not a bankruptcy - it is an extreme economic meltdown that will make all of our markets worth pennies. a hypothetic example - 1 Euro will buy 10 companies.

[torchbearer]

Here's is a great link to read

http://www.apfn.net/Doc-100_bankruptcy.htm

On that same site he calls the federal reserve a private corporation. that is not correct. the federal reserve is a banking cartel made up of top banking institutes divided by regions.

[torchbearer]

if all the kings banded together to rule as governors...whose authority is derived from the power of the currency they control... no one could stop them.

[cageybee]

On that same site he calls the federal reserve a private corporation. that is not correct. the federal reserve is a banking cartel made up of top banking institutes divided by regions.

and what is that? a church organization? it is a corporation that's owned by men. all american banks are members of Federal Reserve System. It is not just few banks that are part of the cartel.

[clouds]

lol... of course it's owned by men... who else could own it?

[cageybee]

lol... of course it's owned by men... who else could own it?

well, he said it wasn't a private organization - it is a cartel.

[torchbearer]

well, he said it wasn't a private organization - it is a cartel.

a cartel is made of private organizations which are made of individuals for those who can't think abstractly. its used as an anti-competition model and achieves the same affect as a monopoly if all the major players are in the cartel.

[Mini-Me]

exactly, only capitalists would make fun of communism. what's your point???


...yes, and only non-men are not men. What's your point? Rather than using logic and reason to debate whether or not his satirical picture of Communism was accurate, you merely lashed out with an ad hominem attack by calling him a "capitalist" - as if that somehow negates his logic without having to give a counterargument.



we don't need to flee. we need to stand up to fix this world and create a one world without borders and countries and governments that actually hate people, and a world in which money has no power over people and is not idolized like God. people must unite in one world to eliminate all wars and need for weapons of mass destruction.


People do not worship money. Immoral (or rather, shallow) people worship material wealth, but this is present in all societies, with or without money. Money is merely a symbol of exchange for wealth and production. It is just a convenient way for people to voluntarily trade goods with each other. It's merely a mutually agreed medium of exchange for all goods. Let's say you catch fish, Jimmy mines salt, and Freddy makes clothes. You want some salt for your fish, but Jimmy has plenty of fish. What he really needs is some underwear, because he crapped his pants when he read your ridiculous posts. Since you're bartering directly, you guys have to wait for Freddy to come around. He needs some fish to eat, but he has more pairs of underwear than the underpants gnomes from South Park. Once he comes around, he can trade some underwear for some of your fish, and only then can you trade some underwear for Jimmy's salt. In other words, the direct bartering system is completely moral, but it's a bit of a mess. Money fixes that, because when everyone mutually agrees on a common medium of exchange, you and Jimmy don't have to wait for Freddy to come around. You can give Jimmy a dollar, and he'll give you a sack of salt, and then he can give Freddy a dollar for a pair of clean underwear, and then Freddy can come by your place when he gets hungry to buy some fish for a buck. This is not "worship of money" - when money is honest, it's merely a tool to help facilitate the fair and voluntary exchange of goods and services.

People do not worship money, but immoral people DO worship wealth, and this occurs regardless of the existence of money. Under a Communist system, most people are tricked into worshipping the state above all else, but the rulers still worship wealth (and power), because power corrupts. They become quite comfortable being the first in line for all goods and services, and when those run out due to their piss-poor centralized planning, they don't pay the price - it's only the unlucky quarter of the population that dies of starvation. Who cares about those people though, right? After all, the rulers just LOVE the people...and after all, some people are just naturally gifted with the right and God-given moral authority to rule over everyone else and make their decisions for them. :rolleyes:



our country has risen above all countries in the world because it is the most rich country in the world. when rich become paranoid, they start to think of ways how they can protect themselves from the poor (third world countries). "Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism'. I'm afraid, based on my own long experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security." - Sen. Huey Long

You must understand that USA can not afford to be a FREE country anymore. USA must become a Fascist nation to prevent being conquered by purchase after the collapse of our economy!
If USA will stay free, it will be exploited by foreign capitalists and American people will never have a future, because all businesses will be benefiting foreign nations with monthly residual fortunes.

I must understand? Free "anymore?" We're not free now, and that's the whole point! The decline of freedom is exactly what has led America to this state. Those in power will try more and more overt fascism to retain their power, of this you are correct, but if we regained our freedom instead, we would also regain our wealth. You say we cannot afford to be free anymore, but on the contrary, we can no longer afford to continue losing our freedom. I painstakingly explained in great detail, in a 3000+ word post, exactly what has been destroying our country. You ignored that post, presumably because cold logic is toxic to your way of thinking. When I explained in great detail on page 2 why Communism is doomed to fail, you responded with a one-line platitude with no substantive basis. Why must I "understand" any of your emotional ravings? You always seem to start from solid ground, but then you totally jump to the wrong conclusion with no evidence whatsoever, at which point your argument performs a metaphorical face-first dive from the top of a cliff. That's not exactly indicative of a sound worldview.

[Mini-Me]

God, this isn't even a debate

I know...it's impossible to engage in a debate with someone who blatantly represses rational thought. The only thing you can do is try to educate them and "crack the code" of their programming to make the light come back on. The guy frustrates me, but I really do pity him.

[cageybee]

I must understand? Free "anymore?" We're not free now, and that's the whole point! The decline of freedom is exactly what has led America to this state. Those in power will try more and more overt fascism to retain their power, of this you are correct, but if we regained our freedom instead, we would also regain our wealth. You say we cannot afford to be free anymore, but on the contrary, we can no longer afford to continue losing our freedom.

no, what i said was that after this coming economic collapse we are going to have to make a decision:

1. stay free, but let foreigners conquer our country by purchasing every single dollar-dependent market for pennies and basically taking our future away from us, and then possibly directing our future for us.

2. we can chose to let the rich rule the country like they do now, but it will become a fascist state in full swing just like in germany.

3. we can chose communism to prevent conquering of USA and to prevent Fascists fucking up our future. This is exactly what Russia did in their revolution after they saw how Alaska was sold, and how the country was being taken away piece by piece by foreigners.

Germans chose Fascism after their economic meltdown. What will USA chose?

[Mini-Me]

no, what i said was that after this coming economic collapse we are going to have to make a decision:

1. stay free, but let foreigners conquer our country by purchasing every single dollar-dependent market for pennies and basically taking our future away from us, and then possibly directing our future for us.

