PDA

View Full Version : Deregulating the banks?




AndyW
03-04-2012, 10:26 AM
Hi folks, I'm having a debate with someone currently who is saying that Ron Paul wants to deregulate the banks (which is the opposite of what I thought he'd do) and they're saying that, therefore, he wants to take America back the the 1920s - pre crash.

I obviously am not stupid and now that Paul is for sound economic policy, so trust what he says, but could someone help me some up why deregulating the banks would be better than the current system of having regulations which worked for years and then breaking those regs to extort money. I thought they were the only things keeping things safe.

(although I guess they don't matter anyway now because banksters do what they want).

Travlyr
03-04-2012, 10:30 AM
If we would just obey the constitution the banks would be self-regulating.

This video by Judge Andrew Napolitano - The Story of Money (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?364910-Andrew-Napolitano-The-Story-of-Money&p=4244979&viewfull=1#post4244979) is pretty good.

Seraphim
03-04-2012, 10:31 AM
They key is competition in currency (repealing legal tender laws).

This would effectively neuter The Federal Reserve and the mega investment and commercial banks that have insane amounts of leverage and power over the market.

In doing so, consumers and the general market would have the power to regulate banks as the banks would be forced to pander to us, not the other way around.

Deregulating the banks in the current enviroment is stupid. Keeping the Fed intact and regulating a broken and downright fascist system is even stupider.

End the monopoly on currency creation and creating beaucratic jobs to "regulate" is not necessary.

Deregulating the banks would be one of the final steps to our movement...it is in no way the solution, in and of itself.

AndyW
03-04-2012, 10:59 AM
Travlyr, thanks for the video. I kinda know all that stuff - was looking for something more about deregulating vs regulating. Like what Seraphim says - but would be good to have some material to reference.

Thanks.

Paul Or Nothing II
03-04-2012, 11:55 AM
If we would just obey the constitution the banks would be self-regulating.

This video by Judge Andrew Napolitano - The Story of Money (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?364910-Andrew-Napolitano-The-Story-of-Money&p=4244979&viewfull=1#post4244979) is pretty good.


Travlyr, thanks for the video. I kinda know all that stuff - was looking for something more about deregulating vs regulating. Like what Seraphim says - but would be good to have some material to reference.

Thanks.

Hate to say it but judge is incorrect with regards to colonial-scrips, they were often massively devalued & since Americans would pay Brits & Europeans with it, by the time, they Brits used to try to use them to buy something from America, they used to have lost their purchasing-power & that was one of the reasons that pissed British - the inflating worthless scrips
Franklin only thought they were great because he had press & he used to get to print them, there's plenty of material out there about this on the internet & here's Rothbard talking about mostly pre-revolution currencies & scrips


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wfyp_i7y1t0

heavenlyboy34
03-04-2012, 12:05 PM
Hate to say it but judge is incorrect with regards to colonial-scrips, they were often massively devalued & since Americans would pay Brits & Europeans with it, by the time, they Brits used to try to use them to buy something from America, they used to have lost their purchasing-power & that was one of the reasons that pissed British - the inflating worthless scrips
Franklin only thought they were great because he had press & he used to get to print them, there's plenty of material out there about this on the internet & here's Rothbard talking about mostly pre-revolution currencies & scrips


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wfyp_i7y1t0
Didn't watch the judge's vid yet, but you are correct about Continental dollars. This is where the saying "not worth a Continental" came from. The dollar was more stable (and paid of the war debt), but still not as good as free market money (which Trav correctly pointed out).

Paul Or Nothing II
03-04-2012, 12:30 PM
Hi folks, I'm having a debate with someone currently who is saying that Ron Paul wants to deregulate the banks (which is the opposite of what I thought he'd do) and they're saying that, therefore, he wants to take America back the the 1920s - pre crash.

I obviously am not stupid and now that Paul is for sound economic policy, so trust what he says, but could someone help me some up why deregulating the banks would be better than the current system of having regulations which worked for years and then breaking those regs to extort money. I thought they were the only things keeping things safe.

(although I guess they don't matter anyway now because banksters do what they want).

First, you must understand that most of the mess was the result of OVER-REGULATION & government programs :
Yes, the Glass-Steagall was repealed but it was stupid because it & FDIC were a "package-deal" regulations installed in 1933, there were two main parts to this regulation, 1) separation of commerical & investment banking 2) FDIC
The first one was repealed & deregulated but as I've said it was a "package-deal", either they should kept both as it was or repealed both but they repealed the first which merged commercial & investment banking but FDIC was left in tact, now that is problematic, FDIC is essentially backed by Fed & taxpayers' money so with now half the regulation gone, commercial banks could take on more risks & having FDIC along with it is like telling banks - go ahead, take risks, if you make a profit you keep it & if you fail, we'll bail you out - which is why Ron Paul had voted AGAINST this "half-deregulation", both should've been repealed so that banks are on their own instead of having an explicit guarantee of Fed & taxpayers through FDIC

Then there was the the "regulation" of Community Reinvestment Act which FORCED banks to make loans to people who were incapable of (to correct supposed racial discrimination by banks) which the banks had to make by law, they knew these loans were going to go bad sooner or later
And then there's Freddie & Fannie, again government bodies that should NOT even exist, so banks started packaging there good loans with bad ones & passed on as much as they could Freddie & Fannie & rest they got stuck with & tried to juggle around & shift risk around through derivatives but it was a ticking time-bomb that inevitable to off & it did

On top of all this mess, the biggest culprit, Fed kept interest-rates far too low for a long time, when Fed keeps interest low, people borrow more loans & moneysupply increases, now since the whole Community Reinvestment Act, a lot of them ended up buying homes & thereby pushing the home-prices up & up & as I've said, all those bad loans ought to backfire & they did

So, repealing half the Glass-Steagall was government stupidity, having FDIC government stupidity, Community Reinvestment Act government stupidity, & same with Fed - & when all hell broke lose, the banks & derivatives get the blame, sure, they were participants to the process but without all the government help they couldn't have done it So thank government & their "regulations"!

And bailouts were even worse, it's sign of corporatism & it tells the big banks that they can take whatever risks & they can keep the profits & if they fail government will bear the loss through Fed & put it on taxpayers's tax hence Ron Paul voted AGAINST bailouts

What he'd get rid of all this messy "regulations" which really don't help & get rid of FDIC guarantee, send a message that Fed & government won't bail'em out again & possibly, if he could he'd try to get rid of "corporate personhood"
"Corporate Personhood" laws/regulations see companies as "legal persons" so if people running them make bad decisions, only company's assets will be used to pay off company's debts & losses while those running it go scotfree so they know they can take big risks, if they make profits, they pay themselves big salaries, bonuses, etc & if the risks don't pay off then don't have to bear the loss
Repealing "Corporate Personhood" would make the persons running the company PERSONALLY LIABLE as in, if company's assets aren't sufficient enough to cover its losses then those running their PERSONAL PROPERTY will be seized to cover them
So getting rid of this one government regulation will how enormous impact on how banks & companies in general manage risks & no other candidate will even touch this issue because they're all bought by banks & corporations so they can't put people running them in jeopardy

And "Regulations" in general are usually NOT to keep people safe, they're mostly created by politicians for the sake of lobbying corporations, they're just sold as "good" to the people, who probably don't even read or understand the each & every "regulation" that passes; just look at Fed, they'll tell us its so good & everything but it's just money-monopoly cartel-system



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHOAH1i7RuI



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-xFexgH76g

Paul Or Nothing II
03-04-2012, 12:37 PM
Didn't watch the judge's vid yet, but you are correct about Continental dollars. This is where the saying "not worth a Continental" came from. The dollar was more stable (and paid of the war debt), but still not as good as free market money (which Trav correctly pointed out).

Judge's video mentioned about "Colonial Scrips" which are different from "Continentals", "Continentals" were issued by Continental Congress during the War while "Colonial Scrips" were issued by various states in the pre-Revolution period, they were just as worthless nonetheless :D That's why Founders didn't allow government to issue paper-money

Here's a good one :
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value -- zero.
- Voltaire

:D

cubical
03-04-2012, 12:54 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxcjT8T3EGU

Economic Cycles Before the Fed | Thomas E Woods, Jr.

onlyrp
03-04-2012, 12:57 PM
Not all regulations are equal. Ron Paul wants freedom for banks to lend as they please, but STRICT regulations against fraud, wrongdoing. He wants no freedom for central banks, but all the freedom for banks which are citizen run or local communities approve of, in other words, freedom for the little guy.

Black Flag
03-04-2012, 01:46 PM
They key is competition in currency (repealing legal tender laws).

No, it wouldn't.

As long as you have to pay your tax in the currency of the government, the currency of the government will continue to be the money - everything else will merely be another commodity - exactly as we have it today.

Money is the economic good most desired in a market place.
In today's market, there is one, and only one desire that touches almost every man woman and child that is directed universally - taxation.

That which solves paying taxes will be desired by everyone - and that is the US$.

If a whole basket of currencies or commodities was dumped by God above into the market over night - repealing the tender laws - over night, only one would remain to be seen as money, and that is the US$.

Black Flag
03-04-2012, 01:47 PM
Paul,

The intrinsic value of all economic goods is zero.

Black Flag
03-04-2012, 01:49 PM
Paul

Repealing "Corporate Personhood" would make the persons running the company PERSONALLY LIABLE as in, if company's assets aren't sufficient enough to cover its losses then those running their PERSONAL PROPERTY will be seized to cover them
Check!

Corporations are not people.

All Corporations, which exist to limit liability, are in their root and essence, evil.

Travlyr
03-04-2012, 02:09 PM
No, it wouldn't.

As long as you have to pay your tax in the currency of the government, the currency of the government will continue to be the money - everything else will merely be another commodity - exactly as we have it today.

If I hire a roofer to repair my roof, and I pay him 30 pieces of silver, then how is the government going to know how much income he earned? Does he have to pay taxes on his 30 pieces of silver? Why? If he keeps them for 10 years and the Federal Reserve System inflates FRN 10x, does he have to pay capital gains tax on the difference of what they were worth and what they are worth in 10 years? Why?



Money is the economic good most desired in a market place.
Irredeemable fiat "The Federal Reserve Note" loses value everyday. That characteristic alone makes the FRN NOT the most desired economic good.



In today's market, there is one, and only one desire that touches almost every man woman and child that is directed universally - taxation.

That which solves paying taxes will be desired by everyone - and that is the US$.
The States by law, the supreme law of the land, "No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts" Gold and silver are the most desired economic good according to law. I desire that as well because they do not lose value over time.



If a whole basket of currencies or commodities was dumped by God above into the market over night - repealing the tender laws - over night, only one would remain to be seen as money, and that is the US$.
Commodity money will out compete FRNs as soon as HR 1098 passes. It would be wise to get out of FRNs immediately. Sound money, fully redeemable will liberate the people.

Here is how: Human Freedom Rests on Gold Redeemable Money (http://www.fame.org/pdf/buffet3.pdf) By HON. HOWARD BUFFETT
U. S. Congressman from Nebraska

AndyW
03-04-2012, 02:20 PM
Sweet lord this stuff is quite complex... it's no wonder the country is in a mess when the nitty gritty is the only way to really know what's going on - the surface value of much of the main issues forces speculative conclusions. I base my support of Ron Paul based on a trust that is put together through building a picture of him and his consistent actions, it's obvious who's a pawn and who isn't. But some people can't decipher such qualities in a person - and they won't be voting Paul.

Having known almost nothing about US politics back in 2008, I could still tell that Obama had something dark in store for America. While everyone else was crying and thinking that the utopia had come. People are easy to read. But try and use that in a debate.

-C-
03-04-2012, 02:31 PM
Hi folks, I'm having a debate with someone currently who is saying that Ron Paul wants to deregulate the banks (which is the opposite of what I thought he'd do) and they're saying that, therefore, he wants to take America back the the 1920s - pre crash.

I obviously am not stupid and now that Paul is for sound economic policy, so trust what he says, but could someone help me some up why deregulating the banks would be better than the current system of having regulations which worked for years and then breaking those regs to extort money. I thought they were the only things keeping things safe.

(although I guess they don't matter anyway now because banksters do what they want).

The market is more free than it ever has been, to such an extent that it has been free to buy our, and other, governments. You have to separate commercial and investment/merchant banking, so that taxpayer dollars doesn't back speculative activity under the same financial "roof." We have to return to Glass-Steagall banking regulations, and then build our way out of this mess.

Also think of the national debt of the US...say its a lolworthy 100 trillion with entitlements...now compare that to an estimated 4.6(4600 trill) quadrillion dollar denominated derivatives bubble...now laugh really hard at Ron Paul's idea of cutting 1 trillion off our budget. Furthermore it is insane to cut entitlements, or any other part of the budget under the guise of "saving money" or it being "cost effective." The real disease isn't budgets of Nation State's worldwide, its the speculative hordes of capital that have systemically destroyed and bloated the entire monetary system. Thus the only choice is to exert your sovereignty over the private speculative money that is bankrolling fascism all over the planet. If you don't have sovereign control over your money, the creation of credit to monetize, and the exchange rate there-of, you have NO sovereignty in the face of imperial private interests.

Steven Douglas
03-04-2012, 02:58 PM
Paul,

The intrinsic value of all economic goods is zero.

You don't even know what intrinsic value means. Intrinsic is just "whatever it is, in and of itself", quite separate from market, or exchange value, or desirability, which by definition are extrinsic.

An egg is an egg. It is comprised of __________, which has _________ physical properties. That is the intrinsic value of an egg.

Rinse and repeat using anything else to find its intrinsic value.

As for RP wanting to deregulate banks, that's both a myth and an over-generalizing misdirection. People think "regulate" and automatically, often erroneously, think "restrict", or "control". Even the words regulation and deregulation have been bastardized, as there are banking regulations that EMPOWER and FACILITATE fraudulent behavior on the parts of banks. So "deregulation" in such cases would be calling for the removal of such empowerment, and replacing those "regulations" with real prohibitions on fraud.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md_8nqjiSBw&feature=fvsr

Black Flag
03-04-2012, 05:22 PM
You don't even know what intrinsic value means.

Sorry, Steven, but I do absolutely know what "intrinsic" means, and what "value" means.

And there is no such thing that has intrinsic value.

Value is a human application. It is a human concept.

If a human does not value something - it has no value. Period.

An egg has no value if a human does not value it.

If I do not value your egg - it has ZERO value ... to me. And all your wailing and frothing won't change that fact.

Now, you could value a clump of mud, and you would assign some measure of that value... for you. But that mud might have a different value...to me, anything from ZERO to a whole bunch.

But there is NOTHING in mud that makes it have an intrinsic value beyond your measure of it or my measure of it.

Black Flag
03-04-2012, 05:36 PM
If I hire a roofer to repair my roof, and I pay him 30 pieces of silver, then how is the government going to know how much income he earned?

Oh, my.... you believe if the government doesn't 'know' about an income, it will not demand a tax on it?
Many people are in jail who believed such things....



Does he have to pay taxes on his 30 pieces of silver?

According to the IRS, yes.

Why?

Because, according to the IRS, that is "earned income"



If he keeps them for 10 years and the Federal Reserve System inflates FRN 10x, does he have to pay capital gains tax on the difference of what they were worth and what they are worth in 10 years? Why?

Consult your accountant ... because I am not one, so this is my lay opinion.

He must claim the market value of the silver -in FRN- as on the day you paid him, and pay the appropriate tax on that amount - whether or not he sells the silver.

If he holds on to them for 10 years, and sells them, he must pay tax on the difference between what the FRN value was on the day you gave it to him and what he sold if for ... as a capital gain.



Irredeemable fiat "The Federal Reserve Note" loses value everyday.

Irredeemable infers they are redeemable into something first.
What do you believe you can redeem FRN into?



That characteristic alone makes the FRN NOT the most desired economic good.

No, the reason the FRN is the most desired economic good in this economy is that you have to pay your taxes with them (and other legal tender issues - as per Steven)



The States by law, the supreme law of the land, "No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts"

That is the "States" as in Montana or New York.
That is not the Federal Government, which is in Washington D.C.



Gold and silver are the most desired economic good according to law. I desire that as well because they do not lose value over time.

It really matters what time you think you are measuring it from.

If you bought it in 1980 and sold in 1999, you would have lost your shirt. (850 down to 250)

Which raises a question:
You keep saying "it keeps value over time"... but what are you comparing it to? If you don't believe in FNR, why do you use FRN to value the price of your gold?



It would be wise to get out of FRNs immediately.
You still need it to buy your food, so "getting out of them" is not necessarily good idea....

Seraphim
03-04-2012, 05:41 PM
No, it wouldn't.

As long as you have to pay your tax in the currency of the government, the currency of the government will continue to be the money - everything else will merely be another commodity - exactly as we have it today.


Yes, yes it would. The government is there to serve the people. If the debts incurred by the government no longer represent the people, the people have the power to RENEG on that debt. End of story.

Money is the economic good most desired in a market place.
In today's market, there is one, and only one desire that touches almost every man woman and child that is directed universally - taxation.

