The positive aspects of having our economy in total shambles

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

When the United States found justifiable reason to seperate herself from mother Britain, she was also seperating herself from her economy. This left our nation's economy in a shambles while the British loyalists living here had far more to lose.

Other examples of shambled econcomies in the past were the civilizations of Athens in ancient Greece, of Germany after World War 1, and of both Germany and Japan after World War two. Italy became the exception while the Catholic Church was the reason for this. Nations with economies in total shambles will recover far quicker than economies kept imprisoned in perpetual poverty because of tradition.

Greece suffered a humiliating defeat at the hand of the Spartans having been been made to starve and suffer disease while under their ruthless seige. The humiliation continued even after the defeat as Socrates the person most blamed for the defeat was executed. Yet, out of the ashes not only did the Phoenix rise as Western Civilization did so as well.

Germany was an example of how a desperate nation can rise to meet an unsurmountable challenge when it was left after defeat to pay for the burden of World War 1. Yet, across the board, German advancements in technology during this harsh time in history became the catalyst for modern civilation.

Both the economies of the nations of Germany and Japan rose quickly after laying in ruins at the end of World War 2. Much of their laws and traditions were altered as needless long standing legislation as well as wasteful spending got axed. As the long standing traditions in their nations were deleted, the resulting alteration created two of the most powerful economies in the world.

Italy before, during and after both World War 1 and 2 had at its heart the Vatican and the traditions of the Catholic Church. In fact, look where the Catholic Church rules today and one will in most cases find poverty. The Catholic Church perpetuates poverty because it doesn't allow economies to suffer in complete demise. By tradition, they keep economies neither living nor dead but nourished to the level of ill health.

While having the nation's economy suffer a complete collapse might sound horrible, having the nation's economy suffer in perpetual poverty is a worse fate.

[heavenlyboy34]

+1

[mediahasyou]

Actually, the early American economy while crippled through taxation/regulation by Britain was still allowed to thrive through Agorism (http://agorism.info). To avoid unnecessary crippling by the US government, I encourage you to take part in Agorism (http://agorism.info) today.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Actually, the early American economy while crippled through taxation/regulation by Britain was still allowed to thrive through Agorism (http://agorism.info). To avoid unnecessary crippling by the US government, I encourage you to take part in Agorism (http://agorism.info) today.

The problem with the economy you mention is that it sounds very similar to Social Darwinism which also did not believe that the state should involve itself in the economy. This economic philosophy was the major contributor which caused a perpetual impoverished state during the Great Depression. The American people should own the purse to the extent that if a tyrant spends 10 trillion dividing the national dinner table, then the people can spend 20 trillion, if that is what is necessary, reestablishing it.

[AutoDas]

Social Darwinism has nothing to do with Agorism.:rolleyes:

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Social Darwinism has nothing to do with Agorism.:rolleyes:

I didn't say that Social Darwinism has anything to do with Agorism. I said that their mutual desire to keep the state out of the business of the economy sounds similar. A Social Darwinist believed that while the strong people became rich and flourished the weak ones became poor and perished. Allowing nature to take its course ultimately created the healthiest economy or so the theory went.
This economic theory was naive, first of all, because even Darwin himself said that the freakish animal at times stood a better chance of surviving a drastic change in the environment than the stronger animal. So, the possibility of being "fit" included both the strong and the freakish animal.
I see Agorism as a decentralized type of an ecomony outside the control of a national central bank. Rather than use currency, this particular market would be more dependent on bartering.

[AutoDas]

I didn't say that Social Darwinism has anything to do with Agorism. I said that their mutual desire to keep the state out of the business of the economy sounds similar. A Social Darwinist believed that while the strong people became rich and flourished the weak ones became poor and perished. Allowing nature to take its course ultimately created the healthiest economy or so the theory went.
This economic theory was naive, first of all, because even Darwin himself said that the freakish animal at times stood a better chance of surviving a drastic change in the environment than the stronger animal. So, the possibility of being "fit" included both the strong and the freakish animal.
I see Agorism as a decentralized type of an ecomony outside the control of a national central bank. Rather than use currency, this particular market would be more dependent on bartering.
"Similarly, capitalist economics, especially laissez-faire economics, is attacked by some socialists by equating it to social Darwinism because it is premised on the idea of natural scarcity, also the starting point of social Darwinism, and because it is often interpreted to involve a "sink or swim" attitude toward economic activity."