2. we can chose to let the rich rule the country like they do now, but it will become a fascist state in full swing just like in germany.

3. we can chose communism to prevent conquering of USA and to prevent Fascists fucking up our future. This is exactly what Russia did in their revolution after they saw how Alaska was sold, and how the country was being taken away piece by piece by foreigners.

Germans chose Fascism after their economic meltdown. What will USA chose?

You're once again posing a false dilemma. You say "stay free," but we're not free right now. Our fall into fascism is exactly what has given us this debt and caused the coming economic collapse. This is the fault of government...had society been vigilant and kept government tied down by the chains of the Constitution, this never would have happened. Unfortunately, people are lazy, and most want to be ruled and told what to do. History repeats itself, and freedom turned into tyranny, destroying the free market we once had, the wealth we once had, and the liberties we once had. Restoring freedom in our country is the only solution - it will not be easy, and we will still have to "pay the piper" - but it's far better than the alternative, which is life under a one-world fascist or Communist government.

Communism is the same exact thing as fascism, except with more feel-good rhetoric. Communists are merely better at brainwashing people with propaganda. If our rulers do not want Communism (which I assure you they ultimately do, except with cosmetic differences), then "choosing Communism" would be just as difficult as choosing our movement of restoring freedom anyway. We'd still have to overthrow the same system. Of course, the difference between freedom and Communism is that the end result of Communism is almost the exact same as that of fascism. The differences between the two are merely semantic. Obviously you disagree here, but that's because you have a sickeningly naive and distorted fairy-tale view of statist Communism. Your trust in a state with absolute power is tragically misplaced. The only kind of Communism that does not lead to totalitarian tyranny is voluntary Communism, where people freely choose to associate and form such a society by pooling together all of their wealth and talents - without forcing everyone else to do the same through an overpowering coercive government. That is only possible under a society where freedom is legalized and the government's role is minimal.

[cageybee]

The only kind of Communism that does not lead to totalitarian tyranny is voluntary Communism, where people freely choose to associate and form such a society by pooling together all of their wealth and talents - without forcing everyone else to do the same through an overpowering coercive government. That is only possible under a society where freedom is legalized and the government's role is minimal.

that's what i am talking about if people all over the world would unite and understand the beauty. but, for that to happen there will have to be a WWIII and billions will have to die. After that, people will finally evolve.

This is inevitable though. The Russian oligarchs have been working hard to bring down our economy. The collapse is coming. We got Russia into Afghanistan and Chechnya wars - they got us into Afghanistan and Iraq wars. They have collapsed economically after Afghanistan - we will collapse economically too soon. American people will have to make a choice. The choice they will make will be Fascism. There will be a war. Then people will unite under one world government in true communism where money is not God and will have peace for 1000 years.

[Mini-Me]

that's what i am talking about if people all over the world would unite and understand the beauty. but, for that to happen there will have to be a WWIII and billions will have to die. After that, people will finally evolve.

This is inevitable though. The Russian oligarchs have been working hard to bring down our economy. The collapse is coming. We got Russia into Afghanistan and Chechnya wars - they got us into Afghanistan and Iraq wars. They have collapsed economically after Afghanistan - we will collapse economically too soon. American people will have to make a choice. The choice they will make will be Fascism. There will be a war. Then people will unite under one world government in true communism where money is not God and will have peace for 1000 years.

You're missing the point. Communism through government is evil and tyrannical - always. VOLUNTARY Communism is moral, and you're free to try it if you live in a free society with minimal government, but I don't think it would work. I believe people would quickly choose to opt out of voluntary Communism after realizing that "competition breeds excellence." As wonderful as cooperation sounds, its inefficiency will lead the commune to underproduce in a way that it cannot sustain itself, especially as the commune increases in size and the production and distribution mechanisms become more complex - at that point, Communism no longer only underproduces on the whole, but it also overproduces some things at the expense of others, leading to severe shortages of basic necessities. Nevertheless, it would be an interesting experiment for you and other like-minded people to try in a free society. If it works, others will freely choose the same thing - no government coercion necessary. If it doesn't work, then it's a good thing it wasn't forced on the whole world. Get it?

I cannot stress this enough: Any collectivist system imposed by the government against the will of its people is the epitome of tyranny. Your rebuttal to the numerous reasons behind this is always the simple mantra of, "but people won't worship money," but as I've pointed out numerous times, you're operating from a false premise. You've also said before that the USSR censored free speech to "protect" the people from dangerus ideas, but this is erroneous: If you're so scared of an idea that you have to kill and imprison the people who espouse it, then it follows that you're so scared because you cannot logically defend your own ideas against it. If you are confident in the rational basis for your worldview, you should have no reason to fear outside ideas intruding and "corrupting minds." In fact, if such ideas are able to reach indoctrinated people against all odds under an overwhelming atmosphere of media bias and propaganda (as western ideals did in the USSR), then it's even more likely that they are superior. You might say that a large population is not smart enough to "choose wisely," but if that's the case, then it's even more foolish to trust a small group of rulers to choose wisely...and besides, even if people choose unwisely, they have a right to choose for themselves.

People have a right to be left alone by their government and not forced into any system they don't want to be. That's why our revolution seeks to create such a world...you, on the other hand, seem to want tyranny, and you don't even realize it.

[torchbearer]

You're missing the point. Communism through government is evil and tyrannical - always. VOLUNTARY Communism is moral, and you're free to try it if you live in a free society with minimal government, but I don't think it would work. I believe people would quickly choose to opt out of voluntary Communism after realizing that "competition breeds excellence." As wonderful as cooperation sounds, its inefficiency will lead the commune to underproduce in a way that it cannot sustain itself, especially as the commune increases in size and the production and distribution mechanisms become more complex - at that point, Communism no longer only underproduces on the whole, but it also overproduces some things at the expense of others, leading to severe shortages of basic necessities. Nevertheless, it would be an interesting experiment for you and other like-minded people to try in a free society.

However, and I cannot stress this enough, any collectivist system imposed by the government against the will of its people is the epitome of tyranny. Your rebuttal to the numerous reasons behind this is always the simple mantra of, "but people won't worship money," but as I've pointed out numerous times, you're operating from a false premise.