That which solves paying taxes will be desired by everyone - and that is the US$.

See above.

If a whole basket of currencies or commodities was dumped by God above into the market over night - repealing the tender laws - over night, only one would remain to be seen as money, and that is the US$.


You underestimate the power of FREEDOM.

Force is the ONLY thing that is propping up the USD and all other fiat currencies. Once the legal tender laws are removed, the legal use of force EVAPORATES. Therefore, the demand for dollars would plumment (both internationally and domestically).

As bonds flew back into the USG treasury - the outstanding cash needed to pay off the debts would be printed and a massive devaluation would occur as capital moved into MARkET CHOSEN MONEY.



ll

Black Flag
03-04-2012, 06:26 PM
Yes, yes it would. The government is there to serve the people.

...hahahahhahhahhahha....

Whew! ...haven't laughed that hard for awhile....

The government is NOT there to serve the People - it exists to accumulate as much power over the People as it can, right up until it consumes itself....

If the debts incurred by the government no longer represent the people, the people have the power to RENEG on that debt. End of story.

Debt and taxation are two, different things.




See above.

Yep, see above - taxes is different then debt.



You underestimate the power of FREEDOM.

Actually, that is why the dollar would win out - because of freedom - none of the other currencies have any motivation over desire to pay taxes.

This is why the tally stick was money in England - because it paid the King's tax... etc.



Force is the ONLY thing that is propping up the USD and all other fiat currencies.

Agreed - called the taxman.



Once the legal tender laws are removed, the legal use of force EVAPORATES.

Do you believe the US government would suddenly not need taxes?


Therefore, the demand for dollars would plumment (both internationally and domestically).

You can use any currency in the whole world to transact with - nothing is stopping you.



As bonds flew back into the USG treasury - the outstanding cash needed to pay off the debts would be printed and a massive devaluation would occur as capital moved into MARkET CHOSEN MONEY.

Or, more likely, the US government will merely not pay out the T-bills and default.

Seraphim
03-04-2012, 06:33 PM
**SIGH**

Government is SUPPOSED to be there for the people. I didn't say it was right now. But since many people believe that, as they wake up to the fact that the State is rapping them - they will revolt. You're thick if you didn't catcht he drift of my post.

Taxes have EVERyTHING to do with debt - all government debt is contigent upon it's ability to tax.

Steven Douglas
03-04-2012, 06:34 PM
Sorry, Steven, but I do absolutely know what "intrinsic" means, and what "value" means.

And there is no such thing that has intrinsic value.

Value is a human application. It is a human concept.

If a human does not value something - it has no value. Period.

Your error comes in not realizing that value has multiple meanings, and that economic value and intrinsic value are two completely different constructs - which you have erroneously conflated, using either the economic or emotional/human definitions for value. It's not.

If there were only economic and emotional definitions for value (two very different meanings as well), then I might be inclined to agree with you that there is no such thing as intrinsic value, because neither of those types of values can be intrinsic to external things. Both the price (in whatever) and desirability (in whomever) are forever extrinsic to the thing considered. The reason I can't agree with you, however, even with this clarification, is that desire for a thing is a value that is intrinsic, however fleeting, to each human - even though it is not intrinsic to what is external to them.

I put an object in your hands. You tell me, or write in a notebook, what you are holding. Not what it does, or how it is valued economically. Just what it is. What are its defining characteristics. Those physical properties are its intrinsic values.

Black Flag
03-04-2012, 06:49 PM
**SIGH**

Government is SUPPOSED to be there for the people.

Who told you that????



I didn't say it was right now. But since many people believe that, as they wake up to the fact that the State is rapping them - they will revolt. You're thick if you didn't catcht he drift of my post.

The State has, is, and always will be 'raping' the People - that is the only thing it does.



Taxes have EVERyTHING to do with debt - all government debt is contigent upon it's ability to tax.

No, it is not.
No modern national government with a central bank needs taxation, nor does it need taxation to get into debt.

Black Flag
03-04-2012, 06:54 PM
Your error comes in not realizing that value has multiple meanings,

No, your error is missing what sign is on the door.
This is economic and politics, not physics.


It's not.
It is so.



If there were only economic and emotional definitions for value

Go back out the door, read the sign on it, and come back in.



is that desire for a thing is a value that is intrinsic, however fleeting, to each human - even though it is not intrinsic to what is external to them.

Ok, so let's see what you just said:

A desire - a human trait that humans, and not rocks, have...
for a thing - a physical item in this universe...
is a "value".

Now, if there is no human desire for a thing, there is NO value.

The thing, without a human desire, has no value and no intrinsic value.

Black Flag
03-04-2012, 07:10 PM
Steven

So, have you read Menger's definition of value?

Whenever I hear someone say that something has intrinsic value, I am sure he has a totally confused, crackpot theory of economics in general and monetary theory in particular.

There is also no such thing as intrinsic value.

The meaning of the word "intrinsic" is always difficult to pin down.
It means "autonomous."
It implies there is something 'fixed within in something'

But there is no such things as these in economics.


Carl Menger's in 1871 had an insight that economic value is imputed by each individual.
Without the individual, there could be no such imputing of value.
Further, each individual imputed his own value into things - independent of anyone else.

You caught up to 1871 yet, Steven?

AndyW
03-04-2012, 07:21 PM
fuck sake, can't we just all agree that the universe is made up of love and everything is massive complex holographic fractal construct for infinite multidimension conscious growth... jeez.

Steven Douglas
03-04-2012, 07:38 PM
The meaning of the word "intrinsic" is always difficult to pin down.
It means "autonomous."
It implies there is something 'fixed within in something'

But there is no such things as these in economics.

Oh yeah? Well, the next time you buy apples, or anything else, sold by weight or volume at the grocery store, you will be charged a price. That price will be its market value (in that particular market, should you pay that price) times its intrinsic value, of whatever it is times the number of pounds, ounces, gallons, liters, etc., which represents the intrinsic value (physical properties times the quantity) of whatever it is you are buying.

Intrinsic values are very easy to pin down - if you know what they are, and which ones you care about. You identify and make choices based on intrinsic values all the time without even realizing it. Small, medium or large? Hamburger or cheeseburger? Paper or plastic? Macintosh or Granny Smith? Gold or silver? In economics, intrinsic values are how we identify what it is we are paying for, and by what metric (1 car, a dozen eggs, 50 sq. ft of white vinyl tile, a half gallon of milk, etc., all of which are intrinsic values, autonomous/inherent to the object of consideration). In accounting, the intrinsic values are the entries in the QTY and Description columns.

EDIT: You could buy a little card with a picture of an apple on it, and while it may be useful for something other than food, it won't be nutritious, and it won't be the same as food, because it doesn't have the same intrinsic value of a real apple (i.e., an actual apple, of a given weight of a given variety, complete with color, shape, skin, flesh, core, stem, fiber, vitamins, natural enzymes, etc., all of which are its intrinsic values)

Isn't that a wonderful marriage of physics and economics? Without physics to describe some of the all-important intrinsic values, you might not know what to pay, and they might not know what to charge! Oh, and "per each" leaves us only with the intrinsic value of "one" (of a given thing, it's intrinsic value still being whatever it is - egg, apple, loaf, etc.,) times the price per each. Even then the price will still have a relation to various intrinsic values - like price per pound, oz., gram, liter, gallon, etc.,

Stick that in your economic crackpot pipe and smoke it.

Seraphim
03-04-2012, 09:33 PM
This is why I'm a voluntarist/an-cap.

Steven Douglas
03-04-2012, 09:56 PM
This is why I'm a voluntarist/an-cap.

^This. 100%. Anything less is...barbaric. Brutish. Blind to individual rights, artificially organized by brute force and compulsion, and to that extent, not civilized at all.

Seraphim
03-04-2012, 10:17 PM
But, but...The State is Civilization!!!


:rolleyes:


^This. 100%. Anything less is...barbaric. Brutish. Blind to individual rights, artificially organized by brute force and compulsion, and to that extent, not civilized at all.

cubical
03-04-2012, 10:28 PM
^This. 100%. Anything less is...barbaric. Brutish. Blind to individual rights, artificially organized by brute force and compulsion, and to that extent, not civilized at all.

So you guys are anarchists? I am not saying I disagree with you and in a perfect world I wouldn't think twice about agreeing with an anarchist, but I have some questions. How do you respond to arguments such as nothing would prevent you from breaking a contract with another person or business(maybe it is someone with no need of a "credit" score), or starting your own slavery organisation with thousands of members. Would mob violence for bad be met with mod violence for good? Or what if a foreign country attacks ours? With no "public" backing of force for what is agreed on as right(which includes a public defense) it seems we leave ourselves vulnerable, individually and as a society. I have always been on the government is a necessary evil side, but it isn't an open and shut case in my mind like it used to be.

enoch150
03-04-2012, 10:39 PM
Gold is a valuable thing to store. However, it is not a store of value.

Gold has intrinsic properties that make it valuable. However, it does not have intrinsic value.

I mention this, because, at some point, you will read about gold as a store of value. You will read of gold's intrinsic value. Every time you read either of these phrases, you will know that the author does not understand economic theory.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north952.html

enoch150
03-04-2012, 10:45 PM
Hi folks, I'm having a debate with someone currently who is saying that Ron Paul wants to deregulate the banks (which is the opposite of what I thought he'd do) and they're saying that, therefore, he wants to take America back the the 1920s - pre crash.

Banking has always been regulated by the federal government, to one extent or another, except for between 1837 and 1862. But even then the banks were regulated by the states.

Black Flag
03-04-2012, 10:49 PM
Oh yeah? Well, the next time you buy apples, or anything else, sold by weight or volume at the grocery store, you will be charged a price.

Yep because the owner place his value on the apples

But without the owner, or anyone else placing a value on apples - it has no value


That price will be its market value

Not true.
It will be some PRICE a whole lot higher than HIS value.



(in that particular market, should you pay that price) times its intrinsic value

No such thing as an intrinsic value.

That apple is priced to whatever the owner wishes it to be and he needs no calculator to figure it out (though he may use a calculator)

Black Flag
03-04-2012, 10:51 PM
Thanks, Enoch - very well said.

enoch150
03-04-2012, 10:55 PM
First, you must understand that most of the mess was the result of OVER-REGULATION & government programs :
Yes, the Glass-Steagall was repealed but it was stupid because it & FDIC were a "package-deal" regulations installed in 1933, there were two main parts to this regulation, 1) separation of commerical & investment banking 2) FDIC
The first one was repealed & deregulated but as I've said it was a "package-deal", either they should kept both as it was or repealed both but they repealed the first which merged commercial & investment banking but FDIC was left in tact, now that is problematic, FDIC is essentially backed by Fed & taxpayers' money so with now half the regulation gone, commercial banks could take on more risks & having FDIC along with it is like telling banks - go ahead, take risks, if you make a profit you keep it & if you fail, we'll bail you out - which is why Ron Paul had voted AGAINST this "half-deregulation", both should've been repealed so that banks are on their own instead of having an explicit guarantee of Fed & taxpayers through FDIC

Ron Paul actually didn't vote against the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. But he didn't vote for it, either. He was one of 15 who didn't vote.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/roll570.xml

Otherwise, good post.

Travlyr
03-04-2012, 11:01 PM
Yep because the owner place his value on the apples

But without the owner, or anyone else placing a value on apples - it has no value


Not true.
It will be some PRICE a whole lot higher than HIS value.



No such thing as an intrinsic value.

That apple is priced to whatever the owner wishes it to be and he needs no calculator to figure it out (though he may use a calculator)
Okay, Black Flag. You don't like fish and you don't like apples. Some of us do. Apples have value to me. They are great with peanut butter. Those of us who like them will bid on them in the free-market and find the price in ounces of silver, gold, or whatever the apple grower and fisherman are willing to let them trade hands. You are not required to participate. After all it is a free market.

Black Flag
03-04-2012, 11:01 PM
So you guys are anarchists?

I am wary of labels -especially this one- as most people have no clue what it means other then mind-mush they have heard or read about it from the Main Stream Media.

But anti-Statists, sure.



I am not saying I disagree with you and in a perfect world I wouldn't think twice about agreeing with an anarchist, but I have some questions.

Perfect worlds don't exist and are unnecessary for anarchists.



How do you respond to arguments such as nothing would prevent you from breaking a contract with another person or business(maybe it is someone with no need of a "credit" score),

Your word is your bond, and becomes your life.

You cheat me, you'll never trade with me or anyone else - and you need to trade to live. That is why ostracizing was such a serious punishment - no one dealt with you any more, and that was a slow death sentence.



or starting your own slavery organisation with thousands of members.

Like the government does?



Would mob violence for bad be met with mod violence for good?

You, right now, live under a series of tradeoffs - some you probably didn't know you've made.

You have decided to accept:
- a pervasive, overwhelming, national, constant theft and violence on you by government - but it is more or less spread over everyone and is predictable.
instead of:
- a very rare, local, random, personal violence by a thug - which is directed at you personally and is unpredictable.

You'd rather have a constant, shared by everyone, predictable knife to your throat then the random, very rare, shared by no one, unpredictable knife to your throat.

And that's the trade off you've made.

I'd rather deal with the other one.

But you have to deal with one or the other.



Or what if a foreign country attacks ours?
ahhahahahh who?
How are they getting here?
And why would they attack when it is cheaper to trade?



With no "public" backing of force for what is agreed on as right(which includes a public defense)

Why do you assume only criminals are capable of organizing themselves, but free men are unable to organize themselves.

Black Flag
03-04-2012, 11:05 PM
Okay, Black Flag. You don't like fish and you don't like apples. Some of us do.

And as such, you place a value on them that comes from you - the individual.

Did you read Menger? He figured that out 150 years ago.



Apples have value to me. They are great with peanut butter. Those of us who like them will bid on them in the free-market and find the price in ounces of silver, gold, or whatever the apple grower and fisherman are willing to let them trade hands. You are not required to participate. After all it is a free market.

You got it! (thumbs up)

Travlyr
03-04-2012, 11:10 PM
And as such, you place a value on them that comes from you - the individual.

Did you read Menger? He figured that out 150 years ago.

You got it! (thumbs up)
Yeah, it is not rocket science.

Black Flag
03-04-2012, 11:21 PM
Yeah, it is not rocket science.

But you will still hear people claiming things have intrinsic value - as quoted, when you hear that, you can immediately assume they have a crackpot economic theory.

tttppp
03-04-2012, 11:23 PM
I say deregulate the banks as much as possible. Create a few simple rules that are easy to understand and have strict enforcement of those rules. Less regulations enables smaller companies to compete, which increases competition, increased competition prevents companies from adopting shady practices. Additionally, increased competition will prevent a domino effect if one bank went under... since there would be many smaller banks instead of just a few large banks.

Things are ass backwards today. Today they have millions of bs regulations and very minimal enforcement. They should do the exact opposite of what they are doing now.

No Free Beer
03-04-2012, 11:24 PM
I disagree. We need to regulate the banks.

Travlyr
03-04-2012, 11:25 PM
But you will still hear people claiming things have intrinsic value - as quoted, when you hear that, you can immediately assume they have a crackpot economic theory.
Explain what you mean by crackpot economic theory.

Black Flag
03-04-2012, 11:33 PM
I disagree. We need to regulate the banks.

I disagree.

It is funny - people will rant against monopolies being "bad" for the People, create over-priced goods of ever more poorer quality, etc. in any other industry ..except banking...where they will rally against the elimination of the bank monopoly in fear it will be "bad" for the people, create over-priced goods of ever more poorer quality, etc.

Travlyr, that is an example of a crackpot economic theory.

It is a theory, like all theories, that begin with an hypothesis - but when tested, does not explain reality very well or at all - but remains steadfast in the mind of the theorist as if it was not refuted - but confirmed!

Travlyr
03-04-2012, 11:37 PM
I disagree.

It is funny - people will rant against monopolies being "bad" for the People, create over-priced goods of ever more poorer quality, etc. in any other industry ..except banking...where they will rally against the elimination of the bank monopoly in fear it will be "bad" for the people, create over-priced goods of ever more poorer quality, etc.

Travlyr, that is an example of a crackpot economic theory.

It is a theory, like all theories, that begin with an hypothesis - but when tested, does not explain reality very well or at all - but remains steadfast in the mind of the theorist as if it was not refuted - but confirmed!
This ^^ is just plain stupid. Did you go to government school? Get a clue.

No Free Beer
03-05-2012, 12:00 AM
I disagree.

It is funny - people will rant against monopolies being "bad" for the People, create over-priced goods of ever more poorer quality, etc. in any other industry ..except banking...where they will rally against the elimination of the bank monopoly in fear it will be "bad" for the people, create over-priced goods of ever more poorer quality, etc.

Travlyr, that is an example of a crackpot economic theory.

It is a theory, like all theories, that begin with an hypothesis - but when tested, does not explain reality very well or at all - but remains steadfast in the mind of the theorist as if it was not refuted - but confirmed!

You didn't really address what I said. Why did you even use my quote?

Black Flag
03-05-2012, 12:12 AM
This ^^ is just plain stupid. Did you go to government school? Get a clue.

