Is White House Root Cause of World problems?

[final]

Is White House Root Cause of World problems?

Example: Oil, Wars, Printed $9 Trillion bail-outs, High Inflation worldwide, pornography, prostitution and others.......

-----------------------

In a letter sent to Holder earlier this week, 42 senators encouraged Holder instruct prosecutors and FBI agents to counter what the lawmakers called "the growing scourge of obscenity in America." Anti-pornography activists have noted with alarm that, under President Barack Obama, the Justice Department has not filed a single new obscenity case anywhere in the country

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0411/Senators_ask_Holder_for_more_pornography_prosecuti ons.html?showall

Nasty Scar on Obama's Head: Possible Causes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBD-8e7Snnw&

My understanding is that there is some bad spirit or bad ghosts occupying white house. So white house is a haunted building. That is the reason Kennedy was killed. Bill clinton had sex scandal in white house. Finally came Obama who has mental problems.

Bad Ghosts are extremely dangerous. If they takeover some building or some person then serious problem for many decades.

This is the reason, ultimate decision taken by USA presidents from white house have resulted in $75 Trillion debts for USA.

Please vote. See above

[Travlyr]

No, not even. The root cause of the world's problems is that the 'rules do not apply to us crowd' get to own their own printing press and create money out-of-thin-air LEGALLY! Anyone else who tries to print money in their basement is slammed in jail or killed.

If everyone was allowed to print money out-of-nothing ... then most of the world's problems would be solved. OR, if no one was allowed wealth without working... then that would work too.

The "Nobel Lie" is at the root of the world's problems.

[final]

No, not even. The root cause of the world's problems is that the 'rules do not apply to us crowd' get to own their own printing press and create money out-of-thin-air LEGALLY! Anyone else who tries to print money in their basement is slammed in jail or killed.
Excellent post. I agree 100%. Forums are for sharing your thoughts and opinions.

[PeacePlan]

Agree - fiat money not backed by anything and monopoly to print it...

[Vessol]

No. The acceptance that violence can be used to solve problems, is the problem.

Government=violence.

[Travlyr]

No. The acceptance that violence can be used to solve problems is the problem.

Government=violence.

I respectfully disagree, for it is too simplistic. Some aggression is required in life. For example, a lion will kill a zebra for food. A butcher must kill animals for his business, and harvesters must steal the fruit of plants ... all for sustenance. Violent aggression is a fact of life. Also, some government is necessary imo because not everyone is honorable, and property rights require defense.

[Vessol]

I respectfully disagree, for it is too simplistic. Some aggression is required in life. For example, a lion will kill a zebra for food. A butcher must kill animals for his business, and harvesters must steal the fruit of plants ... all for sustenance. Violent aggression is a fact of life. Also, some government is necessary imo because not everyone is honorable, and property rights require defense.

I'm talking about the initiation of force against other people. Not following the Non-Aggression Axiom.

And this is the umpteenth time I've gotten into this debate.

How can a government which must take your property by force to begin with, protect it?

Why can't I decide who is going to protect my property rights?

[Travlyr]

I'm talking about the initiation of force against other people. Not following the Non-Aggression Axiom.

And this is the umpteenth time I've gotten into this debate.

How can a government which must take your property by force to begin with, protect it?

I understand. You and I have a fundamental disagreement. However, another thread is more appropriate for this discussion.

[Vessol]

I understand. You and I have a fundamental disagreement. However, another thread is more appropriate for this discussion.

Not really. It isn't going off-topic.

The acceptance that we can use the initiation of force to solve problems is the fundamental problem of the current world problems.

Using violence to force others to do what you want them to do is the primary problem.

[final]

Some aggression is required in life. Violent aggression is a fact of life. For example, a lion will kill a zebra for food. A butcher must kill animals for his business
If army starts preaching non-violence then no terrorists will be killed and Germany would have taken over the world in year 1940.

Look at India who follows Gandhi's non-violence. Today nobody respects India. India does not have strength to fight China and Pakistan. India is rotting in hell known as "India" because India just cannot move out and expand

[Vessol]

If army starts preaching non-violence then no terrorists will be killed and Germany would have taken over the world in year 1940.