People have a right to be left alone by their government and not forced into any system they don't want to be. That's why our revolution seeks to create such a world...you, on the other hand, seem to want tyranny, and you don't even realize it.

+1
You sound like John Galt.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_qQt9IrUc0
You wouldn't happen to be him would ya?;)

[cageybee]

You're missing the point. Communism through government is evil and tyrannical - always. VOLUNTARY Communism is moral, and you're free to try it if you live in a free society with minimal government, but I don't think it would work. I believe people would quickly choose to opt out of voluntary Communism after realizing that "competition breeds excellence." As wonderful as cooperation sounds, its inefficiency will lead the commune to underproduce in a way that it cannot sustain itself, especially as the commune increases in size and the production and distribution mechanisms become more complex - at that point, Communism no longer only underproduces on the whole, but it also overproduces some things at the expense of others, leading to severe shortages of basic necessities. Nevertheless, it would be an interesting experiment for you and other like-minded people to try in a free society.

However, and I cannot stress this enough, any collectivist system imposed by the government against the will of its people is the epitome of tyranny. Your rebuttal to the numerous reasons behind this is always the simple mantra of, "but people won't worship money," but as I've pointed out numerous times, you're operating from a false premise.

People have a right to be left alone by their government and not forced into any system they don't want to be. That's why our revolution seeks to create such a world...you, on the other hand, seem to want tyranny, and you don't even realize it.

so, say you are a president and our economy just collapsed and foreigners are running over here and are ready to buy the whole country for pennies. what do you do? what are your actions?

[torchbearer]

so, say you are a president and our economy just collapsed and foreigners are running over here and are ready to buy the whole country for pennies. what do you do? what are your actions?

you can only have a buyer when you have a seller.
Who is selling what and to who for what?
You are born with rights. That is not negotiable. No one can take your rights.. they can only convince you to surrender them.
Grow up, stand up... and stop fearing the government. We are going to make them fear us. For we are the master and it is the slave.
DO you not know that is why we assemble here?

[cageybee]

you can only have a buyer when you have a seller.
Who is selling what and to who for what?
You are born with rights. That is not negotiable. No one can take your rights.. they can only convince you to surrender them.
Grow up, stand up... and stop fearing the government. We are going to make them fear us. For we are the master and it is the slave.
DO you not know that is why we assemble here?

so, when the wall street will be selling off all american assets - you would close the wall street so that no one could buy anything???

[cageybee]

i guess i am asking tough questions now. all the discussion participants are silent all of a sudden.

[Mini-Me]

so, when the wall street will be selling off all american assets - you would close the wall street so that no one could buy anything???

No, he would not, nor would I. The wise thing to do is to allow people to make their own decisions. Business owners can foolishly sell every means of production they have in exchange for a loaf of bread that will last a day - or they can wisely keep their land and their means of production so that, when the dust settles, they will have everything they need to make their own bread. Although the economy revolves around big companies today (for reasons listed in my 3000+ word post), they do not own the majority of private property in the United States. Wall Street companies make up a huge portion of the economy, but they make up a small portion of the actual number of businesses in existence. Foreigners cannot buy the entire US merely by buying Wall Street...

If I were the President, I would:

Give frequent televised speeches explaining to the people exactly what is happening to them and why. I would warn against selling their fishing rod for a fish, figuratively speaking.
Make a very clear change in foreign policy. I'd address the people and nations of the world with a sincere apology for past US foreign policy, scale the CIA down to mere intelligence gathering (no peacetime cloak & dagger operations, no agitating for civil wars and revolts, etc.), pull our troops back home from abroad, and leave our bases to the people of the countries who hosted them to use as they see fit. I'd end foreign aid, I'd stop funding wars all over the world, and I'd do everything I could to pull out of the "free trade" agreements which oppress people in every single participating country, including our own.
Use every bit of Constitutional authority I had to promote the abolition of legal tender laws (legalize competing currencies) and return to sound money.
Promote deregulation at the federal level (states are free to choose otherwise), lower taxes, and absolutely no corporate welfare or government largesse
Abolish corporate personhood at the federal level. States would be free to create corporate personhood, but other states would be free to deny such priviliges and immunities. As a result, I believe the market would return to contract-based joint-stock companies which have no priviliges or immunities not granted to the members comprising them (liability would be distributed by contract, rather than artificially limited by government decree).


For the reasons I gave in my 3000+ word post, and others that I haven't even touched on, these policies would allow the free market to start working again without being dominated by the "big boys." As such, foreign investors would be free to buy up Wall Street, but...it might not be a wise business decision, especially if I gave occasional speeches encouraging people to focus on rebuild the American economy. ;) In a lot of ways, I'm thinking "fireside chats" without the collectivist bullshit. People don't listen to George W. Bush or take what he says to heart, but in the middle of The Worst Depression Ever, I think people would cling to every word of a President reversing all of the policies that destroyed them.

I'd also toy around with the idea of encouraging the people to sue the Federal Reserve banking system en masse for racketeering or something similar. I haven't given it much thought, and it might be a poor idea, but - I'm just throwing that our that. ;)

Obviously, the government would still owe foreign creditors tons of money in debt, although a large portion of the debt is also held domestically. I'd make the payment of foreign debt the first priority, and this is the price America would have to pay for its past gluttony. I'd use diplomacy with foreign countries to work out a sane compromise for the honest payment of such debt, and I have a feeling they'd be very receptive to such an offer of good faith. After all, they'd be expecting America to either monetize the debt, ruining our relations and giving them worthless paper money, or to belligerently close off trade and declare the debt null and void, forcing them to go to war to collect.

The point of this post is that it's pretty much never "too late" for freedom*. If people like Ron Paul take over the government, it doesn't matter if economic meltdown is impending or if it's already happened...either way, the answer to our problems is the same.

*Except in the case of one extremely unlikely scenario that can arise as the result of past fascism and economic collapse: If, somehow, a small band of moneyed elites (foreign or domestic) managed to buy up almost every piece of property in America, Americans would have no choice but to become eternal sharecroppers, completely unable to own any land or start up their own businesses to compete (merely because no other land exists). This type of absolute consolidation could never arise naturally in a free market with sound money, but I suppose it's theoretically possible in the aftermath of an economic meltdown from fiat money collapse. If this were ever to happen, the total de facto lack of economic freedom would also lead to a totalitarian government (that the elites would set up to protect themselves), justifying a violent revolution and a return to freedom and a "clean slate" in terms of wealth distribution. If a totalitarian government didn't emerge and it actually represented the "sharecropping" people, I imagine some "possession is nine tenths of the law" property redistribution would be in order. ;) That said, this is an extreme exception to the rule, since it can only happen as a result of central banking collapse (and central banks are alien to a real free market). Even then, it could only happen in the "perfect storm" of circumstances.