(shrug)
I thought it would be over your head and I was right.

Black Flag
03-05-2012, 12:17 AM
You didn't really address what I said. Why did you even use my quote?

You disagree. You want to regulate banks.
That is what you said.

I did address it - you want to maintain the monopoly on the banking industry - that is what "regulations" does; by administrative processes, it prevents the entry of competition.

Now, I assume -like most people- you disagree with economic monopolies if they occur in other segments ... yet, here, you support processes that ensure and expand a monopoly.

This is called a contradiction - and, as this is commonly an artifact of crackpot theories, I used this as a segue into explaining to Travlyr what such a theory is - which was beyond his limited comprehension.

Travlyr
03-05-2012, 12:20 AM
(shrug)
I thought it would be over your head and I was right.
It's not over my head. It is dumber than rocks. You make no sense. Theories are how facts are determined. Start with a theory, test it, and if it works then it becomes a fact. Again I ask, did you go to government school?

Black Flag
03-05-2012, 12:38 AM
It's not over my head. It is dumber than rocks. You make no sense. Theories are how facts are determined. Start with a theory, test it, and if it works then it becomes a fact. Again I ask, did you go to government school?

First theories do NOT determine facts at all. Facts do not need a theory to exist. And if you didn't know that, perhaps you need to go to school.

Theories attempt to explain an effect we witness in reality. We are trying to discover the "cause" that made "that effect", so that we can then make it a tool for us to use.

If we can learn that X causes Y, and one day we want a Y, we know that all we have to do is do an X... that is what we are trying to do with theories.

Theories start with an hypothesis ... an educated guess at a causation... that attempts to explain a consequence.
We then test this -usually by doing that thing- to see if we get the consequence.
If we do, we have a theory.
If we do not, we start again, making a better guess at the causation.

A CRACKPOT theory comes in many forms.

One is called "Confirming the conclusion" - that is, you already know what you want to be the answer, regardless of its reality, and you fabricate causes ad hoc that you claim will cause such a conclusion - such as "Anthropogenic Global Warming" where the conclusion - humans caused the warming - is confirmed no matter the reality; it snows - its caused by humans; it warms - it is caused by humans; it doesn't do either - it is caused by humans.

Another example is when a theorist goes down the hypothesis, test, conclusion path - and finds his hypothesis does not explain the consequence. Instead of starting over, and making a better guess, he holds on to this hypothesis and begins to add externalities to explain why the consequence didn't happen the way he said it would.

This is typical in economics - such as understanding the Theory of Money. You can get a sense of the crackpottery by merely following along.

First, one begins claiming gold is money but paper money is not money.
Yet, when you test this, you see people use paper money to buy things, but do not use gold to buy things.

So, instead of going "hmm, that's true, so maybe my money theory is wrong" - the gold bug makes up ANOTHER crackpot theory to explain that:
-yes, because the paper money is FAKE and all those people are fooled into believing it is money when it is not money and only gold is money but the people are fooled! Yes, that's it!

But then you say, all those people are fools? 300 million people are fooled into using and accepting paper money to buy things, but the money is fake, and they are all being fooled into using this money to buy things... yet, people ARE trading away goods and services and buying things just fine so... why is it fake if it is doing exactly the job "real" money would do...anyway? Doesn't that mean its money?

And, now, really twisted in a knot the theorist having another chance to quit and go back and re-evaluate his monetary theory... but oh no! It must go on by providing another one on top of the last one that was on top of the last one to explain why foolish people are very successful in using fake money as good or better than the real money that no one uses!

...and so on.

Travlyr
03-05-2012, 12:41 AM
First theories do NOT determine facts at all. Facts do not need a theory to exist.

Theories attempt to explain an effect we witness in reality. We are trying to discover the "cause" that made "that effect", so that we can then make it a tool for us to use.

If we can learn that X causes Y, and one day we want a Y, we know that all we have to do is do an X... that is what we are trying to do with theories.

Theories start with an hypothesis ... an educated guess at a causation... that attempts to explain a consequence.
We then test this -usually by doing that thing- to see if we get the consequence.
If we do, we have a theory.
If we do not, we start again, making a better guess at the causation.

A CRACKPOT theory comes in many forms.

One is called "Confirming the conclusion" - that is, you already know what you want to be the answer, regardless of its reality, and you fabricate causes ad hoc that you claim will cause such a conclusion - such as "Anthropogenic Global Warming" where the conclusion - humans caused the warming - is confirmed no matter the reality; it snows - its caused by humans; it warms - it is caused by humans; it doesn't do either - it is caused by humans.

Another example is when a theorist goes down the hypothesis, test, conclusion path - and finds his hypothesis does not explain the consequence. Instead of starting over, and making a better guess, he holds on to this hypothesis and begins to add externalities to explain why the consequence didn't happen the way he said it would.

This is typical in economics - such as understanding the Theory of Money. You can get a sense of the crackpottery by merely following along.

First, one begins claiming gold is money but paper money is not money.
Yet, when you test this, you see people use paper money to buy things, but do not use gold to buy things.

So, instead of going "hmm, that's true, so maybe my money theory is wrong" - the gold bug makes up ANOTHER crackpot theory to explain that:
-yes, because the paper money is FAKE and all those people are fooled into believing it is money when it is not money and only gold is money but the people are fooled! Yes, that's it!

But then you say, all those people are fools? 300 million people are fooled into using and accepting paper money to buy things, but the money is fake, and they are all being fooled into using this money to buy things... yet, people ARE trading away goods and services and buying things just fine so... why is it fake if it is doing exactly the job "real" money would do...anyway? Doesn't that mean its money?

And, now, really twisted in a knot the theorist having another chance to quit and go back and re-evaluate his monetary theory... but oh no! It must go on by providing another one on top of the last one that was on top of the last one to explain why foolish people are very successful in using fake money as good or better than the real money that no one uses!

...and so on.
Then quote where I have presented a "crackpot theory"

Travlyr
03-05-2012, 12:43 AM
First theories do NOT determine facts at all. Facts do not need a theory to exist. And if you didn't know that, perhaps you need to go to school.

Theories attempt to explain an effect we witness in reality. We are trying to discover the "cause" that made "that effect", so that we can then make it a tool for us to use.

If we can learn that X causes Y, and one day we want a Y, we know that all we have to do is do an X... that is what we are trying to do with theories.

Theories start with an hypothesis ... an educated guess at a causation... that attempts to explain a consequence.
We then test this -usually by doing that thing- to see if we get the consequence.
If we do, we have a theory.
If we do not, we start again, making a better guess at the causation.

A CRACKPOT theory comes in many forms.

One is called "Confirming the conclusion" - that is, you already know what you want to be the answer, regardless of its reality, and you fabricate causes ad hoc that you claim will cause such a conclusion - such as "Anthropogenic Global Warming" where the conclusion - humans caused the warming - is confirmed no matter the reality; it snows - its caused by humans; it warms - it is caused by humans; it doesn't do either - it is caused by humans.

Another example is when a theorist goes down the hypothesis, test, conclusion path - and finds his hypothesis does not explain the consequence. Instead of starting over, and making a better guess, he holds on to this hypothesis and begins to add externalities to explain why the consequence didn't happen the way he said it would.

This is typical in economics - such as understanding the Theory of Money. You can get a sense of the crackpottery by merely following along.

First, one begins claiming gold is money but paper money is not money.
Yet, when you test this, you see people use paper money to buy things, but do not use gold to buy things.

So, instead of going "hmm, that's true, so maybe my money theory is wrong" - the gold bug makes up ANOTHER crackpot theory to explain that:
-yes, because the paper money is FAKE and all those people are fooled into believing it is money when it is not money and only gold is money but the people are fooled! Yes, that's it!

But then you say, all those people are fools? 300 million people are fooled into using and accepting paper money to buy things, but the money is fake, and they are all being fooled into using this money to buy things... yet, people ARE trading away goods and services and buying things just fine so... why is it fake if it is doing exactly the job "real" money would do...anyway? Doesn't that mean its money?

And, now, really twisted in a knot the theorist having another chance to quit and go back and re-evaluate his monetary theory... but oh no! It must go on by providing another one on top of the last one that was on top of the last one to explain why foolish people are very successful in using fake money as good or better than the real money that no one uses!

...and so on.
ARE YOU A PRODUCT OF THE GOVERNMENT SCHOOL SYSTEM?

Black Flag
03-05-2012, 12:44 AM
Then quote where I have presented a "crackpot theory"

You, so quoted:
"Both of which are funny money. They are not real. Real money is not funny money. When will you wake up? Before they toss you under the bus.. I hope."

Black Flag
03-05-2012, 12:45 AM
ARE YOU A PRODUCT OF THE GOVERNMENT SCHOOL SYSTEM?

I am an autodidact.

Travlyr
03-05-2012, 12:49 AM
I am an autodidact.
Well then let me just say that people smarter than you know what is going on.

Human Freedom Rests on Gold Redeemable Money (http://www.fame.org/pdf/buffet3.pdf)
By HON. HOWARD BUFFETT
U. S. Congressman from Nebraska

tttppp
03-05-2012, 12:55 AM
I disagree. We need to regulate the banks.

How is that working out for us now?

Black Flag
03-05-2012, 12:56 AM
Well then let me just say that people smarter than you know what is going on.

Human Freedom Rests on Gold Redeemable Money (http://www.fame.org/pdf/buffet3.pdf)
By HON. HOWARD BUFFETT
U. S. Congressman from Nebraska

You underwhelm me.

Feeding the Abscess
03-05-2012, 03:13 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvH4YlpCGSo

This and the Rothbard video from earlier in the thread are absolutely essential.

enoch150
03-05-2012, 04:58 AM
ARE YOU A PRODUCT OF THE GOVERNMENT SCHOOL SYSTEM?

http://i42.tinypic.com/nxs1es.png

Travlyr
03-05-2012, 09:03 AM
...

It is actually a quite relevant question. It had been asked prior but went unanswered. Perhaps it didn't need to be in all caps, but isn't it interesting that asking someone if they were "educated" in a government school is considered an attack?

Here are a couple of realities:

A society that uses sound money, fully redeemable, is a free society.
Government schools do not teach sound money principles.

Black Flag has been on these forums the last several days attacking people who have studied sound money principles and how it relates to a free society as described by Dr. Ron Paul. He calls their principles "theories" and then claims that they are "crackpot theories." They are neither. Sound money principles are from natural law. They do not teach that in government indoctrination systems. Black Flag is either ignorant to the sound money principles (government school indoctrination) or he is here to obfuscate Ron Paul's message of sound money. Notice his response to HON. HOWARD BUFFETT's Human Freedom Rests on Gold Redeemable Money (http://www.fame.org/pdf/buffet3.pdf)

So, either Black Flag doesn't know what he is talking about ... or he knows exactly what he is doing.

enoch150
03-05-2012, 10:04 AM
It is actually a quite relevant question. It had been asked prior but went unanswered. Perhaps it didn't need to be in all caps, but isn't it interesting that asking someone if they were "educated" in a government school is considered an attack?

Here are a couple of realities:

A society that uses sound money, fully redeemable, is a free society.
Government schools do not teach sound money principles.

Black Flag has been on these forums the last several days attacking people who have studied sound money principles and how it relates to a free society as described by Dr. Ron Paul. He calls their principles "theories" and then claims that they are "crackpot theories." They are neither. Sound money principles are from natural law. They do not teach that in government indoctrination systems. Black Flag is either ignorant to the sound money principles (government school indoctrination) or he is here to obfuscate Ron Paul's message of sound money. Notice his response to HON. HOWARD BUFFETT's Human Freedom Rests on Gold Redeemable Money (http://www.fame.org/pdf/buffet3.pdf)

So, either Black Flag doesn't know what he is talking about ... or he knows exactly what he is doing.

I've only first noticed Black Flag from this thread, so if he's said anything outlandish elsewhere, I'm not aware of it. But, in this thread, he has expressed views consistent with people like Gary North - a former Ron Paul staffer and well known and respected member of the libertarian community. An-cap libertarians and Constitutionalists agree on 90%+ of the direction the country should be headed, but there are some disagreements of theory and principles. Let's just keep the debate elevated.

Travlyr
03-05-2012, 10:21 AM
Let's just keep the debate elevated.
I agree.

My disagreement with him stems from another thread where Black Flag intentionally misrepresented what I wrote to obfuscate the discussion. Here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?364206-The-downside-to-deflation-in-a-debt-based-monetary-system&p=4245838&viewfull=1#post4245838

And in this thread he continues his obfuscation by claiming
First theories do NOT determine facts at all. Facts do not need a theory to exist. And if you didn't know that, perhaps you need to go to school.

Theories attempt to explain an effect we witness in reality. We are trying to discover the "cause" that made "that effect", so that we can then make it a tool for us to use.

If we can learn that X causes Y, and one day we want a Y, we know that all we have to do is do an X... that is what we are trying to do with theories.

Theories start with an hypothesis ... an educated guess at a causation... that attempts to explain a consequence.
We then test this -usually by doing that thing- to see if we get the consequence.
If we do, we have a theory.
If we do not, we start again, making a better guess at the causation.

A CRACKPOT theory comes in many forms.

One is called "Confirming the conclusion" - that is, you already know what you want to be the answer, regardless of its reality, and you fabricate causes ad hoc that you claim will cause such a conclusion - such as "Anthropogenic Global Warming" where the conclusion - humans caused the warming - is confirmed no matter the reality; it snows - its caused by humans; it warms - it is caused by humans; it doesn't do either - it is caused by humans.

Another example is when a theorist goes down the hypothesis, test, conclusion path - and finds his hypothesis does not explain the consequence. Instead of starting over, and making a better guess, he holds on to this hypothesis and begins to add externalities to explain why the consequence didn't happen the way he said it would.

This is typical in economics - such as understanding the Theory of Money. You can get a sense of the crackpottery by merely following along.

First, one begins claiming gold is money but paper money is not money.
Yet, when you test this, you see people use paper money to buy things, but do not use gold to buy things.

So, instead of going "hmm, that's true, so maybe my money theory is wrong" - the gold bug makes up ANOTHER crackpot theory to explain that:
-yes, because the paper money is FAKE and all those people are fooled into believing it is money when it is not money and only gold is money but the people are fooled! Yes, that's it!

But then you say, all those people are fools? 300 million people are fooled into using and accepting paper money to buy things, but the money is fake, and they are all being fooled into using this money to buy things... yet, people ARE trading away goods and services and buying things just fine so... why is it fake if it is doing exactly the job "real" money would do...anyway? Doesn't that mean its money?

And, now, really twisted in a knot the theorist having another chance to quit and go back and re-evaluate his monetary theory... but oh no! It must go on by providing another one on top of the last one that was on top of the last one to explain why foolish people are very successful in using fake money as good or better than the real money that no one uses!

...and so on.
While I do call Federal Reserve Notes "Funny Money"... I do that to emphasize that FRNs lose value every day. In my opinion, valueless money, or money that is worth less today than yesterday, is inferior to valuable money. That is not a "crackpot theory."

I question Black Flag's intentions on this forum. He is a smart guy, but I'm not convinced he is on Ron Paul's side working toward liberty.

Black Flag
03-05-2012, 11:25 AM
I agree.

My disagreement with him stems from another thread where Black Flag intentionally misrepresented what I wrote to obfuscate the discussion. Here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?364206-The-downside-to-deflation-in-a-debt-based-monetary-system&p=4245838&viewfull=1#post4245838

And in this thread he continues his obfuscation by claiming
While I do call Federal Reserve Notes "Funny Money"

...and you called it fake money and that it was not money.
It is these concepts of yours that actually gets in the way of understanding - and getting in the way of understanding creates serious errors.

Similarly, this concept of "losing" value is also seriously wrong.

The value YOU place on economic goods changes everyday depending on how your day goes - you don't value bandages much, but if today (god forbid) you get into an accident, those bandages become very valuable.

The economic nescients assign magical powers to money, such as "it should not lose value" which usually means it will gain in value.

But then another group of nescients *gasps* claiming the bugaboo of "deflation" (which is when money becomes more valuable) and then the economically nescient demand something should be done - which can only mean making money less valuable - causing the first nescients to *gasp*.

This bouncing around inconsistent, contradictory demands upon the money all requires one thing:
intervention

To steer the river of monetary flow, men get in with their hands and pervert the banks of the river - erosion occurs where there was no erosion before, undermining structures that before were safe - and now become threatened.

Ignorantly unaware that is was the mucking in the river that created the threat, more mucking in the river of monetary flow is deemed necessary, changing the flow again and eroding another area that was once considered safe - leading to more and more mucking in the river.... until nothing is safe, everything is under threat and everyone has forgotten where the river once was and were it was going.


All of this is avoided by educating the nescient to understanding what is money and removing baseless concepts that these people -full of good intentions and eagerness to learn (why are you here at RP's site if not to learn?) - so that they can go forth into society, and teach the totally ignorant.




I question Black Flag's intentions on this forum. He is a smart guy, but I'm not convinced he is on Ron Paul's side working toward liberty.

Ron Paul does not need me.

And I am neither working for or against anyone.