Look at India who follows Gandhi's non-violence. Today nobody respects India. India does not have strength to fight China and Pakistan. India is rotting in hell known as "India" because India just cannot move out and expand

How many troll accounts do you have to make?

I seriously wonder why you do this with your free time when you could be doing so much more productive things.

[Travlyr]

Not really. It isn't going off-topic.

The acceptance that we can use the initiation of force to solve problems is the fundamental problem of the current world problems.

Using violence to force others to do what you want them to do is the primary problem.

It really isn't. Government (a collective of all of us) is a necessary element for a few reasons. Property rights and natural rights need defined and restitution for violation of those rights should be honored for a civil society to exist.

Overcoming the violence is a challenge, but existing without government is not really an option, imo. Some people are not willing to cooperate, and they will trample on others for pleasure.

[Vessol]

It really isn't. Government (a collective of all of us) is a necessary element for a few reasons. Property rights and natural rights need defined and restitution for violation of those rights should be honored for a civil society to exist.

Overcoming the violence is a challenge, but existing without government is not really an option, imo. Some people are not willing to corporate, and they will trample on others for pleasure.

Why can't a free market do just that? Why can't I have a choice, without having to relocate, of who protects my property and my natural rights?

Why can't we have more efficient organizations that individuals choose without having a gun pointed at their head?

Do you disagree that a government must involuntarily take my property in order to exist in the first place?

[Teaser Rate]

No, not even. The root cause of the world's problems is that the 'rules do not apply to us crowd' get to own their own printing press and create money out-of-thin-air LEGALLY! Anyone else who tries to print money in their basement is slammed in jail or killed.

If everyone was allowed to print money out-of-nothing ... then most of the world's problems would be solved. OR, if no one was allowed wealth without working... then that would work too.

The "Nobel Lie" is at the root of the world's problems.

I find it really odd that something as dull and boring as monetary policy could be seen as the source of most of the world’s problems by anyone.

Let me ask you this; if you believe that the Fed is the root of all evils, then what caused most of the world’s problems before 1913?

[Teaser Rate]

Why can't a free market do just that? Why can't I have a choice, without having to relocate, of who protects my property and my natural rights?

Why can't we have more efficient organizations that individuals choose without having a gun pointed at their head?

Do you disagree that a government must involuntarily take my property in order to exist in the first place?

No offense, but you really shouldn't make that kind of argument if you want to be taken seriously.

[Travlyr]

Why can't a free market do just that? Why can't I have a choice, without having to relocate, of who protects my property and my natural rights?

Why can't we have more efficient organizations that individuals choose without having a gun pointed at their head?

Do you disagree that a government must involuntarily take my property in order to exist in the first place?

One or two questions at a time please. ;)

Laissez-faire free-market capitalism using honest money would solve many problems. One problem it wouldn't solve is aggression by someone like Jared Loughtner.

That is where 'no government' fails. Also, how are property rights defined without agreement among each of us?

[Travlyr]

I find it really odd that something as dull and boring as monetary policy could be seen as the source of most of the world’s problems by anyone.
Is that because you don't have any empathy?


Let me ask you this; if you believe that the Fed is the root of all evils, then what caused most of the world’s problems before 1913?
The Fed is simply legalized theft. The debasement of currency is an age old problem (since the time of Babylon) and was exacerbated in America in the 1860's by none other than the $10,000 poster boy of the Fed... Salmon P. Chase.

[Vessol]

One or two questions at a time please. ;)

Laissez-faire free-market capitalism using honest money would solve many problems. One problem it wouldn't solve is aggression by someone like Jared Loughtner.

That is where 'no government' fails. Also, how are property rights defined without agreement among each of us?

Of course you can't stop sociopaths. You can't solve that in our current system either. So that isn't really much of a justification for maintaining it.

How are we in an a agreement currently in property rights? You talk as if there is already a consensus.


The Fed is simply legalized theft.

And taxation is not legalized theft?

[Travlyr]

Of course you can't stop sociopaths. You can't solve that in our current system either. So that isn't really much of a justification for maintaining it.
I do not argue for the current system. Stopping sociopaths is impossible. However, dealing with each other honestly would go a long way towards reducing the need to take advantage of others.