[cageybee]

Give frequent televised speeches explaining to the people exactly what is happening to them and why. I would warn against selling their fishing rod for a fish, figuratively speaking.
Make a very clear change in foreign policy. I'd address the people and nations of the world with a sincere apology for past US foreign policy, scale the CIA down to mere intelligence gathering (no peacetime cloak & dagger operations, no agitating for civil wars and revolts, etc.), pull our troops back home from abroad, and leave our bases to the people of the countries who hosted them to use as they see fit. I'd end foreign aid, I'd stop funding wars all over the world, and I'd do everything I could to pull out of the "free trade" agreements which oppress people in every single participating country, including our own.

i totally support this view, but this had to be done years earlier.

the main problem with pulling out from Iraq and Afghanistan and from everywhere around the world would literaly mean that we would have to crash economically, because we'd lose control of oil transactions immediately and the USD will no longer be the world currency. that would follow by nightmare hyperinflation and everyone who owns dollars would immediately become a poor man including bill gates.

the whole wall street would be bought up and then followed by foreigners buying up as much real estate possible, and then all the businesses that are not on wall street would be bought up too.

so, how would you deal with that as a president?

oh, and you would have to start drilling for your own oil and will not be able to buy anymore oil from other countries for dollars - only for gold, euros, other currencies, or hard goods in a way of a trade.

and, since the dollars would not be accepted anymore, and would become useless, we would no longer be able to buy anything from other countries. this means we would have to start our own production for lots of things so that we could have something to trade with other nations. this could take many many years to establish. until then, there would be millions of starving and dying or fleeing people from the country.

[Mini-Me]

i guess i am asking tough questions now. all the discussion participants are silent all of a sudden.

I went to hang out with my dog for a bit, since I hadn't been giving her enough attention and she was getting a bit upset with me.

In a nutshell, Ron Paul's answers are the right ones, whether they're implemented before or after economic collapse. The scenario of foreigners buying everything for pennies on the dollar is extremely far-fetched, even if it is possible. Even if they dumped all of their dollars into our market right now, they could not buy up enough property in America to enslave us as a nation of sharecroppers. If Ron Paul's policies were implemented right now (or after an economic collapse), the only way elites could enslave us is if the "era of freedom" started out with an extremely rigged playing field where they already owned literally 90% or more of land. Such a monopoly on the land would make it nearly impossible for a meaningful "other economy" to develop outside of the bought-out economy.

However, is this possible? I mentioned in my last post that it's probably theoretically possible, but right now I'm trying to work out exactly how (for fun, I guess).

[Doktor_Jeep]

Let the shieks and elites but all the land.

Possession is 9/10s of the rule. We didn't sell the country out, and if the choice was let farmland go unused and starve or dare them to enforce their ownership (they they attained through a rigged and illegal system called fiat money) I would raise arms for the latter.

[cageybee]

I went to hang out with my dog for a bit, since I hadn't been giving her enough attention and she was getting a bit upset with me.

In a nutshell, Ron Paul's answers are the right ones, whether they're implemented before or after economic collapse. The scenario of foreigners buying everything for pennies on the dollar is extremely far-fetched, even if it is possible. Even if they dumped all of their dollars into our market right now, they could not buy up enough property in America to enslave us as a nation of sharecroppers. If Ron Paul's policies were implemented right now (or after an economic collapse), the only way elites could enslave us is if the "era of freedom" started out with an extremely rigged playing field where they already owned literally 90% or more of land. Such a monopoly on the land would make it nearly impossible for a meaningful "other economy" to develop outside of the bought-out economy.

However, is this possible? I mentioned in my last post that it's probably theoretically possible, but right now I'm trying to work out exactly how (for fun, I guess).

look, the truth is we are in Afghanistan because the Russian FSB turned CIA created "mujahedeen-muslim-terrorist" apparatus against USA after USA has created these guys to overthrow a 60 years old pro-Russian government in Afghanistan. Russian FSB has persuaded them to turn around against USA. Afghanistan is a key country for all of the middle-eastern energy reserves. Middle-East has 3/4th of the world's energy - as Brzezinski said it in his book: whoever controls or dominates those middle-eastern energy reserves - is going to be the superpower.

In 2000, Saddam Husein started asking for Euros. This scared US because they were afraid that Saudis, Kuwaitis, and Qataris would follow suit. US has figured out that they need to get in there so that they can stop this. US got in, changed all oil accounts back to US dollars from Euros.

Later, Iran started asking for Euros. In December 2007 Iran has completely stopped accepting US dollars for its oil. Around 2 weeks ago, Iran opened a petroleum exchange which invites all the countries that export oil and petrochemicals to trade at this exchange. USD is not accepted at this exchange.

Now, if Saudis and the whole Eurasian OPEC countries will start trading their oil at this exchange for Euros, then US dollar will lose its backing and will become a toilet paper on the international exchange. No one will want USD. For them it will be just a paper. Do you understand???

Now, if we can't buy anything, our import-based lifestyle will just crash. A country that does not have its own production that pretty much imports everything, how is this country is going to survive until years later we finally start producing things?

Can you elaborate on this please, mr president :)?

[Mini-Me]

i totally support this view, but this had to be done years earlier.

the main problem with pulling out from Iraq and Afghanistan and from everywhere around the world would literaly mean that we would have to crash economically, because we'd lose control of oil transactions immediately and the USD will no longer be the world currency. that would follow by nightmare hyperinflation and everyone who owns dollars would immediately become a poor man including bill gates.