I am working for truth and whomever sides on that is an ally and those that resist that are adversaries - and where RP decides to sit is not in my power to force.

Travlyr
03-05-2012, 11:30 AM
...and you called it fake money and that it was not money.
It is these concepts of yours that actually gets in the way of understanding - and getting in the way of understanding creates serious errors.

Similarly, this concept of "losing" value is also seriously wrong.

The value YOU place on economic goods changes everyday depending on how your day goes - you don't value bandages much, but if today (god forbid) you get into an accident, those bandages become very valuable.

The economic nescients assign magical powers to money, such as "it should not lose value" which usually means it will gain in value.

But then another group of nescients *gasps* claiming the bugaboo of "deflation" (which is when money becomes more valuable) and then the economically nescient demand something should be done - which can only mean making money less valuable - causing the first nescients to *gasp*.

This bouncing around inconsistent, contradictory demands upon the money all requires one thing:
intervention

To steer the river of monetary flow, men get in with their hands and pervert the banks of the river - erosion occurs where there was no erosion before, undermining structures that before were safe - and now become threatened.

Ignorantly unaware that is was the mucking in the river that created the threat, more mucking in the river of monetary flow is deemed necessary, changing the flow again and eroding another area that was once considered safe - leading to more and more mucking in the river.... until nothing is safe, everything is under threat and everyone has forgotten where the river once was and were it was going.


All of this is avoided by educating the nescient to understanding what is money and removing baseless concepts that these people -full of good intentions and eagerness to learn (why are you here at RP's site if not to learn?) - so that they can go forth into society, and teach the totally ignorant.




Ron Paul does not need me.

And I am neither working for or against anyone.

I am working for truth and whomever sides on that is an ally and those that resist that are adversaries - and where RP decides to sit is not in my power to force.
Why did you misrepresent what I wrote? http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?364206-The-downside-to-deflation-in-a-debt-based-monetary-system&p=4245838&viewfull=1#post4245838

Black Flag
03-05-2012, 11:37 AM
Travylr

HON. HOWARD BUFFETT's Human Freedom Rests on Gold Redeemable Money

You do understand that Buffett is not an economist, but a politician?

You do understand that Buffett is not a philosopher, but a politician?

You do understand, then, that maybe Buffett does not understand the implications of what he is saying, though -in his own mind- he sees this as a political salvation to a problem caused by politics?

I like Buffet - he was a good man standing in the way of the flood of Statism, and unfortunately, did not slow it down even a second. His use, today, is reflection - that is, we see today in reality what he espoused in the past. That allows us to apply cause/consequence and turn around and use it forward into future-vision.

But all of that - you must test anyone's theories with your own, well-sharpened tools of reason, logic, knowledge and intellect - and not so easily surrender to concepts merely because someone else you deemed authoritative said so.

Travlyr
03-05-2012, 11:39 AM
Travylr


You do understand that Buffett is not an economist, but a politician?

You do understand that Buffett is not a philosopher, but a politician?

You do understand, then, that maybe Buffett does not understand the implications of what he is saying, though -in his own mind- he sees this as a political salvation to a problem caused by politics?

I like Buffet - he was a good man standing in the way of the flood of Statism, and unfortunately, did not slow it down even a second. His use, today, is reflection - that is, we see today in reality what he espoused in the past. That allows us to apply cause/consequence and turn around and use it forward into future-vision.

But all of that - you must test anyone's theories with your own, well-sharpened tools of reason, logic, knowledge and intellect - and not so easily surrender to concepts merely because someone else you deemed authoritative said so.
I understand all of that. Why did you misrepresent what I wrote? http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?364206-The-downside-to-deflation-in-a-debt-based-monetary-system&p=4245838&viewfull=1#post4245838

Black Flag
03-05-2012, 11:47 AM
Why did you misrepresent what I wrote? http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?364206-The-downside-to-deflation-in-a-debt-based-monetary-system&p=4245838&viewfull=1#post4245838

You take your claim of unfairness out of context - you do not deny you have said "fake" or deny you have assigned magical powers to money "hold value".

Further, in another thread, where you briefly dispelled these concepts, I explicitly expressed agreement with your comments regarding consequences.

I am an academic in many areas and one of those areas is economic theory.
That means I do not call purple sore bump on your arm a "bruise" - I called it a "hematoma" - because the terms ARE important to describe the underlying concepts.

The bigger bigger picture:
The greatest threat to modern society is not government nor war nor starvation via collapse - these things are consequences of the "Great Threat".


The great threat is pervasive ignorance.

Today, change happens so fast that most people -by the time they get enough information to understand what is happening to them, it is no longer happening to them and something else is happening.

Because of this, people are losing the ability to understand their world.

But in an era where the totally ignorant and the wise get exactly the same vote - 1 per man - this is incredibly dangerous. Over time, ignorance out votes wisdom.

Then things go to hell in a hand basket.

WilliamC
03-05-2012, 11:49 AM
"Gold is a valuable thing to store. However, it is not a store of value.

Gold has intrinsic properties that make it valuable. However, it does not have intrinsic value.

I mention this, because, at some point, you will read about gold as a store of value. You will read of gold's intrinsic value. Every time you read either of these phrases, you will know that the author does not understand economic theory."

Semantics and fuzzy definitions.

Those things which are 'stores of value' by definition are those things which are valuable to store, that is things which do not diminish in value when stored over time.

The 'intrinsic properties' which make a thing have value are by definition the intrinsic value of said thing, which are related to the physical properties of said thing.

The fact that it is human desire which creates this value is self-obvious, since we as yet have not encountered non-human sentient beings with which to trade.

So yes, you remove the intrinsic value of an object if no humans exist to interact with it, but then you also remove all economic and other human actions as well, so I fail to see what is gained by this point of view.

Travlyr
03-05-2012, 11:56 AM
You take your claim of unfairness out of context - you do not deny you have said "fake" or deny you have assigned magical powers to money "hold value".

Further, in another thread, where you briefly dispelled these concepts, I explicitly expressed agreement with your comments regarding consequences.

I am an academic in many areas and one of those areas is economic theory.
That means I do not call purple sore bump on your arm a "bruise" - I called it a "hematoma" - because the terms ARE important to describe the underlying concepts.

The bigger bigger picture:
The greatest threat to modern society is not government nor war nor starvation via collapse - these things are consequences of the "Great Threat".


The great threat is pervasive ignorance.

Today, change happens so fast that most people -by the time they get enough information to understand what is happening to them, it is no longer happening to them and something else is happening.

Because of this, people are losing the ability to understand their world.

But in an era where the totally ignorant and the wise get exactly the same vote - 1 per man - this is incredibly dangerous. Over time, ignorance out votes wisdom.

Then things go to hell in a hand basket.
The point is why did you misrepresent what I wrote? If you wanted an honest discussion, then you would be honest. If you are in academia then you should know that to take a quote out-of-context and misrepresent it as something that it is not ... is dishonest. Did you do it to be dishonest?

Black Flag
03-05-2012, 12:02 PM
"Gold is a valuable thing to store. However, it is not a store of value.

Gold has intrinsic properties that make it valuable. However, it does not have intrinsic value.

I mention this, because, at some point, you will read about gold as a store of value. You will read of gold's intrinsic value. Every time you read either of these phrases, you will know that the author does not understand economic theory."

Semantics and fuzzy definitions.

No, exactly opposite.

Clarity and specific definitions.



Those things which are 'stores of value' by definition are those things which are valuable to store, that is things which do not diminish in value when stored over time.


Not true - since value changes over time, so how can you possibly store it?

Do you really believe gold holds its value?
Well, in 1980 it was traded 850 FRN per oz, and in 1999 it traded 250 FRN per oz. - it's "store of value" sucked.

So we must discard such a concept - and replace it with a description of reality - "it is a valuable thing to store".



The 'intrinsic properties' which make a thing have value are by definition the intrinsic value of said thing, which are related to the physical properties of said thing.


No, it is not.

Value is imputed by the individual to the object.

So how can there be something intrinsic if it must be imputed???

Why is this concept important?

Because it brings our gaze to a point for our attention - not the object, but the individual as the source of defining value.

That means what another man demands is valuable DOES NOT MEAN it must be forced upon other men who do not see such value.

And that simple concept changes a lot in our world.

Black Flag
03-05-2012, 12:03 PM
The point is why did you misrepresent what I wrote? If you wanted an honest discussion, then you would be honest. If you are in academia then you should know that to take a quote out-of-context and misrepresent it as something that it is not ... is dishonest. Did you do it to be dishonest?

Be specifically clear to what you feel was unclear - re-quote it, with as much context you think is appropriate.

Travlyr
03-05-2012, 12:08 PM
Be specifically clear to what you feel was unclear - re-quote it, with as much context you think is appropriate.

This is bullshit. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?364206-The-downside-to-deflation-in-a-debt-based-monetary-system&p=4245838&viewfull=1#post4245838) Your post was a complete misrepresentation of what I wrote. You accomplished this misrepresentation by misquoting me. Everything is documented. If you want an honest discussion, then you have to be honest.

WilliamC
03-05-2012, 12:09 PM
/snip

The bigger bigger picture:
The greatest threat to modern society is not government nor war nor starvation via collapse - these things are consequences of the "Great Threat".


The great threat is pervasive ignorance.

Today, change happens so fast that most people -by the time they get enough information to understand what is happening to them, it is no longer happening to them and something else is happening.

Because of this, people are losing the ability to understand their world.

But in an era where the totally ignorant and the wise get exactly the same vote - 1 per man - this is incredibly dangerous. Over time, ignorance out votes wisdom.

Then things go to hell in a hand basket.

I would say the greatest threat, and the difference between now and other times in human history (up to ~100 years ago) is overpopulation and the fact that humans have essentially run out of places to migrate to.

When there was more of nature than there was of humans then there were times when resources were over-abundant and free to whomever found them first.

When there were still unknown and unsettled (or sparsely settled) lands then those who wanted to badly enough had somewhere to go to get away from whomever was oppressing them.

Well we have now reached a time when Earth is all there is, and unless we expand we will surely go extinct like every other species which has ever evolved in the last 4 billion years or so.

Whether or not it is even possible to colonize into the solar system is questionable, but we certainly won't get there so long as most people are so stupid that they'd rather spend waste resources on war and killing than exploration and expansion.

Short-term thinking from barely literate primates using behavioral evolutionary tactics selected to operate in past environments won't save us, and that's what most economics seems to me to be.

But I'm also pretty damn poor and have never had any ability or power to influence people to my way of thinking, so what do I know?

Black Flag
03-05-2012, 12:15 PM
This is bullshit. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?364206-The-downside-to-deflation-in-a-debt-based-monetary-system&p=4245838&viewfull=1#post4245838) Your post was a complete misrepresentation of what I wrote. You accomplished this misrepresentation by misquoting me. Everything is documented. If you want an honest discussion, then you have to be honest.

To what you are pointing at with you waving at your computer, I cannot see -

Repost, and let us all see.

Black Flag
03-05-2012, 12:22 PM
I would say the greatest threat, and the difference between now and other times in human history (up to ~100 years ago) is overpopulation and the fact that humans have essentially run out of places to migrate to.

Poppycock!

This has been a claim since Malthus in the 17th Century and it remains as untrue then as now.

Holland is one of the most densely populated places - ever been to Holland?
They have vast farms, they are rich, and they are mostly pretty happy.

Not really a problem in my mind.

People - human beings - are the greatest problem solvers in the known Universe. Frankly, we are utterly amazing at it.

One needs only to look outside and marvel at how good we do it.

The more people - the more problems solved.

We are vastly more rich today because there are more people solving problems - because, sir, that is what wealth is - successful solutions to human problems

As far as living space.....

Remember Star Wars, and the planet got destroyed, and Obi Wan was so impacted by the screams of billions of beings dying....

..then remember that "little moon" that was a death star and it blew up - and nobody felt the impact of the screams of the dying?

Well, that huge planet had a few billion living on its surface...

...but that little death star had a few hundred billion trillion people living inside it.

Even if 99.9% of that death star was engine and infrastructure - there would be hundred trillion people inside of it.

3D space is amazingly larger than 2D space...

Don't worry much about "where we will live or go" - we have lots of room still left on ol' planet earth.

Travlyr
03-05-2012, 12:24 PM
To what you are pointing at with you waving at your computer, I cannot see -

Repost, and let us all see.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?364206-The-downside-to-deflation-in-a-debt-based-monetary-system&p=4245838&viewfull=1#post4245838

Ron Paul Forums - Thread "The downside to deflation in a debt-based monetary system?" Page 17 your post #162. Is not honest. Why? What is your purpose in misquoting me? I've got all day... but I don't want to spend it on worthless crap. FRNs come to mind ... along with your bullshit.

Travlyr
03-05-2012, 12:41 PM
Black Flag? Did you run out of words?

MooCowzRock
03-05-2012, 12:50 PM
Not true - since value changes over time, so how can you possibly store it?

Do you really believe gold holds its value?
Well, in 1980 it was traded 850 FRN per oz, and in 1999 it traded 250 FRN per oz. - it's "store of value" sucked.

So we must discard such a concept - and replace it with a description of reality - "it is a valuable thing to store".


LOL Way to choose a the highest pre-1990 point you could find in its value, and measure it up to the lowest post 1990 value you could find...Just because it had a very temporary boom and bust in 1980 does not make it a poor store of value:

http://goldprice.org/charts/history/gold_all_data_o_usd.png

It is the only thing in the past few millenia that has maintained its value. Not to mention the only reason that boom happened was because of the high inflation in 1980.

WilliamC
03-05-2012, 01:01 PM
No, exactly opposite.

Clarity and specific definitions.

It neither clarifies nor specifies, it obfuscates and muddles.


Not true - since value changes over time, so how can you possibly store it?

Gold and silver, for instance, have been both valuable and stores of value since before human history.

So for them at least there is an intrinsic value, so long as there have been humans that is.


Do you really believe gold holds its value?

I don't have to 'believe' it, it is demonstrably true.

Gold and silver have been valued throughout recorded human history, since before Homer and before the Bible waswritten, do you deny this is correct?.

Now, as I stated, in the absence of humans, well there is no reason to any discussion of economics, so of course any discussion of value becomes irrelevant.


Well, in 1980 it was traded 850 FRN per oz, and in 1999 it traded 250 FRN per oz. - it's "store of value" sucked.

I tend to take a slightly longer view, like thousands of years. But if you wish to base your entire argument on the value of gold on these two specific dates then by all means do so, I just don't accept your timeframe.


So we must discard such a concept - and replace it with a description of reality - "it is a valuable thing to store".

Semantics. By definition a valuable thing to store is a store of value.

Why would one wish to store things that are not valuable, or that lose their value over time?

So no, I'll not discard the concept.


No, it is not.

Value is imputed by the individual to the object.

So how can there be something intrinsic if it must be imputed???

Why is this concept important?

Because it brings our gaze to a point for our attention - not the object, but the individual as the source of defining value.

That means what another man demands is valuable DOES NOT MEAN it must be forced upon other men who do not see such value.

I have no desire to force you to believe gold and silver, for instance, are valuable.

If you do not wish to own any then don't.

But most of humans throughout most of human history would tend to disagree with you.

Without humans, as I said, the entire discussion is irrelevant.


And that simple concept changes a lot in our world.

But not the fact that gold and silver, for instance, are intrinsically valuable precisely because humans have valued them since before recorded history.

Domalais
03-05-2012, 01:04 PM
The only explaination for a flat price of gold between 1983 and 2003 is that no inflation or devaluation of the dollar occured over those two decades. Otherwise, gold did not maintain its value.

I'll leave it up to you to pick which possibility is true.

WilliamC
03-05-2012, 01:25 PM
Poppycock!

This explains a lot methinks.

I am sorry to tell you, but exponential growth rates in the presence of finite resources will always end in population in population crashes and instabilities for all biological populations, human or otherwise. It is simply not possible to expand forever with limited resources.


This has been a claim since Malthus in the 17th Century and it remains as untrue then as now.

Everyone dies, all species become extinct, and humans are not different than bacteria in a petri dish when it comes to reproducing and consuming resources, it's simple mathematics.

If we don't figure a way to either expand off of the Earth or to voluntarily manage our birth rate there will continue to be mass starvation, epidemics, wars and genocides just have there always been in human history, and they will get worse as time goes on instead of better.


Holland is one of the most densely populated places - ever been to Holland?

Yes.


They have vast farms, they are rich, and they are mostly pretty happy.

Not really a problem in my mind.

Yet the world is much bigger, and much poorer than Holland.

My point is that, despite the fact that we haven't done so yet we will reach our ultimate carrying capacity, we can easily see it coming.


People - human beings - are the greatest problem solvers in the known Universe. Frankly, we are utterly amazing at it.

Oh I have no doubt that humans must solve our own problems and are capable of doing so, but I am less than optimistic that we actually will.

We have wasted most of our resources so far on war and preparation for war and perhaps don't have enough left to begin the serious work of long-term space colonization and long-term survival of the species.


One needs only to look outside and marvel at how good we do it.

The more people - the more problems solved.