How are we in an a agreement currently in property rights? You talk as if there is already a consensus.
We are not in agreement. That was an honest question ... I would like to hear your answer.


And taxation is not legalized theft?
It is ... and that is the most difficult problem we have.

[american.swan]

Are you suggesting we go to a parliamentary form of government and turn the white house into a museum / relic of years past?

[acptulsa]

Why is this thread even getting bumped?

And did anyone actually read the OP? Ghosts in the White House. I expect money in the White House and down on K St. (which gets funneled into the not-so-hallowed halls of Congress) just might have a bit more to do with our problems than the wraith of Millard Fillmore.


Are you suggesting we go to a parliamentary form of government and turn the white house into a museum / relic of years past?

No, I think he's suggesting that nobody ever go in there except to film episodes of Ghostbusters.

[Vessol]

I do not argue for the current system. Stopping sociopaths is impossible. However, dealing with each other honestly would go a long way towards reducing the need to take advantage of others.

How can you deal with people honestly when there are people who are granted more rights than others to use and initiate force?



We are not in agreement. That was an honest question I would like to hear your answer.

There is no consensus. And that is why we must not give a monopoly of force to any body of individuals(government). It is not an instantaneous process, and it will occur over generations. But we have to stop believing that government(coercive violence) can solve problems.



It is ... and that is the most difficult problem we have.

How can a government exist without taxation then?

And before you say tariffs, tariffs are just another form of taxation that is passed along to consumers by higher prices.

[Vessol]

No, I think he's suggesting that nobody ever go in there except to film episodes of Ghostbusters.

When there's something strange..

In the Oval Office..

WHO YA GONNA CALL!?

[acptulsa]

When there's something strange..

In the Oval Office..

WHO YA GONNA CALL!?

Ron Paul.

And thanks for setting up the rhyme. But I'm not calling an exorcist. Or bumping this silliness again.

[Travlyr]

How can you deal with people honestly when there are people who are granted more rights than others to use and initiate force?

That is a good question. Yet, who do you call when a sociopath is gunning people down in front of Walmart?


There is no consensus. And that is why we must not give a monopoly of force to any body of individuals(government). It is not an instantaneous process, and it will occur over generations. But we have to stop believing that government(coercive violence) can solve problems.
Property rights are important. Who owns the bacon cheeseburger you have on your plate?


How can a government exist without taxation then?
Perhaps voluntary payments and fees... I don't have the exact answer on that.


And before you say tariffs, tariffs are just another form of taxation that is passed along to consumers by higher prices.
Agreed.

[Travlyr]

Why is this thread even getting bumped?

Simply because Vessol and I needed to have it out. :)

[acptulsa]

Simply because Vessol and I needed to have it out. :)

While you were, I'm the one that stole the bacon cheeseburger off of your plate.

It's mine now.

[Travlyr]

While you were, I'm the one that stole the bacon cheeseburger off of your plate.

It's mine now.

You'll be talking to my lawyer tomorrow.

[acptulsa]

You'll be talking to my lawyer tomorrow.

The evidence is gone, buddy.

[Wesker1982]

Also, some government is necessary imo because not everyone is honorable

That is a stronger argument against the State than for it. It is more dangerous for these dishonorable people to control the State than a defense agency. Success in a defense agency would come from serving the consumer, success in being a politician comes from lying and stealing. What is more likely and more dangerous? A crook in control of one decentralized defense agency (who would instantly be seen for the deviant they are if they become aggressive), or crooks gaining the power over the State (who's violence has the cloak of legitimacy in the eyes of the public)?

If a group of gangsters should capture the State apparatus, with its monopoly of coercive weapons, there is nothing at present that can stop them — short of the immensely difficult process of revolution.- Murray Rothbard

If most people are honorable, then only honorable defense services will be funded. If most people are dishonorable, then they will vote in dishonorable people and control the State.

‎It is self-contradictory to contend that people cannot be trusted to make moral decisions in their daily lives but can be trusted to vote for or accept leaders who are morally wiser than they. -Murray Rothbard



and property rights require defense.