Well, here's the thing - we would lose coercive control of oil transactions, which we've kept denominated in dollars through threat of force, but I think the change in tone of the US government (and the promise of a reversal in monetary policy) might stay the hand of foreign "dollar-dumpers." Even if it didn't, the dollar-dumping scenario is something we'd have to face if we kept our current policy of strongarming other countries, too. However, I don't think it would lead to hyperinflation if the catalyst for dollar-dumping was a reversal of US policy. Foreign dollar-dumping would certainly flood the domestic market with already-printed dollars and raise prices, but hyperinflation happens on the demand side of the equation: It only occurs if people expect that inflation will continue to happen, meaning they'd better buy real goods with their money as fast as they can before their money is worthless. The correction in prices that dollar-dumping would cause is a long time coming and it will be pretty harsh, but as long as the government promises not to print any more (which it would only do with intelligent people like Ron Paul in charge), Americans wouldn't panic. That said, let's say either hyperinflation happens anyway or "the revolution" occurs after hyperinflation, and continue...in that case, yes - everyone still holding dollars would be a poor person, including Bill Gates.



the whole wall street would be bought up and then followed by foreigners buying up as much real estate possible, and then all the businesses that are not on wall street would be bought up too.

Here's where your logic errs...if people holding dollars are poor, people holding real wealth - land, factories, and other means of production - would be rich. Only total idiots would sell their assets for dollars in this kind of situation, and even if they were willing to sell them for foreign currencies, their asking prices would be extremely high in the face of such uncertainty. At these kind of asking prices, foreign investors would probably be quite hesitant to invest in American companies when the entire economy has already imploded on itself...and if foreign investors DID see a wonderful buying opportunity, rest assured that American business owners would see a wonderful keeping opportunity.

As I mentioned before, it might be theoretically possible for elites (foreign or domestic) to buy up all of America wholesale, but hyperinflation isn't sufficient for that to occur. In fact, just the opposite would have to occur - such a scenario could only be the result of an extreme deflationary panic and/or an extreme number of loan defaults from deflation, and even that is not sufficient for America to be bought up entirely and permanently turned into a nation of sharecroppers where absolutely no competition is ever possible (even under a real free market). To make competition impossible even under a real free market, a small handful of elite investors would have to buy up perhaps 90% of the land in America. Only with an overwhelming monopoly on the sources of production (ultimately, land) can elites prevent the emergence of a competing "outside market." Obviously, government coercion and a corporate-fascist system of laws (especially legal tender laws!) can and will make it easy to be monopolistic, and that's the way things work in our own system - but unless more than 90% of the land in America is already owned by a small handful of elites at the start of an "era of freedom," a monopoly cannot permanently be held. If they have enough land to create their own communities, a growing number of people will simply refuse to do business with their "monopolistic masters," and with shrinking numbers of workers and consumers, the monopolies will have no choice but to go out of business.

So...is it theoretically possible for elites to buy up at least 90% of America in a deflationary panic? Yes, but I'm thinking some deception has to be involved somewhere, too (like foreign or domestic elites quickly unleashing a flood of money the market didn't even know existed, hence the low prices). It could only really happen in a situation where a small handful of people are singing, "I know something you don't know!"

Anyway, that's deflationary panic, not hyperinflation. If hyperinflation occurred in the event of dollar-dumping, the solution is to severely cut government spending to stop expanding the money supply - and to make sure everyone knows what you're doing. Eventually, people will realize that unless they want to participate in direct bartering, they'll have no choice but to start using money again as a medium of exchange. Hell, even in Zimbabwe, they still use money. ;) In other words, adopting decent policies will reinstill enough confidence in the dollar that the world keeps turning. However, the dollar is fundamentally flawed, since it's based on credit - the only real solution is to eliminate legal tender laws. That way, the market can choose for itself what to use as currency, and it's a safe bet that the market would pick gold.

In other words, even hyperinflation isn't impossible to recover from - the recovery begins as soon as you take government out of the market and stop printing money. The only situation I can really think of that might require government intervention and wealth redistribution is the "end of the world" deflationary panic mentioned above, where a small group of people accumulate such an overwhelming amount of land that competition becomes impossible. Even so, I think of it this way: If policy changes before the armageddon of deflationary panics occurs, then such a panic won't happen and government intervention will therefore be unnecessary. If policy doesn't change first, then the owners of all that land will also own the government (literally and figuratively), and government intervention will never occur in our favor. Regardless of whether elites buy up America overnight (through deflationary panic) or slowly (through the NWO and one-world government), the solution to that will be the same: Either violent revolution will succeed, or their system will eventually collapse for economic reasons (whether it's in our lifetimes or not). Either way, I don't think the people of the world and/or America would be all too respectful of the property rights of their prior masters. Society would simply start over...hopefully under principles of freedom.



so, how would you deal with that as a president?

oh, and you would have to start drilling for your own oil and will not be able to buy anymore oil from other countries for dollars - only for gold, euros, other currencies, or hard goods in a way of a trade.

So, back to hyperinflation:
I've just cured the hyperinflation problem by ending the ridiculous practice of printing money. Oil around the world will be denominated in a currency other than the dollar, but once the dollar stabilizes (and/or competing currencies based on commodities emerge), you can buy oil with anything. You'll just have to figure out the exchange rate first. :)

That said, once free market policies were established, the American market would start to more seriously consider and develop cleaner and cheaper alternatives to oil anyways.

[Mini-Me]

Let the shieks and elites but all the land.

Possession is 9/10s of the rule. We didn't sell the country out, and if the choice was let farmland go unused and starve or dare them to enforce their ownership (they they attained through a rigged and illegal system called fiat money) I would raise arms for the latter.

Hehe...indeed. :) As I mentioned, if elites had a monopoly over land, "I imagine some 'possession is nine tenths of the law' property redistribution would be in order." Somehow I get the feeling that a just government would kind of...turn a blind eye to your actions, just this once ;)

To make an aside about moral philosophy:
Normally speaking, libertarians often consider the non-aggression principle to be the be-all and end-all of morality, but this is not entirely true. Under ordinary circumstances, any act of aggression is immoral, but under extreme circumstances, some aggression can be warranted (such as you raising arms against your masters). On the other hand, there are some immoral actions that are not covered by aggression, namely when a refusal to act (even when it would cost you little) creates great suffering for a person. To give an example: You're at a pool with one other person. They bump their head, go unconscious, and begin to drown. You have a choice to make: Either you can take a minute out of your day and save them, or you can leave them to drown. By the standards of the non-aggression principle, neither act is immoral. However, it's pretty clear that letting the person drown is a callous, evil, and dare I say, immoral act. In fact, this particular example is so extreme that making a law against it might be justified.