We are vastly more rich today because there are more people solving problems - because, sir, that is what wealth is - successful solutions to human problems

I'm not arguing against human ingenuity, but simply that it won't be enough to overcome the simple mathematical fact that exponential growth with limited resources always leads to population crashes, and sometimes those crashes result in extinction of the species involved.

I'd rather that not happen, at least not for a few more million years, and I don't see this as possible as long as we are constrained to living on a single planet.




As far as living space.....

Remember Star Wars, and the planet got destroyed, and Obi Wan was so impacted by the screams of billions of beings dying....

..then remember that "little moon" that was a death star and it blew up - and nobody felt the impact of the screams of the dying?

Well, that huge planet had a few billion living on its surface...

...but that little death star had a few hundred billion trillion people living inside it.

Even if 99.9% of that death star was engine and infrastructure - there would be hundred trillion people inside of it.

3D space is amazingly larger than 2D space...

Don't worry much about "where we will live or go" - we have lots of room still left on ol' planet earth.

Oh I don't doubt the possibility, but I don't see us as going in that direction at this point, and a big part of the reason is that the wealth of our humanity is being squandered on war and killing, and part of that is the monetary system that supports the elite at the expense of the many.

A free-market in currency, which includes but is not forcibly limited to using gold and silver, would help us reach these goals.

Black Flag
03-05-2012, 01:32 PM
It is the only thing in the past few millenia that has maintained its value.

Sir, your graph shows only that its price in reference to the US$ changes regularly.

This has NOTHING to do with value.



Not to mention the only reason that boom happened was because of the high inflation in 1980.

Hmm... which actually was a consequence of Nixon closing the gold window in 1971.
Your graph does not go back to when gold was $35/oz....

Black Flag
03-05-2012, 01:36 PM
Gold and silver, for instance, have been both valuable and stores of value since before human history.

They have been valuable to store - but again, they do not store value.

How can you explain that gold was $35, now $1700, was $850 and $250... while at the same time, claiming it is storing such value?

What does "storing value" mean?

I store my grain in a bin - I expect to have the same grain when I open my bin at a point in the future.
So if I store value - I expect to have the same value at a point in the future.

But value changes all time - every second depending on your personal circumstance.

So how can you possibly say that you are storing value - keeping it the same for the future - when it is never the same in the future?

You have a conceptual contradiction.

Black Flag
03-05-2012, 01:45 PM
The only explaination for a flat price of gold between 1983 and 2003 is that no inflation or devaluation of the dollar occured over those two decades. Otherwise, gold did not maintain its value.

I'll leave it up to you to pick which possibility is true.

So let's test your claim that no inflation occurred of the dollar.

Inflation = "increase in the money supply", therefore it is a simple exercise to go and get the facts about whether the money supply increased over that time.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c4/Components_of_US_Money_supply.svg/720px-Components_of_US_Money_supply.svg.png

A review between 1980 toward the present shows a near-linear increase in the money supply.
Therefore the claim regarding inflation "not occurring" doesn't seem right.

To check our work, let's look at the CPI inflation rate ...yes it is flawed, but we can essentially discount its flaws by comparing it to itself - compare a rotten apple to a rotten apple and note what changes .... the rot cancels itself out....

Ok, CPI of 1980
1980-01-01 78.000

2003-01-01 182.600

...so, confirming our money supply data that indeed inflation was fully engaged.

But as you noted the price of gold was flat.

Therefore, the price of gold was FLAT so it had to be losing its buying power relative to the entire market! or, in the misused lingo of the posters here

..it was losing value....

Hell of "store" huh?

WilliamC
03-05-2012, 01:53 PM
They have been valuable to store - but again, they do not store value.

That which is valuable to store is by definition a store of value.

If you don't accept the premise then I suppose we won't be able to communicate very well.


How can you explain that gold was $35, now $1700, was $850 and $250... while at the same time, claiming it is storing such value?

The time frames I'm looking at are far longer than those you are.


does "storing value" mean?

Store--to put away for an indefinite period of time

Value--an object that humans find useful for trade.

Of course I just made that up, but it seems to fit.

How do you define it?


I store my grain in a bin - I expect to have the same grain when I open my bin at a point in the future.

How far in the future? IF you are talking weeks or months perhaps. But years or decades and you'd be foolish to entrust your wealth to grain for so long a period of time.

Gold and silver are unique in that they can remain unchanged and store value over all of recorded human history. Nothing else comes close.


So if I store value - I expect to have the same value at a point in the future.

Why? The quantity may change depending on you medium of storage.

Which gets back to why gold and silver are pretty much unique, no matter what else has been used as such throughout history. They don't change over time.


But value changes all time - every second depending on your personal circumstance.

Value is an abstract concept but objects which retain value can be constant. Gold and silver being the prime examples in human history. The exact amount that they will be valued may change, but they will almost always have value in any realistic human economy, as they always have throughout human history.


So how can you possibly say that you are storing value - keeping it the same for the future - when it is never the same in the future?

Well based on all of recorded human history, (i.e., the past) I predict that humans in the future will continue to value gold and silver and will assign to discreet physical pieces of gold and silver a value when measured in other physical objects. The precise quantity of that value will change, indeed the objects themselves will change as humans create new technology, but there is nothing to suggest that gold and silver will somehow loose their value as all paper money throughout history has done in the past.


You have a conceptual contradiction.

No, I merely recognize the fact that gold and silver are the definition of wealth and value throughout recorded human history more than any other physical object.

They aren't the only stores of value, just the most enduring.

Black Flag
03-05-2012, 01:55 PM
I am sorry to tell you, but exponential growth rates in the presence of finite resources will always end in population in population crashes and instabilities for all biological populations, human or otherwise. It is simply not possible to expand forever with limited resources.

The flaw in your thinking:
You see the earth with your very flawed eyes and understanding and do a calculation.

You cannot see, comprehend or calculate the future innovation, tools, technology, knowledge or capacity of the human race- so you ignore this.

You run your calculator and it gives you a number to which you compare to something you ignored and discount, and become fearful.

You take this fear and demand solutions to solve this fear that must come from the very arena you discounted above:
future innovation, tools, technology, knowledge or capacity of the human race

Black Flag
03-05-2012, 02:00 PM
That which is valuable to store is by definition a store of value.

If you don't accept the premise then I suppose we won't be able to communicate very well.

You have not provided any premise.

You are confusing concepts.

You are trying to equate, two, exclusive concepts to be the same.

Something valuable to store is NOT the same as a store of value.

I think my letters home to my wife are valuable, so I store them.
They do not store any value, because if one day I have to decide between them and my wife's life - they will burn.
So the value they have changes - and therefore, you cannot store it (see grain example)

Travlyr
03-05-2012, 02:04 PM
The flaw in your thinking:
You see the earth with your very flawed eyes and understanding and do a calculation.

You cannot see, comprehend or calculate the future innovation, tools, technology, knowledge or capacity of the human race- so you ignore this.

You run your calculator and it gives you a number to which you compare to something you ignored and discount, and become fearful.

You take this fear and demand solutions to solve this fear that must come from the very arena you discounted above:
future innovation, tools, technology, knowledge or capacity of the human race
WilliamC is not flawed in this thinking my friend. He makes a lot of sense.

WilliamC
03-05-2012, 02:11 PM
The flaw in your thinking:
You see the earth with your very flawed eyes and understanding and do a calculation.

You cannot see, comprehend or calculate the future innovation, tools, technology, knowledge or capacity of the human race- so you ignore this.

You run your calculator and it gives you a number to which you compare to something you ignored and discount, and become fearful.

You take this fear and demand solutions to solve this fear that must come from the very arena you discounted above:
future innovation, tools, technology, knowledge or capacity of the human race

Would that what you say have any basis in fact.

It does not.

Innovation /> mathematics.

And where you get fear from I know not.

We must expand or we will go extinct, period.

Well, eventually we will go extinct, but if we can somehow get to a timescale of millions of years instead of thousands I'd be happy enough :)

WilliamC
03-05-2012, 02:17 PM
You have not provided any premise.

You are confusing concepts.

You are trying to equate, two, exclusive concepts to be the same.

Something valuable to store is NOT the same as a store of value.

I think my letters home to my wife are valuable, so I store them.
They do not store any value, because if one day I have to decide between them and my wife's life - they will burn.
So the value they have changes - and therefore, you cannot store it (see grain example)

The reason that your letters are not valuable is because value is not based on what you think, but what most people think.

Most people throughout human history have valued gold and silver, this is not (as far as I am aware) disputed by you.

Few people would value your letters.

Also, gold and silver have the unique properties of remaining unchanged over timescales of thousands of years, unlike grain, so while the absolute quantity of their value (amount of some other physical object per physical piece of gold/silver) may change, the fact that they have intrinsic value over time does not.

Again, they are not valuable outside of humans, and I can imagine scenarios where they would have no or limited value, but based on human economic history they are pretty much the definition of wealth and will likely continue to be in the future.

Why this is in dispute is unclear to me.

Black Flag
03-05-2012, 03:22 PM
They aren't the only stores of value, just the most enduring.

But they aren't.

You want to hold up 10,000 years of records - but throughout that record gold has gone from nothing to something to maybe something or nothing to nothing to something...over and over again.

You do not live for 10,000 years.

The thing you need to consider is that gold is valuless until you trade it – you can’t eat it for food nor burn it for heat nor wear it to protect yourself from the elements.

So, to obtain value from it, you will at some point in time have to trade it.

So pontifizing that it has some historical relevance is totally meaningless and irrelevant – its relevance only happens the day you sell.

There there will be a difference between the day you bought and the day you sell.

And if you bought in 1980 and sold in 1999, it was negative.
Therefore, there was no store of value.

WilliamC
03-05-2012, 03:28 PM
But they aren't.

So the gold and silver mined thousands of years ago is no longer valuable?

That's news to me.



You want to hold up 10,000 of records - but throughout that record gold has gone from nothing to something to maybe something or nothing to nothing to something...over and over again.

Please show me any recorded historical period during which gold had zero value.


You do not live for 10,000 years.

But gold and silver can be used to pass wealth from generation to generation, unlike any other physical object. So gold and silver mined 10,000 years ago would still have value today, and assuming humans are still extant will still have value 10,000 years into the future.

What else would you suggest would be better to hold onto that long, grain?


The thing you need to consider is that gold is valuless until you trade it – you can’t eat it for food nor burn it for heat nor wear it to protect yourself from the elements.

You must not have read my post above where I defined the value of something as the ability to trade it for other objects. So everything you say from this point onward is based on a flawed premiss.

/snip.

edit: I misspoke above, land is also commonly used to transfer wealth from generation to generation throughout history, but land and control of land is a unique object in the economy in that it is not portable. Other wealth, including gold and silver, you can take with you if you relocate. Land obviously stays where it is.

Steven Douglas
03-05-2012, 07:06 PM
Emphasis mine:


They have been valuable to store - but again, they do not store value.

How can you explain that gold was $35, now $1700, was $850 and $250... while at the same time, claiming it is storing such value?

What does "storing value" mean?

I store my grain in a bin - I expect to have the same grain when I open my bin at a point in the future.
So if I store value - I expect to have the same value at a point in the future.

But value changes all time - every second depending on your personal circumstance.

So how can you possibly say that you are storing value - keeping it the same for the future - when it is never the same in the future?

You have a conceptual contradiction.

No, you have a conceptual misunderstanding yourself - one that happens to be shared by many.

Let's explore that part I put in big bold above, shall we? Especially the question of what, precisely, is being stored for the future, which should never change.

Let's say that you do store your grain in a bin. That particular "store of value" is only the intrinsic (NOT MARKET) value of the grain, which is:

TEN SILOS, 10 METRIC TONS EACH, HARD RED WINTER WHEAT

That is the intrinsic store of value, having nothing to do with demand, desirability, or prices (exchange rate with anything else) it will fetch on the market at any point in time - which are indeed extrinsic and cannot be stored into the wheat.

The only thing that you should expect is that the same amount of grain will be in each silo each time you return to it. That "store of value" (Wheat x 100 Tons) is FIXED, and easy to verify.

"Well, hey, look at all that wheat!" Joe says. Light bulb.

Joe buys your 100 tons of wheat, and your 10 silos. He has a novel idea, and wants to build a company around that wheat. So Joe incorporates and issues 10,000 shares, which represents 100% of Red Wheat, Inc., with the silos and wheat as assets. I and three others buy 2,000 shares each, or 20% each of Joe's company, while Joe retains 20% for himself. Five parties total, each 20% owners.

What can we all now expect?

We can expect that our shares will represent 20% ownership in that company at all times. Nothing anyone does, inside or outside of the company, can change that percentage of ownership, which is FIXED -- allocated to each of us. With one exception, as stated further below.*

Strictly speaking, our company shares represent ownership of TWO SILOS, 20 METRIC TONS OF WHEAT to each major shareholder. In fact, it is even written in the corporate bylaws that if the board of director decides to dissolve the company before the wheat is touched, and assuming that all other debts are paid, each shareholder will have the option of taking possession of a proportional amount of silos and wheat, or TWO silos and 20 tons of wheat total for each major shareholder, rather than liquidate that part of the company.

*If anyone shows up with a identical silos full of wheat of their own, they can be admitted into the company, and issued shares of their own. That will dilute our shares, of course, but not the quantity of assets each shareholder has a claim on. That remains constant.


Well, as misfortune has it, while diddling the mistress nobody knew about, Joe has a heart attack and dies.

A meeting of the board of directors is called, and all share holders convene to decide on what to do next. Well, surprise, surprise, because TEN 20% shareholders show up to the meeting - each in possession of 2,000 shares! Joe indeed kept 20% for himself, but he sold 20% to TEN separate parties, or 200% of the company, not including his shares, which are still in his desk. 10,000 shares declared, 22,000 issued, 20,000 of which were sold at the same time to investors who did no wrong, but bought them in good faith.

The wheat was not stolen, nor is it gone. It's still there in the silos. We can all see it, measure it, count and verify that the "store of wheat" (the very meaning of "store of value") is there. But it was sold more than once, and Joe's mistress has long since spent that money and disappeared with it to South America.

Strictly speaking, I have a claim on two silos, each containing 10 metric tons of wheat. But nine others have the same claim. Ten parties have a claim on twenty silos full of wheat, but there are only ten silos total. Joe's estate has nothing besides shares in his desk - which are naturally invalid, and forfeited. Issuing 200% of the shares in the company was no different than going into my silo and removing 50% of the STORE OF WHEAT.

The only solution at this point, of course, is for everyone to recognize that we all took it up the ass. We must acknowledge one another as fellow victims with equal claims, and take our 50% haircut like men. So big deal, where I thought I owned 2 silos at 20 metric tons of wheat, I now own 1 silo and 10 metric tons of wheat.

Not so fast. Screw that, say some. They want full value for their claim, will not recognize anyone else as a victim, and especially not themselves. For all they know the others could have been in on the scam. So we go to the courts to get this nonsense adjudicated properly. The judge will see it all clearly, and in the absence of proof of wrong-doing on any investor's part, the haircut will just move forward.

Well, surprise surprise again, because all of the victims are about to get yet another reaming, this time by the court.

The judge's solution: Lock up all the wheat -thus CONFISCATING even the remaining valid 50% claims each had - because the source of the problem, in the judge's mind, was that there was not enough wheat to go around, but plenty of shares. So he places all that wheat into a public trust, so that nobody can touch it or fight over it. Henceforth, nobody is permitted to liquidate or take ownership of what was their rightful proportional store of wheat, even after the crime was uncovered.

The judge decides that all shares must be equally valid. He got that part right, but somehow the only way to accomplish this, in the judges oatmeal and manure mind, is by declaring that what was once shares in a fixed store of wheat now represents not a STORE OF WHEAT, but rather a store of collective belief in the value of the shares. After all, nobody was using the wheat anyway. The vast majority were content to trade only shares amongst one another before, so why should that not continue?

Furthermore, the TEN OTHER INVESTORS who had contracted with Joe to buy an additional 20% (which would have meant 400% of the company) -- well, they gave Joe money, but hadn't received their shares yet. But they have notarized receipts, which are as good as shares. Can't expect them to do without. Their claims need to be considered as well. So the judge appoints a trustee, who is in charge of issuing additional shares. Oh, and Joe's widow - her shares are as valid as anyone else's now, and need to be honored as well. Pull those out of Joe's desk and put a court seal of approval on them.

None of this is a problem, now that the pesky STORE OF WHEAT is out of the way. There wasn't enough to go around anyway, but obviously there was demand for the shares. The wheat was just a fiction anyway. The shares are the key - the reality. Obviously, people valued shares, not wheat. And they don't fight over shares. They only fight over wheat. So remove the wheat, and all is well!

MooCowzRock
03-05-2012, 08:22 PM
Sir, your graph shows only that its price in reference to the US$ changes regularly.

This has NOTHING to do with value.

Hmm... which actually was a consequence of Nixon closing the gold window in 1971.
Your graph does not go back to when gold was $35/oz....I didn't post the graph to prove value, I posted the graph to prove that YOUR claim that because its price in dollars has changed up and down means it doesn't have value is BOGUS.