God, and I was attacked for calling you a communist a while back.

[travisAlbert]

[QUOTE=Uncle Emanuel Watkins;1740744]I didn't say that Social Darwinism has anything to do with Agorism. I said that their mutual desire to keep the state out of the business of the economy sounds similar. A Social Darwinist believed that while the strong people became rich and flourished the weak ones became poor and perished. Allowing nature to take its course ultimately created the healthiest economy or so the theory went.
QUOTE]

It would seem as if you, like most socialists, have made the incorrect assumption that humans are inable to take care of themselves and one another. I have never understood why people would rather have the government take from them to redistribute it, than to actually give on their own free will, rather than being coerced to do it.

[enter`name`here]

I didn't say that Social Darwinism has anything to do with Agorism. I said that their mutual desire to keep the state out of the business of the economy sounds similar. A Social Darwinist believed that while the strong people became rich and flourished the weak ones became poor and perished. Allowing nature to take its course ultimately created the healthiest economy or so the theory went.
This economic theory was naive, first of all, because even Darwin himself said that the freakish animal at times stood a better chance of surviving a drastic change in the environment than the stronger animal. So, the possibility of being "fit" included both the strong and the freakish animal.
I see Agorism as a decentralized type of an ecomony outside the control of a national central bank. Rather than use currency, this particular market would be more dependent on bartering.

Initially an agorist economy might rely on bartering, but eventually a medium of exchange would arise. Money is not a product of the government it arises naturally out of a market, as people seek to settle their exchanges in more liquid comodities. Indeed the currency that arose from the an agorist free market would be more sound then that issued by the central bank and would be inflation proof.

[Chase]

The problem with the economy you mention is that it sounds very similar to Social Darwinism which also did not believe that the state should involve itself in the economy. This economic philosophy was the major contributor which caused a perpetual impoverished state during the Great Depression.

Wait -- you're claiming that the Great Depression (and/or its duration) was caused by a LACK of government intervention in the market? Basic economics tells us that production generates value, but the government, in attempting to artificially fix the price of food, ordered farmers to destroy half their crop. The problem with our modern economy is that government thinks it can play God with the markets and it simply cannot. Any decision they make ends up causing unwanted side effects, and the piling on of fixing all the government created problems has generated our biggest government ever.

People really need to reject Keynesian economics. People who understand Austrian economics have been predicting our financial disasters reliably, while the Keynesians always say that everything is fine until they end up surprised and start implementing reactionary policies that only make things worse.

Even if you know nothing about economics, comparing the two track records over a course of time should be quite illustrative. Look at Ron Paul's 30 year career. He got into Congress to oppose the Keynesian theory.

[sailor]

When the United States found justifiable reason to seperate herself from mother Britain, she was also seperating herself from her economy. This left our nation's economy in a shambles while the British loyalists living here had far more to lose.

Other examples of shambled econcomies in the past were the civilizations of Athens in ancient Greece, of Germany after World War 1, and of both Germany and Japan after World War two. Italy became the exception while the Catholic Church was the reason for this. Nations with economies in total shambles will recover far quicker than economies kept imprisoned in perpetual poverty because of tradition.

Greece suffered a humiliating defeat at the hand of the Spartans having been been made to starve and suffer disease while under their ruthless seige. The humiliation continued even after the defeat as Socrates the person most blamed for the defeat was executed. Yet, out of the ashes not only did the Phoenix rise as Western Civilization did so as well.

Germany was an example of how a desperate nation can rise to meet an unsurmountable challenge when it was left after defeat to pay for the burden of World War 1. Yet, across the board, German advancements in technology during this harsh time in history became the catalyst for modern civilation.