However, most examples of allowing something to happen are not so clear-cut. There are many shades of gray, and as such, calling such things immoral requires a value judgment that the law is simply incapable of fairly and consistently applying - except in extreme circumstances. Giving the government the authority to make such value judgments is a slippery slope. To give a more "gray" example, some people probably don't give as much as they "should" to charitable causes. While this is somewhat callous, they nevertheless have the right to their own property, and the government (and/or a collective) has no right to steal it from them and redistribute it. As Ron Paul has said, the government can't make you a better person. For these reasons, the non-aggression principle is a good, solid principle to base laws off of in almost all circumstances, since it's quite objective and doesn't require subjective equivocation.

That said...there are exceptions to every rule. Refusing to save someone's life at no cost to yourself (except a minute of time) is an exception where a clearly immoral act does not violate the non-aggression principle. "Stealing" the property of a coercive monopoly that owns all of the land in America is an exception where an act violates the non-aggression principle but is quite justifiable. Because of the "slippery slope," I hesitated to admit that nonaggressive actions are sometimes immoral and aggressive actions are sometimes not immoral. After all, once you admit that the non-aggression principle is just a good rule of thumb rather than the ultimate decider in all cases, collectivists will immediately jump on the opportunity to push the government into every situation, equivocate to their hearts' desires, and claim that the non-aggression principle is entirely bunk in their attempts to rationalize and justify gross infringements of people's rights.

[cageybee]

OK, I think you are misunderstanding something...

If Saudis decide to accept Euros tomorrow - that's it, the end, its over, finish for US dollar. USD will no longer be a world currency. No one needs to start selling the dollar. The moment Saudis come on TV and say "From now on we accept Euros only" at that moment, well, first Bush will have a heart attack, then from that moment USD will no longer be accepted at any country other than USA, and there will be a hyperinflation like it was in Germany once when one dollar went from being worth 4 marks to 1 trillion marks. In this case, 1 Euro could get up to 1 trillion dollars or more since there are too many worthless dollars in the world. they will not even be worth a paper its printed on.

Ever since we went away from a gold standard and tied our currency to Saudi oil we fucked up our own future. Since then, we have to make sure that Saudis are extremely happy and are very well protected so that no one can change their mind. and we must make sure that all oil transactions in the whole middle-east are done in USD.

Now, Putin has been woeing Saudis and their relations have been getting stronger. Once more and more countries will start to trade on Iranian Oil Bourse, then the dollar will start to fall in value even faster. At this point, Saudis will pull their 2 trillion dollars from our economy and will switch them to Euros. Then they will make a statement that they will only accept Euros from that point.

So, you see, USA can not get the soldiers out of all the bases without realizing that it would cause a total destruction to USA with millions of people dying from starvation and a complete chaos, because we will not be able to buy anything from anyone and we will be the cheapest country in the world and the poorest country in the world, and without a future.

And believe me, they will be here buying everything that they can get their hands on even if it is overpriced. Because they will be toooo rich and people here will be toooo hungry.

[Mini-Me]

OK, I think you are misunderstanding something...

If Saudis decide to accept Euros tomorrow - that's it, the end, its over, finish for US dollar. USD will no longer be a world currency. No one needs to start selling the dollar. The moment Saudis come on TV and say "From now on we accept Euros only" at that moment, well, first Bush will have a heart attack, then from that moment USD will no longer be accepted at any country other than USA, and there will be a hyperinflation like it was in Germany once when one dollar went from being worth 4 marks to 1 trillion marks. In this case, 1 Euro could get up to 1 trillion dollars or more since there are too many worthless dollars in the world. they will not even be worth a paper its printed on.


Well, you were asking me how I would handle the situation. If I was in charge and the Saudi's stopped accepting the dollar, and the rest of the world stopped accepting the dollar, we would not necessarily go into hyperinflation domestically. Why? Because domestic Americans would still accept the dollar, so long as the President went on TV and said, "We are not going to keep debasing the currency. The monetary inflation will stop. Bernanke has been sacked, and I personally shaved off one of his eyebrows and made him cry on camera. By the way, to give you an idea how many dollars are actually in circulation so you have something to base your prices off of compared to their last stable levels..."

Foreign countries will not simply reject the dollar as payment, unless they were cutting off all trade to the US just to spite us. Keeping trade open but refusing to accept dollars at all would imply that the exchange rates were infinite (i.e. you couldn't buy any foreign currencies with dollars). Rather, until some stability came to the dollar, the exchange rates would just be pretty extreme. As I mentioned before, though, hyperinflation occurs because people expect more inflation. It's essentially a situation where people expect that dollars will soon be worth less than they are now, quickly driving down their worth. People end up hoarding real goods and buying everything they can to dump their dollars before they devalue any further. However, even in Zimbabwe, they still USE the money. Because of that, the way to cure hyperinflation domestically is to stop printing money and let confidence return domestically (and even better, to eliminate legal tender laws and allow competing currencies). Once people stop panicking and see the government's being honest, confidence will return and the demand for the dollar will increase, bringing prices back into equilibrium.

Hyperinflation is a terrible thing, but it's not the end of the world, especially if the government corrects its mistakes instead of making them over and over again (like Zimbabwe). Now, our government under our current leaders? They'll probably continue making the same mistakes. :rolleyes: What they'll try to do is "stimulate" the economy by printing more and more money, but that obviously just feeds the hyperinflation. In the past, what would happen is governments would keep reinforcing this cycle to the point where they couldn't even print money fast enough to keep the actual money supply in equilibrium with the outrageous prices (driven by speculation of further monetary inflation, ironically ;)), causing them to just add more and more zeroes to paper money. :eek: When the unit of measurement keeps rapidly changing behind the scenes, people have no idea what the real money supply is or what prices should really be. However, it's never too late to turn around - it's just that, the longer you wait, the more you're going to suffer. We're already at a point where we'll suffer quite a bit - but as I said, it's not the end of the world. Totalitarianism, on the other hand, is the end of the world - well, at least for a few hundred years. A free market can recover by itself from any economic catastrophe, so long as the market is actually free (and it's not right now, but that's beside the point). The worst case scenario we're facing from solely economic problems (i.e. ignoring the emerging police state and the NWO) will be shortages...a good number of people could unfairly die of starvation through no fault of their own, and if it gets extremely bad, it might even approach the catastrophic levels of the typical, garden-variety famines that occur regularly under Communism.