If you measure Gold's value compared to almost anything else on average, has maintained its value. It has been one of the only things in history to maintain its value. Gold has maintained its value with oil, with food prices, etc. That is the point.

Black Flag
03-05-2012, 09:02 PM
I didn't post the graph to prove value, I posted the graph to prove that YOUR claim that because its price in dollars has changed up and down means it doesn't have value is BOGUS.

Comprehension and reading skills are short on this topic....

I did not say it did not have value.

I said it is not a store of value.

You showed that example perfectly.

It has been one of the only things in history to maintain its value.

That is absolutely not true - based on your own facts.

The inflation rate went up - which means prices went up - and gold price was flat.

That means the value of gold went down since it took more gold to trade for other goods

To claim that it "maintains value" in the face of direct fact to the contrary which you provided yourself is mind numbing.

Black Flag
03-05-2012, 09:03 PM
PS:

As a short survey, who here is an "Austrian" or "Chicago" or "Keynesian"?

enoch150
03-06-2012, 03:58 AM
Grain has intrinsic properties that make it valuable to people (it's edible and tastes good).

Gold has intrinsic properties that make it valuable to people (it's scarce, divisible, visibly attractive, doesn't oxidize, conducts electricity, etc.)

Gold and grain are valued by people for their intrinsic properties. They do not have intrinsic value to themselves. How much people value those properties, relative to the intrinsic properties of other items, may change over time, depending on people's needs and wants.

Yes, gold has always been valued by people. But people determine the value based on their desire for its properties, the value is not intrinsic to gold. For example, let's say today you could trade 1 ounce of gold for either 10 barrels of oil or 20 bushels of grain. A year from now there is a massive famine. A year from now you could still trade 1 ounce of gold for 10 barrels of oil, but 1 ounce of gold only can purchase 1/2 of a bushel of grain. It's the intrinsic properties that people desire, in this case, something edible, which give things value.

enoch150
03-06-2012, 04:11 AM
PS:

As a short survey, who here is an "Austrian" or "Chicago" or "Keynesian"?

You aren't going to find anyone to admit to being a Keynesian on this forum. And since I think almost everyone on the forum sees the major difference between Austrian and Chicago as the existence of a central bank inflating the currency, you aren't going to find any anyone willing to claim that label, either.

That being said, there are some people here who do want state intervention in the economy. A few people want the government to inflate the currency, rather than a bank (don't ask why they think that will make a difference), and a few more want things like high import tariffs. Both positions are a minority view.

enoch150
03-06-2012, 04:43 AM
I would say the greatest threat, and the difference between now and other times in human history (up to ~100 years ago) is overpopulation and the fact that humans have essentially run out of places to migrate to.

As wealth increases the and the survival rate of offspring increases, the rate of population growth slows down. This is the US population growth rate, from census to census:

http://i43.tinypic.com/14wtv1t.png

As the wealth of the world increases, you will see the same effect.

dancjm
03-06-2012, 04:59 AM
Government regulations are written for big business. Banking regulations help the banks, medical programs help the insurance and big pharma companies, media regulations are written by the communications industry etc. Lobbyists and corporations literally write the regulations today.

The market is a stronger regulator than the government.

Cutlerzzz
03-06-2012, 05:49 AM
You aren't going to find anyone to admit to being a Keynesian on this forum. And since I think almost everyone on the forum sees the major difference between Austrian and Chicago as the existence of a central bank inflating the currency, you aren't going to find any anyone willing to claim that label, either.

There are actually a few Voluntarist Chicago School Economists.

WilliamC
03-06-2012, 10:24 AM
As wealth increases the and the survival rate of offspring increases, the rate of population growth slows down. This is the US population growth rate, from census to census:

http://i43.tinypic.com/14wtv1t.png

As the wealth of the world increases, you will see the same effect.

To an extent I agree with you but just because there is a correlation between wealth and decreased childbirth in some populations does not mean that this will be true for all populations.

I would like to hope that there is a way that individuals can be given enough resources and freedom to rationally decide to limit their fecundity for the good of the entire species, but that sort of ethical thinking is many levels removed from the mentality of most people on Earth today who are worried about having enough to eat or clean water or the ability to survive whatever war or disease is currently killing off their neighbors.

More likely is that governments will do what they always do and kill large numbers of their own citizens. After all, it's what has worked in the past :(

WilliamC
03-06-2012, 10:38 AM
Grain has intrinsic properties that make it valuable to people (it's edible and tastes good).

Gold has intrinsic properties that make it valuable to people (it's scarce, divisible, visibly attractive, doesn't oxidize, conducts electricity, etc.)

Gold and grain are valued by people for their intrinsic properties. They do not have intrinsic value to themselves. How much people value those properties, relative to the intrinsic properties of other items, may change over time, depending on people's needs and wants.

Yes, gold has always been valued by people. But people determine the value based on their desire for its properties, the value is not intrinsic to gold. For example, let's say today you could trade 1 ounce of gold for either 10 barrels of oil or 20 bushels of grain. A year from now there is a massive famine. A year from now you could still trade 1 ounce of gold for 10 barrels of oil, but 1 ounce of gold only can purchase 1/2 of a bushel of grain. It's the intrinsic properties that people desire, in this case, something edible, which give things value.

I simply say that the intrinsic value are simply those intrinsic properties which people assign a value to. What makes gold unique is that while the trade value of gold, measured against other objects, changes through time, gold always has a non-zero intrinsic value over any arbitrary length of time, unlike most any other economic commodity. I am not aware of a culture or society in human history during which possession of gold was not equated with possession of value or wealth, but I don't know everything.

Steven Douglas
03-06-2012, 10:50 AM
As wealth increases the and the survival rate of offspring increases, the rate of population growth slows down. This is the US population growth rate, from census to census:

http://i43.tinypic.com/14wtv1t.png

As the wealth of the world increases, you will see the same effect.

This is an interesting chart, because each plot point is based on a percent of change relative to the previous total, rather than just raw number increases. The population is actually increasing - just not exponentially, as many truly moronic fear-mongering academics like to project - which enables these idiots to project and predict that "at the current rate of growth" (by percent of previous totals, as if that was possible) we should all be standing shoulder to shoulder, covering the entire earth in a ridiculously short period of time. I don't have the chart now, I'll look for it later, but if you just look at raw numbers, you see a relatively linear, not exponential, increase in the population. That's what you're really looking at with a chart like this reads in a way that implies a reverse of exponential growth, or a decline in the population, when it's really just a linear increase, and not very dramatic at all.

Black Flag
03-06-2012, 11:07 AM
Austrian and Chicago.

Not claim "Chicago" I assume - meaning most would align with the Austrian arguments?

So I'd be wondering about those who claim to follow Austrian theory while at the same time hold non-Austrian definition of money and value.... since it is these very definitions that are the fundamental root of all Austrian theory.

Travlyr
03-06-2012, 11:14 AM
I'm a sound money guy. Liberty, Peace, and Prosperity.

Bankers have no business running governments.

enoch150
03-06-2012, 10:42 PM
The population is actually increasing - just not exponentially, as many truly moronic fear-mongering academics like to project - which enables these idiots to project and predict that "at the current rate of growth" (by percent of previous totals, as if that was possible) we should all be standing shoulder to shoulder, covering the entire earth in a ridiculously short period of time.

A math problem I had in school a long time ago:

There are 5,280 feet in a mile
There are 27,878,400 square feet in a square mile

Alaska has 586,412 square miles
Alaska has 16,348,228,300,800 square feet

There are 6,998,683,681 people in the world.

Dividing...

If every person in the world lived in Alaska they would have 2,336 square feet each. And the rest of the world would be empty.

Overpopulated, indeed.

Black Flag
03-06-2012, 11:14 PM
I'm a sound money guy. Liberty, Peace, and Prosperity.

Bankers have no business running governments.

Government has no business running banks or anything else, actually.

Steven Douglas
03-07-2012, 02:07 AM
Government has no business running banks or anything else, actually.

Apologies for calling you Roy, then. That is definitely a thing he would never, ever write.

Paul Or Nothing II
03-07-2012, 04:47 AM
Grain has intrinsic properties that make it valuable to people (it's edible and tastes good).

Gold has intrinsic properties that make it valuable to people (it's scarce, divisible, visibly attractive, doesn't oxidize, conducts electricity, etc.)

Gold and grain are valued by people for their intrinsic properties. They do not have intrinsic value to themselves. How much people value those properties, relative to the intrinsic properties of other items, may change over time, depending on people's needs and wants.

Yes, gold has always been valued by people. But people determine the value based on their desire for its properties, the value is not intrinsic to gold. For example, let's say today you could trade 1 ounce of gold for either 10 barrels of oil or 20 bushels of grain. A year from now there is a massive famine. A year from now you could still trade 1 ounce of gold for 10 barrels of oil, but 1 ounce of gold only can purchase 1/2 of a bushel of grain. It's the intrinsic properties that people desire, in this case, something edible, which give things value.

+1

People take the "intrinsic value" argument completely out of context & conflate "value" & "intrinsic value"
Not everything has "value" because it's a subjective concept while anything that gets it's value out of its properties (as opposed to government decree) has "intrinsic value"


You aren't going to find anyone to admit to being a Keynesian on this forum. And since I think almost everyone on the forum sees the major difference between Austrian and Chicago as the existence of a central bank inflating the currency, you aren't going to find any anyone willing to claim that label, either.

That being said, there are some people here who do want state intervention in the economy. A few people want the government to inflate the currency, rather than a bank (don't ask why they think that will make a difference), and a few more want things like high import tariffs. Both positions are a minority view.

So why do they think that that will make a difference? :D Do they think that honest, uncorrupt, angelic politicians & bureaucrats won't abuse the money-issuing power as opposed to evil banksters? :D
This is being peddled by people who are trying to nudge people towards communism/socialism & by giving them a little bit of truth about Fed & the monetary system Centralization of credit in the hands of the State is one of the planks on communist-manifesto :(


Apologies for calling you Roy, then. That is definitely a thing he would never, ever write.

May be not but he's just as self-righteous & thinks that anyone that can't see his "self-evident & objective truth" is either an idiot, evil or has a "crackpot economic theory" :rolleyes::D

Travlyr
03-07-2012, 05:17 AM
Government has no business running banks or anything else, actually.
Governments don't run banks. Governments get their authority from ratified constitutions. That, along with legally ratified amendments, is all the authority they possess.

Quote only the constitution or legally ratified amendments to prove that governments have the authority to own a bank. I have not been able to find where they got their authority.

BTW... I do know that TV, radio, government school teachers, and 99% of the people believe that governments run banks. That is irrelevant to me. What I am asking for is legally documented proof of their authority.

BTW II... it is my opinion that banks run governments illegally. That the bankers took over the United States government in a coup in 1861 starting with paper money and war. (http://moneyfactory.gov/historytimeline.html)

Just because they did it does not mean they had the legal authority to do it. The Khazars (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?330008-Some-History&p=3742107&viewfull=1#post3742107) have taken over governments all over the world for centuries.

What I am asking for is: "Why do you believe that governments run banks?" Just because TV says it? Or is there a basis in fact?

Paul Or Nothing II
03-07-2012, 07:46 AM
I disagree. We need to regulate the banks.

So you think Ron Paul is an idiot & has no clue about economics or governance??? :rolleyes:

And by the way, whom are expecting to "regulate"? Politicians & bureaucrats, right? Yeah, that always works out well you know because it's not like they're self-interested or anything, I mean politicians & bureaucrats are usually so honest, wise & uncorrupt, aren't they? :rolleyes:

If you have a little time then read my post on the first page of this thread, the whole mess was caused by GOVERNMENT & OVER-REGULATION

The black guy @4:00 keeps saying "but but regulation", "but but the derivatives" & Ron shuts him every time by bringing the issue back to government & over-regulation & Fed; he was expecting Paul to say that he'll "regulate" or ban the derivatives but obviously he doesn't understand what caused the problem & where Paul is coming from


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjbR8uFsq98

WilliamC
03-07-2012, 08:28 AM
That was a good interview for Ron Paul, but the interviewers were just bone-headed stupid or deceptively lying greedy cheats.

Ron Paul repeatedly says that "debt must be liquidated", which is to say that lot's and lot's of creditors will lose lot's and lot's of future income (and quite possibly go bankrupt) since the debt they hold is worthless and they refuse to admit it.

The reporters and politicians and wealthy know the problems we are in and Ron Paul's solution pretty well, even if the average voter has little clue about what inflation and fiat currency really does to society. But these and most reporters and the people who pay them know it would cost them their wealth, power, prestige and lifestyle to actually return to a sound money system with the necessary changes in government that must come with this. That's why they are not only opposed to him, but they are so opposed to him that they will go to any lengths, including lies and violence, to keep him from gaining a wider audience.

In how many interviews has the media been willing to lie about Ron Paul's positions, even to his face as reporters often do when they deliberately misinterpret what Ron Paul has just said to them and come back with a falsely premised, baited question. That's why most politicians including Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum would all rather the Republican Party lose in 2012 rather than have Ron Paul win.

And whether or not most of the electorate is simply too ignorant or too stupidly greedy to figure out they are and have been being stolen from for damn near 100 years now is up for question, I tend to think it's ignorance myself 'cause if it's stupidity and greed then America will fall. Soon.

It's either hyperinflation or liquidation, I really don't see any other long-term alternatives. Hyperinflation wipes out the middle class and makes them all poor, liquidation wipes out the entrenched empowered elite and those living off of government handouts but restores a vibrant, economically growing middle class in which motivated and talented individuals can become wealthy, which is the essence of the American Dream.

Travlyr
03-07-2012, 08:37 AM
Well said, WilliamC. We are nearing critical mass. There is no stopping us now. Even if they don't let Ron Paul be president... onward and forward.

Black Flag
03-07-2012, 12:20 PM
Apologies for calling you Roy, then. That is definitely a thing he would never, ever write.

Accepted, especially now I've "met" this Roy ...egads! ;)

Black Flag
03-07-2012, 12:24 PM
Governments don't run banks.

Gads!

OF COURSE THEY DO!

It is the fundamental of every government to hold tight its grip on the heart of the economy. They command control over 1/2 of every transaction - the money - for a reason.




Governments get their authority from ratified constitutions. That, along with legally ratified amendments, is all the authority they possess.
hahahhahahhaha

No, they get it from the point of a gun.



Quote only the constitution or legally ratified amendments to prove that governments have the authority to own a bank. I have not been able to find where they got their authority.

....called a gun.

It is a serious mistake to believe you can control the provider of violence by trying to bury him in paperwork.


"Why do you believe that governments run banks?" Just because TV says it? Or is there a basis in fact?

Fact.

Travlyr
03-07-2012, 12:31 PM
Gads!

OF COURSE THEY DO!

It is the fundamental of every government to hold tight its grip on the heart of the economy. They command control over 1/2 of every transaction - the money - for a reason.


hahahhahahhaha

No, they get it from the point of a gun.



....called a gun.

It is a serious mistake to believe you can control the provider of violence by trying to bury him in paperwork.



Fact.
That's what I thought. Nobody has been able to provide evidence that governments run banks. It is generally accepted, but it is not a fact. It is misguided. The theme is that governments are bad when, in fact, it is not the government that is the source of violence... it is the lack of government.

Travlyr
03-07-2012, 12:33 PM
In other words, when we enforce the rule of law, then the tyrannical police state ends.

Travlyr
03-07-2012, 12:46 PM
Fact.
If it is a fact, then you should be able to supply a legal document stating that fact. That is what I asked for. Until you prove your position, your claim is simply a claim.

My claim is that banks took over our government in a coup in 1861. I provided a link for documentation. The bankers did indeed subvert the constitution to gain control in 1861. (http://moneyfactory.gov/historytimeline.html) They completed their coup in 1913. (http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=3815)

Black Flag
03-07-2012, 01:30 PM
If it is a fact, then you should be able to supply a legal document stating that fact.

The Federal Reserve Act (ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251, enacted December 23, 1913, 12 U.S.C. ch.3) is an Act of Congress that created and set up the Federal Reserve System, the central banking system of the United States of America, and granted it the legal authority to issue Federal Reserve Notes (now commonly known as the U.S. Dollar) and Federal Reserve Bank Notes as legal tender. The Act was signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson.

Black Flag
03-07-2012, 01:34 PM
, it is not the government that is the source of violence... it is the lack of government.

Precisely the opposite.

Law = Violence.

When a law is created, it is an act of or threat of an act of violence to enforce an edict.

The massive amount of law that is created is an enforcement of an edict on non-violent people.

To apply violence on non-violent people increases the violence within society - it does not reduce it.
You do not reduce violence by making more of it.

Government claims the monopoly on creating violence on the non-violent, it is the single greatest source of the increase in violence within society.

One need only to think of "war" as an example - it is bizarre to believe that war is the consequence of a lack of government....

Black Flag
03-07-2012, 01:40 PM
My claim is that banks took over our government

I suppose it is a matter of perspective, however, I'd suggest you take a step back and understand the situation.