I don't think anyone disagrees with this, but it is a fallacy to believe you need government for defense.




One problem it wouldn't solve is aggression by someone like Jared Loughtner.


Only a utopia would solve that. Crazy people will always exist, but lets not give them a coercive monopoly on the use of violence :)


That is where 'no government' fails.

:confused:


Also, how are property rights defined without agreement among each of us?

No one said there couldn't be agreements...

[Travlyr]

While you were, I'm the one that stole the bacon cheeseburger off of your plate.

It's mine now.

Actually, I have your confession embedded in RPF.

[Wesker1982]

Perhaps voluntary payments and fees...


[ ] government
[X] market anarchy

[acptulsa]

Actually, I have your confession embedded in RPF.

That's not enough if you can't prove the cheeseburger ever existed--oh, wait. Dubya kind of did away with habeus corpus, didn't he?

It's getting harder and harder to be a smartass these days.

[Travlyr]

No one said there couldn't be agreements...

In order to have enforceable agreements you must have rules which, by definition, require rulers.

[acptulsa]

[ ] government
[X] market anarchy

Sorry. Anything besides smartassness that bumps this thread won't sell in my market.

[Travlyr]

It's getting harder and harder to be a smartass these days.

No doubt. But you are still pretty good at it.

[Vessol]

That is a good question. Yet, who do you call when a sociopath is gunning people down in front of Walmart?

In a free society I imagine that there would be much more individually armed people to begin with. Not to mention that there would be security companies that would offer their services in the area. You make it sound as if a society with no government would be chaotic? Why can't there be a private police force, private fire fighting forces, etc?



Property rights are important. Who owns the bacon cheeseburger you have on your plate?

If you're asking my thoughts on it. You own it if you exchanged property voluntarily with others. You earned, through your labor or your exchange of labor, money(no matter what it may be) and you exchange that money to the restaurant who in turn exchanged their own money to all the various producers who made that cheeseburger.


Perhaps voluntary payments and fees... I don't have the exact answer on that.

That sounds like a private company to me than any kind of government.

Though a government really is simply a monopoly of force over a certain territory(ie: it's borders). I don't think you support a monopoly on force by one single organization, do you?


In order to have enforceable agreements you must have rules which, by definition, require rulers.

Not necessarily. At my work there is a policy of not using a cell phone while on the clock, this is a rule. However, my boss does not call a bunch of people to beat the shit out of me and then throw me into a cell when I do use my cell phone.

She simply can choose to dissolve our voluntary contract as I broke it. With no violence.

[acptulsa]

I'll try to take that as a compliment.

[Teaser Rate]

Is that because you don't have any empathy?

I do, which is why I really don't see what Ben Bernanke has to do with the world's real problems. (Like war, poverty, famine and disease)

The Fed might mess up once in a while, but the worst that can happen because of it is a slight bump in our first-world economy growth path.


The Fed is simply legalized theft. The debasement of currency is an age old problem (since the time of Babylon) and was exacerbated in America in the 1860's by none other than the $10,000 poster boy of the Fed... Salmon P. Chase.

Funny, I was under the impression that paper money was a modern invention and that we used hard, honest money for most of human civilization.

[Travlyr]

In a free society I imagine that there would be much more individually armed people to begin with. Not to mention that there would be security companies that would offer their services in the area. You make it sound as if a society with no government would be chaotic? Why can't there be a private police force, private fire fighting forces, etc?

Perhaps someday. This will not happen in my lifetime, so it is not relevant to me.


If you're asking my thoughts on it. You own it if you exchanged property voluntarily with others. You earned, through your labor or your exchange of labor, money(no matter what it may be) and you exchange that money to the restaurant who in turn exchanged their own money to all the various producers who made that cheeseburger.
Possession is 9/10 of the law. acptulsa already took it from me and I have very little recourse... I'm suing him tomorrow... and I have his confession online... but that doesn't do me much good tonight... because I'm still hungry.


That sounds like a private company to me than any kind of government.

Though a government really is simply a monopoly of force over a certain territory(ie: it's borders). I don't think you support a monopoly on force by one single organization, do you?