Ever since we went away from a gold standard and tied our currency to Saudi oil we fucked up our own future. Since then, we have to make sure that Saudis are extremely happy and are very well protected so that no one can change their mind. and we must make sure that all oil transactions in the whole middle-east are done in USD.

Now, Putin has been woeing Saudis and their relations have been getting stronger. Once more and more countries will start to trade on Iranian Oil Bourse, then the dollar will start to fall in value even faster. At this point, Saudis will pull their 2 trillion dollars from our economy and will switch them to Euros. Then they will make a statement that they will only accept Euros from that point.


I agree with pretty much everything you said in this last section.



So, you see, USA can not get the soldiers out of all the bases without realizing that it would cause a total destruction to USA with millions of people dying from starvation and a complete chaos, because we will not be able to buy anything from anyone and we will be the cheapest country in the world and the poorest country in the world, and without a future.


Not really - besides Nintendo Wii's, the only thing we really depend on the rest of the world for is energy. America is self-sufficient in terms of all other basic needs. America is leaving foreign countries soon, one way or another. Either we collapse first and cannot afford it anymore (we technically can't even now, but just like moronic credit card debtors, we're just digging ourselves deeper until the shit hits the fan), or we pull out voluntarily. If we pull soldiers out of foreign countries voluntarily, that indicates someone like Ron Paul is in charge - meaning we're also returning to sound monetary policies. As I mentioned above, hyperinflation would end the moment sound monetary policies were initiated. Period. That means that, unless foreign countries just wanted to spite us, they'd resume trade soon, seeing we got our act back together. We'd still owe them a buttload of money, but they'd understand that refusing to trade with us would make us much less likely to repay - and nobody in their right mind wants war (well, it depends on if the bankers are "in their right mind").



And believe me, they will be here buying everything that they can get their hands on even if it is overpriced. Because they will be toooo rich and people here will be toooo hungry.

This is impossible. You seem to have a backwards understanding of hyperinflation: Foreign countries are not currently able, with the number of dollars they have, to "buy up the US wholesale." In other words, they're not "toooo rich" already. As I mentioned, that would require a deflationary crisis so extreme that it's about as likely as me reappearing on the moon five seconds from now as a freak glitch in quantum mechanics.

Now, if we go into a short bout of hyperinflation (i.e. a momentary panic that isn't followed by further monetary inflation, so it eventually settles), that means prices are SKYROCKETING, and foreigners simply won't be able to afford to buy anything with dollars. People won't sell their businesses for dollars if they can't even BUY anything with dollars.

If we enter into hyperinflation yet CONTINUE to stupidly print money (like Zimbabwe, where you're paying over a hundred thousand dollars for a roll of toilet paper - literally), then foreigners will be even less likely to have the kind of money it would take to buy out businesses. Why is this? Well, under hyperinflation, the demand for the dollar is low, so foreigners won't be exactly hoarding their dollars and trying to accumulate as many as possible so they can buy out American companies. It's such a losing proposition that I'd dare anyone to try it. We may be able to get away with monetizing our current debt (a big no-no that would really piss those countries off), but that's as much as they'd be willing to accept from us, dollars-wise. If hyperinflation occurs and monetary inflation still continues Bernanke-style, the newly printed dollars will be circulating domestically (where they're forced on us), not in the foreign market, making the dollars held by foreigners worth less and less every day due to the sheer number of dollars held by Americans. Since foreigners holding dollars lose buying power under hyperinflation, that means that if they're not "toooo rich" already, they certainly won't be if we hyperinflate. That's why inflation steals wealth from people holding dollars.

In other words, hyperinflation does not lead to land being bought and sold for pennies. Hyperinflation leads to hoarding of everything with real value.

[Mini-Me]

look, the truth is we are in Afghanistan because the Russian FSB turned CIA created "mujahedeen-muslim-terrorist" apparatus against USA after USA has created these guys to overthrow a 60 years old pro-Russian government in Afghanistan. Russian FSB has persuaded them to turn around against USA. Afghanistan is a key country for all of the middle-eastern energy reserves. Middle-East has 3/4th of the world's energy - as Brzezinski said it in his book: whoever controls or dominates those middle-eastern energy reserves - is going to be the superpower.

In 2000, Saddam Husein started asking for Euros. This scared US because they were afraid that Saudis, Kuwaitis, and Qataris would follow suit. US has figured out that they need to get in there so that they can stop this. US got in, changed all oil accounts back to US dollars from Euros.

Later, Iran started asking for Euros. In December 2007 Iran has completely stopped accepting US dollars for its oil. Around 2 weeks ago, Iran opened a petroleum exchange which invites all the countries that export oil and petrochemicals to trade at this exchange. USD is not accepted at this exchange.

Now, if Saudis and the whole Eurasian OPEC countries will start trading their oil at this exchange for Euros, then US dollar will lose its backing and will become a toilet paper on the international exchange. No one will want USD. For them it will be just a paper. Do you understand???

Now, if we can't buy anything, our import-based lifestyle will just crash. A country that does not have its own production that pretty much imports everything, how is this country is going to survive until years later we finally start producing things?

Can you elaborate on this please, mr president :)?

Oops - I totally missed this post. Sorry about that. Our import-based lifestyle of consumerism is going to end, one way or another. Regardless of what happens, we will not be of any use to the rest of the world until we start offering tangible goods.

However (as I mentioned in my last post), the only thing we really depend on foreign countries for is oil. Under a free market, alternatives will finally emerge. Until then, we can drill in the ANWAR...but even this will only be necessary if we're stupid enough to respond to speculative hyperinflation with actual monetary hyperinflation (i.e. start up the printing presses and add a bunch of zeroes ;)).