Both the economies of the nations of Germany and Japan rose quickly after laying in ruins at the end of World War 2. Much of their laws and traditions were altered as needless long standing legislation as well as wasteful spending got axed. As the long standing traditions in their nations were deleted, the resulting alteration created two of the most powerful economies in the world.

Italy before, during and after both World War 1 and 2 had at its heart the Vatican and the traditions of the Catholic Church. In fact, look where the Catholic Church rules today and one will in most cases find poverty. The Catholic Church perpetuates poverty because it doesn't allow economies to suffer in complete demise. By tradition, they keep economies neither living nor dead but nourished to the level of ill health.

While having the nation's economy suffer a complete collapse might sound horrible, having the nation's economy suffer in perpetual poverty is a worse fate.

Sounds like confused, incoherent rambles.

A falling economy is good because a bankrupt America will lack the means to invade foreign countries. It might potentialy also be good because it will increase turmoil, but that depends on who emerges victorious from the turmoil.

Other than that your ramblings about Athens, Germany and the Catholic Church are fairly weird.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

"Similarly, capitalist economics, especially laissez-faire economics, is attacked by some socialists by equating it to social Darwinism because it is premised on the idea of natural scarcity, also the starting point of social Darwinism, and because it is often interpreted to involve a "sink or swim" attitude toward economic activity."

God, and I was attacked for calling you a communist a while back.

I didn't realize that you called me a communist.

Sometimes the state is ruled more by tyranny and sometimes it is ruled more by the people. When tyranny creates debt in an effort to divide the national dinner table into tyrants and slaves, then the people need to have the capacity to create whatever debt is necessary to mend that divide. This is why the people should own the purse.

Anyway, a socialist isn't a communist. You begin by implying that I am a socialist and then you wind up accusing me of being a communist.

Look, we have two choices. We can either scrap the American dream by choosing to be a Loyalists to tyranny, which is what I think you are, or we can scrap our economy, if necessary, to preserve liberty by choosing to be a patriot soldier with nothing more as our wealth than the self-evident truths and the unalienable rights.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Sounds like confused, incoherent rambles.

A falling economy is good because a bankrupt America will lack the means to invade foreign countries. It might potentialy also be good because it will increase turmoil, but that depends on who emerges victorious from the turmoil.

Other than that your ramblings about Athens, Germany and the Catholic Church are fairly weird.

Premise: The rise from total ruins. The Sphinx rising from the ashes so to speak. The seeds of Western Civilization rising out of the total ruins of the city-state of Athens. The nation of Germany becoming the catalyst for modern civilization while the world has robbed her of all capacity to do so. The ruins of Germany and Japan rising to become super economies after World War 2.

Mexico never suffers a total collapse of its economy while they seem content subsisting forever in an economic limbo. The Aristocracy ruling over the masses there is well schooled in exploition while the people seem to willingly accept the old saying that "an exposed nail gets hammered." This perpetual poverty in Mexico is very similar to that of Italy while the Catholic Church seems to be the common culprit behind the perpetual suffering.

[Truth Warrior]

Bernanke: Federal Reserve caused Great Depression
Fed chief says, 'We did it. … very sorry, won't do it again'
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=59405

[Truth Warrior]

http://www.answers.com/topic/social-darwinism (http://www.answers.com/topic/social-darwinism) :p

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

[QUOTE=Uncle Emanuel Watkins;1740744]I didn't say that Social Darwinism has anything to do with Agorism. I said that their mutual desire to keep the state out of the business of the economy sounds similar. A Social Darwinist believed that while the strong people became rich and flourished the weak ones became poor and perished. Allowing nature to take its course ultimately created the healthiest economy or so the theory went.
QUOTE]

It would seem as if you, like most socialists, have made the incorrect assumption that humans are inable to take care of themselves and one another. I have never understood why people would rather have the government take from them to redistribute it, than to actually give on their own free will, rather than being coerced to do it.

See, you think the people rule all the time. The people struggle to rule because it is unnatural for them to do so while tyranny sits back to sip tea and nibble on cookies because it is natural for them to rule. The people desire that Civil Purpose rule over legal precedence: one can view this as the people's desire for contentment taking precedence over tyranny's need for them to be responsible.