The government needed a way to pay for war. It was the government that created the issue, and accepted the solution to their problem

Further, it is the government that can "undo" this as they created it. They won't of course because it is very profitable for government. Banks like the deal because it is profitable for them too.

It is a symbiosis - but I believe it is an err to think it is the bank's fault.

The banker do not have guns.
They buy the guns of the provider of violence.

The providers of violence are hungry and need to buy food.
They sell their services to the highest bidder.

Understanding this is key, I believe.

Travlyr
03-07-2012, 01:51 PM
I do not agree that law equals violence. But just to make sure we are on the same page, I consider the U.S. Constitution a legitimate document which established a republic form of government including the "Bill of Rights" by being ratified. Do you agree?

Violence is a naturally occurring phenomena. Nature is violent. Appropriate laws should be written to provide restitution and justice for violations of natural right of persons. Laws themselves are not violent. Enforcement of the law may be violent but it doesn't have to be.

Travlyr
03-07-2012, 02:14 PM
I suppose it is a matter of perspective, however, I'd suggest you take a step back and understand the situation.

The government needed a way to pay for war. It was the government that created the issue, and accepted the solution to their problem

Further, it is the government that can "undo" this as they created it. They won't of course because it is very profitable for government. Banks like the deal because it is profitable for them too.

It is a symbiosis - but I believe it is an err to think it is the bank's fault.

The banker do not have guns.
They buy the guns of the provider of violence.

The providers of violence are hungry and need to buy food.
They sell their services to the highest bidder.

Understanding this is key, I believe.
The bankers instigated the war by funding the publishing of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and John Brown's terrorist activities. All other countries ended slavery without war. The bankers saw the opportunity to take control of the United States by usurping the constitution, funding a war, and establishing themselves as rulers. Look at the 14th Amendment which was not lawfully ratified.
Article. XIV.

[Proposed 1866; Allegedly ratified 1868. See Fourteenth Amendment Law Library for argument it was not ratified.]
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
See how the bankers did that? Shall not be questioned. And the amendment was never properly ratified. They funded the war with paper and got paid back in gold. It was very clever. Debasement of currency was a capital crime at the time that Jay Cooke and Salmon P. Chase started printing money (http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2011/05/19/jay-cooke-salmon-chase-and-the-booming-civil-war-bond-market/). It was not the Federal government that expanded. It was the bankers who took control of the government because they knew the power of printing money. The bankers committed fraud at the risk of getting beheaded to take control of our republic. They legitimized that control in 1913, but it is still in direct violation of the constitution.

Black Flag
03-07-2012, 02:19 PM
I do not agree that law equals violence.

A law is not a suggestion - it is a demand (edict) backed up by violence.

Disobey a law, and review the consequences...


But just to make sure we are on the same page, I consider the U.S. Constitution a legitimate document which established a republic form of government including the "Bill of Rights" by being ratified. Do you agree?


No, I do not agree.

I do not consider it "legitimate" no more than you signing a contract with someone else, and demand that I abide by that contract.

I did not sign any declaration, constitution, nor any such document that trades my Rights away.

The Constitution is a document that demands people forgo their human rights in trade for an authority to rule over them.

Sorry, it's not for me.




Violence is a naturally occurring phenomena. Nature is violent. Appropriate laws should be written to provide restitution and justice for violations of natural right of persons.


All true, and I completely agree here.

All Natural Law of Man are laws of self-defense:

To prevent, mitigate, repair, provide restitution and dissuade the use and damage of the Initiation of Violence by men.



Laws themselves are not violent. Enforcement of the law may be violent but it doesn't have to be.

It is either the use or the threat of violence. Do not put blinkers up ignoring this.

The only legitimate use of violence by men is to defend one's self from the application of violence.

"True" Law is that - the use of violence to against the initiation of violence.

It is this thing - the repulsion of the initiation of violence - that is the fundamental foundation of civilization.

As such, government is the precise opposite of civilization.

That is, the entity which claims the monopoly on the initiation of violence is at war with those that proclaims the initiation of violence is never legitimate.

Travlyr
03-07-2012, 02:26 PM
A law is not a suggestion - it is a demand (edict) backed up by violence.

Disobey a law, and review the consequences...



No, I do not agree.

I do not consider it "legitimate" no more than you signing a contract with someone else, and demand that I abide by that contract.

I did not sign any declaration, constitution, nor any such document that trades my Rights away.

The Constitution is a document that demands people forgo their human rights in trade for an authority to rule over them.

Sorry, it's not for me.




All true, and I completely agree here.

All Natural Law of Man are laws of self-defense:

To prevent, mitigate, repair, provide restitution and dissuade the use and damage of the Initiation of Violence by men.




It is either the use or the threat of violence. Do not put blinkers up ignoring this.

The only legitimate use of violence by men is to defend one's self from the application of violence.

"True" Law is that - the use of violence to against the initiation of violence.

It is this thing - the repulsion of the initiation of violence - that is the fundamental foundation of civilization.

As such, government is the precise opposite of civilization.

That is, the entity which claims the monopoly on the initiation of violence is at war with those that proclaims the initiation of violence is never legitimate.
There is a law on the books that states that I get my day in court if accused of a crime. That law comes from the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The fact that people can ignore that law is the problem. Since that law can be ignored, then I can be assassinated. Obeying the rule of law is the solution.

Article the sixth [Amendment IV]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article the seventh [Amendment V]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article the eighth [Amendment VI]

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Personally, I prefer a lawful society to a lawless one.

Travlyr
03-07-2012, 02:35 PM
The Federal Reserve Act (ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251, enacted December 23, 1913, 12 U.S.C. ch.3) is an Act of Congress that created and set up the Federal Reserve System, the central banking system of the United States of America, and granted it the legal authority to issue Federal Reserve Notes (now commonly known as the U.S. Dollar) and Federal Reserve Bank Notes as legal tender. The Act was signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson.
Thank you.

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 is null and void of law because it is in direct violation of the supreme law.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
This is one of the leading cases in the history of the U.S. The opinion of the court was “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law; Clearly for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme was illogical; for certainly the supreme law would prevail over any other law, and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis for all laws, and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law. It would bear no power to enforce, it would bear no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as though it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded by a court of law. No courts are bound to uphold it, and no citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a mere nullity or a fiction of law, which means it doesn‟t exist in law.”

Black Flag
03-07-2012, 02:50 PM
The bankers instigated the war

I don't think politicians need much prodding to start a war.

Black Flag
03-07-2012, 02:51 PM
Thank you.

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 is null and void of law because it is in direct violation of the supreme law.

You are more then welcome to test your theory in any court of the US.

I will suggest that you not bother wasting your money trying.

Travlyr
03-07-2012, 03:11 PM
You are more then welcome to test your theory in any court of the US.

I will suggest that you not bother wasting your money trying.
The courts are not legitimate. I understand that. What most people call government is illegitimate because they have exceeded their enumerated powers. The bankers are in charge. Our rulers are a cabal of international elite oligarchs (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?330008-Some-History&p=3742107&viewfull=1#post3742107). They violate the supreme law of the land all the time. Laws do not matter to them. In order to get justice the people have to use common law grand juries (http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/grandjuryrules.htm). The banker's courts are not going to rule against the bankers just like they are not going to let Ron Paul be their president. Again, the rule of law is not the source of violence. Counterfeiting monopolies are the source of violence... they have to be violent to keep their monopoly. They must seek out competition and destroy them. That's the job of FBI, CIA, and the Secret Service.

Black Flag
03-07-2012, 05:14 PM
Again, the rule of law is not the source of violence

But of course it is.

If you make a law prohibiting bubble gum, you need to use violence to enforce it.

Claiming "rule of law" is specious - it really all depends on what law is rule.

The benefit of law is not that it is applied equally to all men -it is that threat that it is applied equally to all men.

If I hate the color white, and make a law that prohibits white, and apply it to all men, including myself .... do you think I see such law as prohibitive or evil on me?

Well, of course not. I'm a happy duck - but you will be disturbed. But what of your compliant - I dismiss it by saying "Everyone is equal under the law!"

Thus, it must be more than merely equality of law - we must create the legitimacy of law's application, that is, it can only be applied against initiations of violence - otherwise, it becomes the single greatest tool at increasing violence.

Travlyr
03-07-2012, 07:36 PM
But of course it is.

If you make a law prohibiting bubble gum, you need to use violence to enforce it.

Claiming "rule of law" is specious - it really all depends on what law is rule.

The benefit of law is not that it is applied equally to all men -it is that threat that it is applied equally to all men.

If I hate the color white, and make a law that prohibits white, and apply it to all men, including myself .... do you think I see such law as prohibitive or evil on me?

Well, of course not. I'm a happy duck - but you will be disturbed. But what of your compliant - I dismiss it by saying "Everyone is equal under the law!"

Thus, it must be more than merely equality of law - we must create the legitimacy of law's application, that is, it can only be applied against initiations of violence - otherwise, it becomes the single greatest tool at increasing violence.
The single greatest tool of violence is aggression. Again, counterfeiters must aggress against competitors in order to stay in business because if everybody was allowed to counterfeit money, then nobody's counterfeit money would be worth anything. Aggression is required.

If I lay claim to a plot of land for me and my family, build a home, raise a garden, and operate a small airplane factory, then as a self-sufficient individual me and my family enjoy the fruits of my labor. Problem is that Roy L does not believe I have that right. That is concerning only because if he stops by to tell me that I don't have the right to own my land, then that will piss me off. I am not harming him in any way, but he has the nerve to come to my house and challenge my right to enjoy the fruits of my labor because he doesn't think I have the right to own my land.

Thing is that me and my land owning neighbors have made a contract. Our contract states that we will respect each other's land boundaries, right to own land, and we further decide to make rules concerning those land rights. One of the rules is no one is allowed to steal from another. Another rule is no hitting or threats against another are allowed which include no slaves. Land laws are drawn and agreed upon.

The laws are designed to enforce respect for property ownership. It is not a perfect world so the laws are not perfect, but they provide a written general understanding for all so that no one gets sucker punched for violating the rights of another.

Laws of the land are not the main source of violence. Good land laws include protection of natural rights listed so that the laws of the land do not intrude on the natural rights of humans. The U.S. Constitution was a good start. Allowing for amendments was quite helpful to keep it as a living document while keeping it difficult to change on a whim.

Your law against bubble gum and your laws against the color white violate my rights as listed in the 4th amendment.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I have no obligation to obey, you have no power to enforce, your law is null and void of law. The only valid laws you can make can not be in conflict with the supreme law of the land.


Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
This is one of the leading cases in the history of the U.S. The opinion of the court was “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law; Clearly for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme was illogical; for certainly the supreme law would prevail over any other law, and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis for all laws, and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law. It would bear no power to enforce, it would bear no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as though it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded by a court of law. No courts are bound to uphold it, and no citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a mere nullity or a fiction of law, which means it doesn‟t exist in law.”

Black Flag
03-07-2012, 07:55 PM
The single greatest tool of violence is aggression.

Agreed - it is the initiaton of violence that creates evil

Any law that initiates violence is equally evil, no matter how universal it is applied.



Problem is that Roy L does not believe I have that right.

Roy L holds an ego-centric world view, and his philosophy can be summed up thus:

"Freedom for me, but not for you"


The U.S. Constitution was a good start.
I vehenmently disagree.

The Declaration of Independence was a good start.

The Constitution is violent force upon the innocent - it demands taxation; it removes your freedoms; it attacks your rights - all under the illusion it is protecting them.

Jefferson said of the Constitution - which he opposed:

"They have their King, but one of their own making"


Your law against bubble gum and your laws against the color white violate my rights as listed in the 4th amendment.

Whose opinion? Not mine, and by your vote, I have the guns to prove it.....


you have no power to enforce
You didn't notice the men in blue with badges and a fancy hat? ... oh, and guns.

Travlyr
03-07-2012, 08:02 PM
Agreed - it is the initiaton of violence that creates evil

Any law that initiates violence is equally evil, no matter how universal it is applied.



Roy L holds an ego-centric world view, and his philosophy can be summed up thus:

"Freedom for me, but not for you"


I vehenmently disagree.

The Declaration of Independence was a good start.

The Constitution is violent force upon the innocent - it demands taxation; it removes your freedoms; it attacks your rights - all under the illusion it is protecting them.

Jefferson said of the Constitution - which he opposed:

"They have their King, but one of their own making"



Whose opinion? Not mine, and by your vote, I have the guns to prove it.....


You didn't notice the men in blue with badges and a fancy hat? ... oh, and guns.
You go right back to the power of the weapon rather than rule by law. That is the problem... not the solution. Today we are ruled by weapons. It is chaotic. Police are not authorized in the supreme law of the land. Elected sheriffs are.

War is Peace, Slavery is Freedom, Ignorance is Strength, Indoctrination is Education, Fake is Real.

Black Flag
03-07-2012, 08:07 PM
You go right back to the power of the weapon rather than rule by law.

All human law is enforced by violence. There are no exceptions.

Travlyr
03-07-2012, 08:12 PM
All human law is enforced by violence. There are no exceptions.
Don't steal.
Don't assault.

If you do, then we will hunt you down.

Don't chew bubble gum. No obligation to obey, no power to enforce... null and void of law.
Same with industrial hemp. We have no obligation to obey, they have no power to enforce. Their law is null and void of law. They have guns on their side ... lawlessness, but not law.

Black Flag
03-07-2012, 08:17 PM
Don't steal.
Don't assault.

If you do, then we will hunt you down.

Don't chew bubble gum. No obligation to obey, no power to enforce... null and void of law.

The same guys that are used to hunt down killers are the same guys who hunt down bubble gum chewers.

You may say to them "You're wrong and null and void" and they will say:

"You have the right to remain silent and we will use everything you say against you..."

Travlyr
03-07-2012, 08:25 PM
The same guys that are used to hunt down killers are the same guys who hunt down bubble gum chewers.

You may say to them "You're wrong and null and void" and they will say:

"You have the right to remain silent and we will use everything you say against you..."
Wrong! They don't give a flying fuck what you think. Your lawless society will shoot first, high five each other, and take a vacation. It sucks and we are living it.

Black Flag
03-07-2012, 08:29 PM
Wrong! They don't give a flying fuck what you think. Your lawless society will shoot first, high five each other, and take a vacation. It sucks and we are living it.

Now your getting it...
...but there is no salvation in a piece of paper, friend.

If the Constitution was worth anything, the US would not have degraded to the degree it has
OR
This is exactly what the Constitution was designed to provide.

So it is either a dead letter or the cause of the stink - either way .....

Travlyr
03-07-2012, 08:39 PM
Now your getting it...
...but there is no salvation in a piece of paper, friend.

If the Constitution was worth anything, the US would not have degraded to the degree it has
OR
This is exactly what the Constitution was designed to provide.

So it is either a dead letter or the cause of the stink - either way .....
Or the Khazars Warriors (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?330008-Some-History&p=3742107&viewfull=1#post3742107) are in charge and you are their slave. Just like the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, and the U.S. Constitution ... the people have had to make their stand against oppressors.

Black Flag
03-07-2012, 09:15 PM
Just like the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, the people have had to make their stand against oppressors.

Up to there, I'd generally agree - but the last one does not fit.

Travlyr
03-07-2012, 09:18 PM
Up to there, I'd generally agree - but the last one does not fit.
Unless you are a land owner.

The Gold Standard
03-07-2012, 09:41 PM
The U.S. Constitution was the greatest national constitution instituted in history, but that doesn't mean it was a great document. Many parts were written too vaguely and have helped along the massive growth of the federal government. There are great parts of it too. It is debatable how effective written constitutions can be anyway. The most important point made in the thread is that the constitution means nothing if the people won't defend it, by any means necessary.

We harp on the Constitution here because it is supposed to be the law, and we are the people trying to defend it. Not because it is some magical document.

Steven Douglas
03-08-2012, 12:56 AM
The U.S. Constitution was the greatest national constitution instituted in history, but that doesn't mean it was a great document. Many parts were written too vaguely and have helped along the massive growth of the federal government.

The most astounding, amazing aspect to me is how the very vaguest parts (Commerce, Necessary and Proper) could expand and be interpreted in such a way as to give power to completely disregard the parts that aren't vague in the slightest (Art. 1, Sections 8 & 10)!

I don't see that as the fault of the Constitution, but rather a string of treasonous criminals who didn't like being constrained by the Constitution, but didn't have the ability to change it legitimately. Hence, the exceptions are always the rule, as the most important rules, especially specific prohibitions, are made to be ignored - treated as if they didn't exist.

Paul Or Nothing II
03-08-2012, 08:17 AM
The U.S. Constitution was the greatest national constitution instituted in history, but that doesn't mean it was a great document. Many parts were written too vaguely and have helped along the massive growth of the federal government. There are great parts of it too. It is debatable how effective written constitutions can be anyway. The most important point made in the thread is that the constitution means nothing if the people won't defend it, by any means necessary.

We harp on the Constitution here because it is supposed to be the law, and we are the people trying to defend it. Not because it is some magical document.