Right now, oil is denominated in dollars, but that doesn't mean other currencies around the world are "worthless paper" in the oil market. Rather, oil is priced in dollars and then sold, based on exchange rates, in other currencies. When the US dollar loses its reserve currency status, oil will no longer be denominated in dollars, but unless there's continued hyperinflation, people will still be able to buy oil in dollars - they will just have to be converted into another currency first, either literally or figuratively (for a comparison based on exchange rates). Therefore, the key is making sure that hyperinflation either doesn't occur or that it's short-lived. The trick here is to stop printing money, to let people know how much money is really in existence, and [the best solution of all] to abolish legal tender laws and let people trade whatever they want as a medium of exchange. If you were stupid enough to print bills with extra zeroes, it will take a lot longer for people to actually believe you that you stopped printing money, but once they do, prices with stabilize. Under sound monetary policies, people would stop panicking domestically, and business as usual will resume. Once domestic hyperinflation stops, confidence will also return to the international market, and hyperinflation will stop there, too.

In other words, we'll only be barred from buying oil for as long as the world market has no idea what each dollar is actually worth. Once the confusion clears and the value stabilizes (no matter what the value stabilizes at), trade will resume - unless they just want to spite us, in which case we can drill in the ANWAR. ;) Now, although I have largely glossed over this part of the equation, I've actually been...oversimplifying a bit. If we don't go into sustained hyperinflation, we'll actually end up facing a painful deflationary credit crunch. Our economy will not be happy and carefree, especially because of its lack of production - however, the world will not stop turning.

Although the best solution is to get rid of legal tender laws (allow competing currencies) and outlaw fractional reserve banking as counterfeit and fraud, I'm mentally toying around with another novel "Government plays God" solution that may or may not work in theory. Due to corruption inherent in government and fiat money, it would never be a final solution in practice (currency debasement would happen again sometime down the road as long as the government has the power to do it). However, out of sheer morbid curiosity, I'm wondering if it's theoretically feasible. My gut tells me something is horribly wrong with this idea, but anyway...I'm curious about what might happen if we kept the fiat dollar as legal tender, but we outlawed fractional reserve banking and passed a decree that all debts to domestic banks are forgiven, yet the banks do not have to destroy their reserves like they would if debtors merely defaulted. Banks charge interest for loaning out money because they risk their reserves when they do so - ending debt-based money this way would not hurt the banks, because they don't lose the reserves they risked, nor would it hurt debtors (in fact, debtors get extremely lucky, since they don't have to repay all that money!). In other words, this would convert all of the cyclical credit-based fiat money in existence into fixed-supply fiat money to avoid the deflationary credit contraction. This would obviously distort the market (since who gets lucky from it is based on the completely arbitrary question of who had debt), but it would be a sort of "final distortion," a way to end the increasingly destructive cycle of credit expansion and contraction. It seems like one final bout of devaluation and redistribution that makes money permanent would be worth it...surely, it beats the alternatives (except for the best option, competing currencies and commodity-backed currencies). I'm sure someone more knowledgeable than me could quickly explain a fatal flaw, but I haven't yet figured out why it might come back to bite us years later the way inflationary credit expansions later haunt us with deflationary credit contractions.

ANYWAY...how do we return to a production-based economy? THAT is the difficult one. It will definitely take years of hard work and effort to truly rebuild our industrial base, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. Our agricultural base will sustain us as a society in the meantime. I think you're looking for me to provide a quick and easy answer, but there is no quick and easy answer. We made our bed, and now we must lie in it. We're going to go through tough times, but there's no avoiding it at this point - the only real question is how well we handle hardship:

If we were to become a Communist nation, forced industrialization would quickly bring our manufacturing base back (the same way the USSR was quickly industrialized), but misallocations of capital would come at the same terrible cost in lives, aside from lives taken by the inevitable tyranny of the state. After a quick bipolar honeymoon filled with both rapid industrialization and death, the longterm effects on both the economy and the human spirit would be abysmal. While some people starve to death, others will live quite comfortably, oblivious of the famine around them (because the state-run media certainly won't be talking much about it). It all depends on the luck of the draw. This is the worst hell on Earth imaginable, especially for people who value freedom. I think I've already sufficiently explained my low opinion of Communism.
A free market based on sound money would probably reindustrialize at a somewhat slower and more reserved rate, since the industrialization will not be forced down the throats of the people at a breakneck pace. The market would instead go at its own natural pace, which is slightly slower due to some conservatism in risk-taking. Odds are, people would adopt some of the practices of the Great Depression, like raising chickens and rabbits and such for food, etc. Recovery of the manufacturing base will happen a bit slower, but less people will die from shortages of food, and it will pave the road for long-term prosperity...and freedom.
Choosing this road is by far the best option, but I have a feeling we might have to go through some pretty dark times before people wake up enough to realize it. We've grown complacent as a people, and this led to our demise...we let government go totally rampant. Hardship can bring out the best (and sometimes the worst) in people though, so the chance of a mass awakening is not completely out of the question. If it happens, I think we will correct the biggest mistake we made in the US Constitution - forgetting to give it teeth that severely punish treasonous politicians who violate it and expand the power of the government (implementing this is a complex discussion unto itself, but it can be done). With more experience under our belt, with the horrible policies of the past fresh in our minds, and without the baggage we had 230 years ago (such as rampant racism, sexism, and slavery), we may actually have the first chance in history for lasting freedom and prosperity.
Or, we can continue on our current course, do stupid things like monetize the debt, print money with more zeroes, and lick the boots of our masters when they introduce the NAU and the Amero as the solution to all of our problems. Eventually, we'll end up with a one-world government. Like statist Communism, this is also the worst hell on Earth imaginable (just the flip side of the same coin of collective totalitarianism), with the additional bonus of treating us to an agonizingly gradual decline where people like you and me see what is happening but may or may not be able to stop it. Until we get our act together, this is where we're headed.



And, uh...now, it's definitely time for me to go to bed.

[Meatwasp]

Cageybee (KGB) . is obiously trying to get recruits for his slime agenda. Tells some truth and than slips in the propaganda. Very communistic!

[clouds]

ha, I like where this argument went after I went to bed.

[constituent]

capitalism is a root of all physical, economic, and information wars. The constant greed, need, and love for capital is always forcing entrepreneurs to get creative so that they can find more way how to gain massive capital while taking it from someone else. capitalism is not a WIN/WIN solution. it is in fact unethical and immoral. that's what Andropov said about Americans to Ronald Reagan.


sounds like the state to me.

and how is communism a win/win?

[Meatwasp]

We will advise and consult the discontented and they themselves will be our forces.
(Communist manifesto)

[cageybee]

sounds like the state to me.

and how is communism a win/win?

what do you know about outsourcing? please elaborate.