You call me a socialist because you sense that I am willing, like the soldiers who die in the field, to hold as my economy not money or property, as Loyalists do, but hold as my economy the self evident truths and unalienable rights that make us Americans.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Initially an agorist economy might rely on bartering, but eventually a medium of exchange would arise. Money is not a product of the government it arises naturally out of a market, as people seek to settle their exchanges in more liquid comodities. Indeed the currency that arose from the an agorist free market would be more sound then that issued by the central bank and would be inflation proof.

Before the advent of Agorism, one had "illegal business." This was so because it was customary for the eldest child to enter into the business of the monarchy while the second eldest child entered into the business of the Church. The rest of the children were left to fend for themselves which amounted to them taking care of the business of survival. Such business of survival was deemed illegal because it took place on land 100% owned by the King.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Wait -- you're claiming that the Great Depression (and/or its duration) was caused by a LACK of government intervention in the market? Basic economics tells us that production generates value, but the government, in attempting to artificially fix the price of food, ordered farmers to destroy half their crop. The problem with our modern economy is that government thinks it can play God with the markets and it simply cannot. Any decision they make ends up causing unwanted side effects, and the piling on of fixing all the government created problems has generated our biggest government ever.

People really need to reject Keynesian economics. People who understand Austrian economics have been predicting our financial disasters reliably, while the Keynesians always say that everything is fine until they end up surprised and start implementing reactionary policies that only make things worse.

Even if you know nothing about economics, comparing the two track records over a course of time should be quite illustrative. Look at Ron Paul's 30 year career. He got into Congress to oppose the Keynesian theory.

One is either willing and happy to live in a primitive caste society as master and slave, this would be an American Loyalist, or one is happy with the idea of a system that sits master, slave and untouchable all down at the same national dinner table, this would be an American patriot. Sometimes, for the sake of the American ideal, we need to be willing to live in the shambles.

[Truth Warrior]

Discourse on Voluntary Servitude
The Discours sur la servitude volontaire of ÉTIENNE DE LA BOÉTIE, 1548
http://www.constitution.org/la_boetie/serv_vol.htm

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Bernanke: Federal Reserve caused Great Depression
Fed chief says, 'We did it. … very sorry, won't do it again'
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=59405

The Federal Government created industry by granting deeds to chosen Robber Barons. They then used the excuse of Social Darwinism to sit back to let the Robber Barons persecute the people. This caused economic calamity. Then the Federal Government chose to bail out banking over farming. Backing the business of banks over the business of farming empowers tyranny as seizing the people's land robs them of their freedom, this according to Hegel. In other words, the property wealth of the poor got pawned to finance tyranny. After this action, the people no longer trusted the government or the banks as they went to deposit their money in their mattresses instead.
This helped insure the Great Depression.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

http://www.answers.com/topic/social-darwinism (http://www.answers.com/topic/social-darwinism) :p

We learn how to take notes in highschool for what reason? We take philosophy classes for what reason? You claim that you can give me the definition of tyranny in a sentence when what the formal documents of the Declaration of Independence and of the U.S. Constitution combine together to do is define what is tyranny.

[Truth Warrior]

The Federal Government created industry by granting deeds to chosen Robber Barons. They then used the excuse of Social Darwinism to sit back to let the Robber Barons persecute the people. This caused economic calamity. Then the Federal Government chose to bail out banking over farming. Backing the business of banks over the business of farming empowers tyranny as seizing the people's land robs them of their freedom, this according to Hegel. In other words, the property wealth of the poor got pawned to finance tyranny. After this action, the people no longer trusted the government or the banks as they went to deposit their money in their mattresses instead.
This helped insure the Great Depression.

Hamilton's Curse (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo151.html)
Alexander Hamilton's economic and political philosophy is the root of the problem, says Thomas DiLorenzo.

[Truth Warrior]

We learn how to take notes in highschool for what reason? We take philosophy classes for what reason? You claim that you can give me the definition of tyranny in a sentence when what the formal documents of the Declaration of Independence and of the U.S. Constitution combine together to do is define what is tyranny.