You are like my son. He is an anarchist and I cannot get him to see the truth. ;) But maybe you guys are right... I don't know. But I do know that I will have to endure tyranny until we End The Fed. I hope that happens when the SHTF.

[Travlyr]

I'll try to take that as a compliment.

It definitely is!

[Travlyr]

I do, which is why I really don't see what Ben Bernanke has to do with the world's real problems. (Like war, poverty, famine and disease)

The Fed might mess up once in a while, but the worst that can happen because of it is a slight bump in our first-world economy growth path.
Real money is advised for the future. Paper ALWAYS eventually goes to its value... paper and electrons are not scarce.


Funny, I was under the impression that paper money was a modern invention and that we used hard, honest money for most of human civilization.
No, we are at a crossroads in the world. For the first time in the history of the world we have instant communication around the world. The truth is now very hard to hide. Honest money is just now beginning... and elite control over others is ending.

[Wesker1982]

In order to have enforceable agreements you must have rules which, by definition, require rulers.

Contracts don't require a ruler. I don't agree to a contract with you unless you have insurance. You violate our agreement and I get paid by your insurance company.

Your insurance company deals with you by raising your rates, charging you for your violation, or denying you further services, etc. You might still be able to get insurance with another company but because you would be considered high risk, your rates would be high.

I have rules for doing business with you, these rules are enforced without a ruler and are voluntarily agreed upon by both parties. Rules without a ruler.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE9dZATrFak

[Travlyr]

Contracts don't require a ruler. I don't agree to a contract with you unless you have insurance. You violate our agreement and I get paid by your insurance company.

Your insurance company deals with you by raising your rates, charging you for your violation, or denying you further services, etc. You might still be able to get insurance with another company but because you would be considered high risk, your rates would be high.

I have rules for doing business with you, these rules are enforced without a ruler and are voluntarily agreed upon by both parties. Rules without a ruler.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE9dZATrFak

Rules without a ruler are not enforceable. Property rights without definition are not enforceable. To enforce rules requires force. Agreements require agreed upon rules. Unfortunately, anarchy is not an effective way to live in a civilized society, imo.

[Wesker1982]

Rules without a ruler are not enforceable.

How is the situation I gave not regulated by rules? And where is the ruler?


To enforce rules requires force.

I don't deal with you unless you have insurance or put money in a bank account in case you welch, where is the force?

Also, watch the video!

[Wesker1982]

Also,

Do you have a wife? Friends? Family?

Would you say that these relationships have rules? If so, who is the ruler, you or your wife? You or your best friend?

[Travlyr]

How is the situation I gave not regulated by rules? And where is the ruler?
The ruler in your scenario is the insurance company. Often the ruler in an anarchical society is whoever thinks they are right which itself causes disagreement and violence. Survival of the fittest.


I don't deal with you unless you have insurance or put money in a bank account in case you welch, where is the force?
Again the force comes from the insurance company. It would likely be more intrusive than a government.

Also, watch the video!
Indeed I will, but not tonight. I'll let you know when I get the time to watch it.

[Travlyr]

Also,

Do you have a wife? Friends? Family?

Would you say that these relationships have rules? If so, who is the ruler, you or your wife? You or your best friend?

Self rule.

[Wesker1982]

Self rule.

Could you be more specific? Who is the ruler in your voluntary relationships?

Self rule, self governance, is anarchy.


It would likely be more intrusive than a government.

How?

Government enforced monopolies don't have competition so there is virtually no incentive to serve (see: the police), the market has self-correcting mechanisms.

See:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqo7XMkbtEk


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXS-Gzz_C9g
( chapter 11, the guy reads a bit fast http://mises.org/books/marketforliberty.pdf )

[pcosmar]

Root Cause, No.
but they have been heavily influenced by the root cause.

[jmdrake]

Is White House Root Cause of World problems?

Example: Oil, Wars, Printed $9 Trillion bail-outs, High Inflation worldwide, pornography, prostitution and others.......

-----------------------


The Whitehouse doesn't print the money. That would be the federal reserve. The Whitehouse is a tool being used by those really causing the world's problems.