:rolleyes:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tyranny (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tyranny)

REALITY!!!

The Illegality, Immorality, and Violence of All Political Action
http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/voluntaryist/vopa.html

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Discourse on Voluntary Servitude
The Discours sur la servitude volontaire of ÉTIENNE DE LA BOÉTIE, 1548
http://www.constitution.org/la_boetie/serv_vol.htm

Returning to the metaphor of the sheep and their shepherd. The sheep think the Lordship is coming from the rams leading at the head of the flock when their authority is a false one tolerated by the shepherd as a matter of economics. It is actually the shepherd who rules from the middle of the flock while he or she has to be submissive to the authority of the rams for the sake of being in position to help the weak stragglers who fall behind. At times the shepherd can divinely intervene to steer the rams in a more appropriate direction.
The great misconception is that the shepherd rules from the front of the flock when he or she has to rule from the middle.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

:rolleyes:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tyranny (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tyranny)

REALITY!!!

The Illegality, Immorality, and Violence of All Political Action
http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/voluntaryist/vopa.html

Tyranny is well defined in the Declaration of Independence and in the U.S. Constitution. I don't need to know the general definition given from a basic dictionary.

[Truth Warrior]

Returning to the metaphor of the sheep and their shepherd. The sheep think the Lordship is coming from the rams leading at the head of the flock when their authority is a false one tolerated by the shepherd as a matter of economics. It is actually the shepherd who rules from the middle of the flock while he or she has to be submissive to the authority of the rams for the sake of being in position to help the weak stragglers who fall behind. At times the shepherd can divinely intervene to steer the rams in a more appropriate direction.
The great misconception is that the shepherd rules from the front of the flock when he or she has to rule from the middle.

( well, that's some progress for UEW ..................... kinda :rolleyes: )

[Truth Warrior]

Tyranny is well defined in the Declaration of Independence and in the U.S. Constitution. I don't need to know the general definition given from a basic dictionary.

Most obviously and painfully, YOU DO NEED TO!<IMHO>

Where in the BOGUS U.S. Constitution ( so called ), now departed? :p :rolleyes:

The Federal Constitution Is Dead (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gutzman/gutzman17.html)
Kevin Gutzman on who killed it.

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Most obviously and painfully, YOU DO NEED TO!<IMHO>

Where in the BOGUS U.S. Constitution ( so called ), now departed? :p :rolleyes:

The Federal Constitution Is Dead (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gutzman/gutzman17.html)
Kevin Gutzman on who killed it.

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson

I have already defined tyranny exstinsively in another thread by breaking down both The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution with the use of the inductive Socratic Teaching Method or what Socrates commonly referred to as the "Dialectic," Plato's use of the "theory of the Forms" which produced "Best Principled Statements," and, finally, by using Aristotle's Formal logic.

[Truth Warrior]

I have already defined tyranny exstinsively in another thread by breaking down both The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution with the use of the inductive Socratic Teaching Method or what Socrates commonly referred to as the "Dialectic," Plato's use of the "theory of the Forms" which produced "Best Principled Statements," and, finally, by using Aristotle's Formal logic.

Yes, and I categorically REJECT your Socratic/Platonic/Hegelian/Marxist dialectic BS, along with your BOGUS apparently NON EXISTENT axioms and logically derived premises and conclusions. :p :rolleyes:

Put that in your catfish and peanut butter, and smoke it. :D

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Yes, and I categorically REJECT your Socratic/Platonic/Hegelian/Marxist dialectic BS, along with your BOGUS apparently NON EXISTENT axioms and logically derived premises and conclusions. :p :rolleyes:

Put that in your catfish and peanut butter, and smoke it. :D

You must be one of them who follow after those 50,000 long haired professors.

[Truth Warrior]

You must be one of them who follow after those 50,000 long haired professors.

"NO SHEPHERDS!!!" :p

"The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is very apt to spread discontent among those who are." -- H.L. Mencken