+1

Exactly, it's not about pieces of paper & what's written on it, they don't defend freedom but people who believe in freedom defend it
A lot is said about the "evil banksters" but the fact remains that they've the power because government gave them the power & government gave them the power because they're self-interested people & the voters are not voting them out despite the fact that they're misusing their power

Fed can be ended, liberties can be restored IF people demand it but they're too stupid & ignorant & have too much faith in government & their promises of "free lunch" & too little faith in liberty & that's what it comes down to, not documents or "laws", it's about people & their belief in freedom, if that's not there then little point in blaming just the "evil banksters", people & their short-sightedness & ignorance must be blamed too

And precisely due to this short-sightedness & ignorance of the masses, governments chosen by them should NEVER have the power to rob & violate others' liberties

"To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people is a chimerical idea."
- James Madison

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free ... it expects what never was and never will be
- Thomas Jefferson

Black Flag
03-08-2012, 11:06 AM
I don't see that as the fault of the Constitution

Whereas I do.

Either the Constitution had no real power to constrain the government or it was designed to do exactly what we have.

Either way ....

Black Flag
03-08-2012, 11:07 AM
Paul


There is enormous inertia — a tyranny of the status quo — in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable

But are you ready with new ideas?

Or are they more rehash of old ideas, tried over and over again over the last 10,000 years with pretty much the same result?

Travlyr
03-08-2012, 03:32 PM
Either the Constitution had no real power to constrain the government
True. The US Constitution by itself holds no power. The power of the Constitution comes from the enforcement of its laws. The power comes from the people who enforce Article VI.


Law = Violence.
The Constitution (the supreme law of the land) which had no real power to constrain the government is not violent. Law by itself is not violent. That is what I was getting at yesterday (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?364941-Deregulating-the-banks&p=4259130&viewfull=1#post4259130).



or it was designed to do exactly what we have.
False. Much of what we endure is illegitimate unconstitutional governance in direct conflict with the supreme law of the land which renders it null and void of law.



Either way ....
No. The first statement is true and the second statement is false. Either way suggests it can be both true and false which is not possible.

The Gold Standard
03-08-2012, 03:39 PM
Whereas I do.

Either the Constitution had no real power to constrain the government or it was designed to do exactly what we have.

Either way ....

No constitution has the power to do anything unless the people enforce it.

Black Flag
03-08-2012, 07:17 PM
No constitution has the power to do anything unless the people enforce it.

Ah, you and Travelyr come to the fundamental contradiction of Constitutions.

The Constitution, a document proported to constrain government is governed, articulated into law, and enforced by the entity the Constitution was meant to constrain.

The entity that makes law is also exactly the same one that enforces the law, and do you really believe such an entity will ever enforce a law upon itself that actually constrains itself fundamentally?

Or will it selectively enforce laws that will extend itself beyond any constraint?

Do you expect you can bury evil with paperwork and bind the devil with his own rope?

Steven Douglas
03-09-2012, 06:50 AM
No such thing as an intrinsic value.

Just saw this.

That's because you can't get your mind beyond your decidedly limited definitions of the word value. You insist that "intrinsic value" is a fiction based on some implied reference to value that really is extrinsic (like desirability, market/exchange value, etc.,). Within that narrow but entirely false context, I would agree wholeheartedly: There is no such thing as intrinisc market value, or intrinsic desirability (to a desirable object), or any other such stupidity.

...If'n I was thinking along the lines of such narrow stupidities. Which I am not.



That price will be its market value
Not true.
It will be some PRICE a whole lot higher than HIS value.

Wrong. Market value is determined each and every time a price is paid and a transaction is consummated. A single transaction may not reflect average market value - in the aggregate, but it is very much a part of the whole from which such an average is determined.



(in that particular market, should you pay that price) times its intrinsic value

That apple is priced to whatever the owner wishes it to be and he needs no calculator to figure it out (though he may use a calculator)

You are missing something. Firstly, the seller's price is the ASK. Some will pay it, some won't. If the price is too high, more people will avoid it, shopping elsewhere or making substitutions. The seller has his own curve to deal with in that regard. There are limits to what he can dictate, and buyers in a free market are always free.

Secondly, a calculator by itself will show you a number - NOT what that number represents. If I punch in 1 (QTY) times .79 (PRICE = Ea. or Per lb.). I get $0.79 as a total. However, what the calculator does not say, and what is instead known or implied, is "1 OF WHAT?" "0.79 each OF WHAT"? Well, apples to dollars, naturally.

A calculator doesn't have a description column - the description is known, or implied, just as the UNIT of currency. But modern cash registers do. A Safeway receipt will imply nothing - it will actually itemize - and read 1 Golden Delicious Apple, $.79 per lb. .... $0.79

See? When you think "intrinsic value", just translate in your head, because "quantity times certain physical properties" are described by physical/mathematical "values". Those "values" exist completely independent of ANYTHING market related. If an apple wasn't for sale, or nobody wanted to buy apples, it would not cease to be "One Golden Delicious Apple, weight .3765 lbs." (and other properties which describe its intrinsic value).

No need to dig your heals in and try to force-fit a definition of value that was never intended. You aren't being charged a price for nothing - otherwise, why are you even there? You are being charged for:

(QTY X DESCRIPTION) X PRICE PER QTY = TOTAL PRICE (FOR A GIVEN THING OF A GIVEN QUANTITY)

OR...another way of saying the same thing:

(INTRINSIC VALUE=QTY X DESCRIPTION) X (PRICE PER QTY) = TOTAL

Now, you can dig in your heals, and lock onto a definition of value that doesn't apply and isn't intended. That would be your brain locked in its own cell. It would be like me saying, "I threw the ball 85 MPH", and you come back with, "You can't throw a ball. A ball is a dance!", to which I explain, "That's not the kind of ball I meant", to which you reply, "Like I said, a ball is a dance. You cannot throw it. Period. "

Travlyr
03-09-2012, 07:36 AM
Ah, you and Travlyr come to the fundamental contradiction of Constitutions.

The Constitution, a document proported to constrain government is governed, articulated into law, and enforced by the entity the Constitution was meant to constrain.

The entity that makes law is also exactly the same one that enforces the law, and do you really believe such an entity will ever enforce a law upon itself that actually constrains itself fundamentally?

Or will it selectively enforce laws that will extend itself beyond any constraint?

Do you expect you can bury evil with paperwork and bind the devil with his own rope?
It is not the constitution that is contradictory. The contradiction was in your statement. The people are duty bound to enforce the constitution. The people have ignored their duty to self-govern. That is one lesson that Ron Paul is teaching across this great land. Get involved. If you don't do politics, then politics will do you.
"Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you." - Pericles, 430 B.C.
If, or when, you face a judge in a court of law, your first objective should be to determine if the judge has proper jurisdiction. Ask the judge: "What binds your decision to the U.S. Constiution?"

Article. VI.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Once upon a time everybody that swore the oath to be duty bound to uphold and defend the constitution purchased a penal bond which could taken from them if they disobeyed their oath. They do not purchase the penal bond anymore which makes them personally liable for their actions.

And you know,

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
This is one of the leading cases in the history of the U.S. The opinion of the court was “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law; Clearly for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme was illogical; for certainly the supreme law would prevail over any other law, and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis for all laws, and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law. It would bear no power to enforce, it would bear no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as though it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded by a court of law. No courts are bound to uphold it, and no citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a mere nullity or a fiction of law, which means it doesn‟t exist in law.”

Now that only works in a court of law that respects the law of the land. Current law is run by bankers. That is what we are trying to put an end to. That is what Ron Paul means when he says, "Obey the Constitution." A lot of people reject the Constitution but they shouldn't they should stand up for their rights, enforce the law, and work to make it even better.

The point is that the people who want self-governance must become actively involved in their governance. It is the job of the people to enforce the supreme law of the land.

Black Flag
03-09-2012, 11:38 AM
Within that narrow but entirely false context, I would agree wholeheartedly

We are talking economics.

If you wish to dialogue about this with physicists or chemists, their offices are down the hall.


Market value is determined each and every time a price is paid and a transaction is consummated. A single transaction may not reflect average market value - in the aggregate, but it is very much a part of the whole from which such an average is determined.

Such a value is wholly irrelevant here.

The market works simply "Highest bid wins".

The iPad is coming out at $499. Do you believe the consumer of the first iPads will be paying $499? I know they will not.
The iPad3 was being sold at up to $1500 each for the first few weeks and I expect this will be no different for this product.


Firstly, the seller's price is the ASK. Some will pay it, some won't. If the price is too high, more people will avoid it, shopping elsewhere or making substitutions. The seller has his own curve to deal with in that regard. There are limits to what he can dictate, and buyers in a free market are always free.

Didn't miss a thing.

I never said every transaction is completed.
Transactions that do not complete change nothing.

The buyer still has his money - as he had before the attempt.
The seller still has his goods - as he had before the attempt.


Well, apples to dollars, naturally.
True


When you think "intrinsic value", just translate in your head, because "quantity times certain physical properties" are described by physical/mathematical "values".

Not one bit.

What I see is that someone at Safeway placed a value of X on that item and quantified it in relation to money - it concerns me not one wit how he came to that value - whether using a Ouija board, rolled dice, or used some arcane calculation - but I do know he placed a value of that item a lot LOWER than the value he placed on money.

He imputed HIS value to that item

The buyer placed a value on that item, and again it concerns me not one wit how he came to that value - whether using a Ouija board, rolled dice, or used some arcane calculation - but I know he placed a HIGHER value on that good then the money in his pocket

And the buyer imputed HIS value to that item - and the value so imputed by the buyer and the seller are not the same at all.

There can be no such thing as an intrinsic value if it imputed to that thing, and that the imputing is completely different depending on who does it.

There are about 7 billion different values for that apple - one per person.

Black Flag
03-09-2012, 11:40 AM
It is not the constitution that is contradictory. The contradiction was in your statement. The people are duty bound to enforce the constitution.

Pray tell me how YOU will enforce yourself on the Government.

Travlyr
03-09-2012, 11:54 AM
Pray tell me how YOU will enforce yourself on the Government.

Like this,


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpvEK7iMHdM&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpvEK7iMHdM&feature=related

Paul Or Nothing II
03-09-2012, 12:02 PM
...If'n I was thinking along the lines of such narrow stupidities. Which I am not.


Now, you can dig in your heals, and lock onto a definition of value that doesn't apply and isn't intended. That would be your brain locked in its own cell. It would be like me saying, "I threw the ball 85 MPH", and you come back with, "You can't throw a ball. A ball is a dance!", to which I explain, "That's not the kind of ball I meant", to which you reply, "Like I said, a ball is a dance. You cannot throw it. Period. "

You come up with some epic write-ups :D +1 to that :D

Black Flag
03-09-2012, 01:08 PM
Like this,


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpvEK7iMHdM&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpvEK7iMHdM&feature=related

Indeed, by holding up a piece of paper claiming the government is wrong will most certainly convince these guys to back down and go home.

http://logisticsmonster.com/wp-content/uploads/SeattleRiotPoliceWTO1999.jpg

enoch150
03-09-2012, 03:43 PM
Question: “You’re frequently an advocate for the Constitution. What are your thoughts of the Lysander Spooner statement: “But whether the Constitution really be one thing or another, this much is certain: that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”

Ron Paul: “I’ll tell you what: I don’t criticize Lysander. His point is very well taken, and someday maybe we will mature to that point. His claim was that if he himself didn’t agree to the Constitution, why should somebody in a remote body agree to the Constitution and he be pushed under it? It is a good idea, but under today’s circumstances, I have to work with the best that we have. Because who knows, I might have been an anti-Federalist at the time the Constitution was being written."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhugbnLi4Ps

The Constitution is only valid upon those who signed it. At best you could stretch it to those who voted for it, or those adults who have taken an oath to it. This should not be in dispute. The question among those who believe in freedom is: how do we mature society to the point that it no longer feels the need for government overlords? Or, at least, no longer feels the need to force their form of government upon everyone.

Henry David Thoreau said something along the same lines at the start of Civil Disobedience:


I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, — "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."

Black Flag
03-09-2012, 04:10 PM
The question among those who believe in freedom is: how do we mature society to the point that it no longer feels the need for government overlords? Or, at least, no longer feels the need to force their form of government upon everyone.


Ah, the answer is simple.

We achieved civilization by understanding and upholding this idea:

It is always wrong to do violence on non-violent people.

This one concept sets the foundation of all true, human law and the foundation by which people can live together.

The only, very small step left to do is:

Enforce this upon our institutions to the same degree we enforce it upon ourselves individually.

Steven Douglas
03-10-2012, 01:03 AM
We are talking economics.

If you wish to dialogue about this with physicists or chemists, their offices are down the hall.

That's the funniest part of all, since modern economists attempt to (mis)apply the laws of physics and mathematics to economies (read=HUMAN BEHAVIOR).


Such a value is wholly irrelevant here.

Incorrect. In the absolute. You might personally be operating in a strange, nebulous vacuum where numbers signify nothing but themselves, and only Monopoly money is real, but physical commodities and products, as part and parcel and a major component of entire economies, are driven by physical reality, where physical properties (intrinsic values) very much apply. Without intrinsic values, how do you know what you are paying for?


The market works simply "Highest bid wins".

Oh, is that how the market works? I thought it was a tad more complicated than that. You know, floors and ceilings, yins and yangs, optimal price versus volume, quid pro quos and all that back and forth stuff.


The iPad is coming out at $499. Do you believe the consumer of the first iPads will be paying $499? I know they will not.

The iPad3 was being sold at up to $1500 each for the first few weeks and I expect this will be no different for this product.


See? It is more complicated, isn't it? And interesting that you said that. I have a first gen. iPad, and I will be buying an iPad 3, having passed on 2 -- AFTER all those "highest bidder" leading-edge suckers get flushed out. And that extra money will not have been charged by Apple stores anyway, who won't be changing their prices at all. That price difference is for resale over retail, the profits going to scalping intermediaries who fight to get in line first - but DO pay $499.

After all that short-lived nonsense, the lines will settle down and Apple will still want to sell to me - a holdout who isn't dealing with scalpers, or bidding any higher. And sure enough, with just a TEENSY bit of patience, I won't "outbid" anyone. Making you wrong. I am a consumer of the first iPad, and I will be paying $499 for the next one.

Meanwhile, something you failed to mention: Apple will not be selling to those who thought that even $499 was too high, which affects their overall volume of sales, and Apple, being the clever marketers they are, know this - and have taken this fact, among others into account. Their market wasn't driven solely by the DECIDED MINORITY of highest bidders willing to pay 300% to scalpers.

Think about something. If Apple held out, it could get $3,000 for an iPad3. Just make it a limited edition, and hold firm on the ASK price. It would be stupid for Apple to do this, but some would pay it. And furthermore, when they DID pay it - that would be its market value. Not because of high bidders or high askers, but simply because someone actually paid the price.


What I see is that someone at Safeway placed a value of X on that item and quantified it in relation to money - it concerns me not one wit how he came to that value - whether using a Ouija board, rolled dice, or used some arcane calculation - but I do know he placed a value of that item a lot LOWER than the value he placed on money.

Yep, I knew it. Like a honey badger on an old boot, you're still locked into economic value only - and still in the mindset of thinking that I am claiming anything market or price related to intrinsic value.

So let's approach this another way - one where words do not get in the way. Not apples to dollars, but Apples to Oranges.


You have two bushels of apples from your tree, I have two bushels of oranges from mine. We decide to trade. Which is to say barter. Which is to say that I will "buy" your apples with oranges, and you will simultaneously "buy" my oranges using your apples.

Your money:
QTY: 1 bushel
DESCRIPTION: Red Delicious Apples

My money:
QTY: 1 bushel
DESCRIPTION: Delicious Navel Oranges

See that? Nothing but intrinsic values. A quantity of a specific thing in exchange for a quantity of a specific (but unlike) thing.

Now, we might flip a coin, use a Ouija board, or just employ some hard-ass negotiating skills to change the exchange quantity. But that's irrelevant. The quantity referred to is still in reference to something physical, and therefore an intrinsic value. Not a market value -- because how much to exchange one unlike thing for another is a different matter altogether, and not intrinsic to the fruit.



There can be no such thing as an intrinsic value if it imputed to that thing, and that the imputing is completely different depending on who does it.

There are about 7 billion different values for that apple - one per person.

You just don't get it. You are locked on. Exchange value (anything imputed) is NOT intrinsic. NOR is it what is being referred to by "intrinsic value". Cough up that nasty stupid hairball you keep putting in your mouth, I didn't feed it to you!

The only relevant value that is intrinsic to ONE APPLE in this case is that it is ONE APPLE. That's it. Nothing imputed, no giving a shit about what it might exchange for, or how someone else might look at it. It is what it is, and whatever it is (QTY X DESCRIPTION) is its "intrinsic value". Other "intrinsic values" might get in the way of me selling it. It might be a "sour" apple. A rotten apple. An apple with a wormhole. Those are also physical properties, and therefore INTRINSIC values.

Black Flag
03-10-2012, 01:50 AM
That's the funniest part of all, since modern economists attempt to (mis)apply the laws of physics and mathematics to economies (read=HUMAN BEHAVIOR).

True enough



Incorrect. In the absolute.

No, correct.
In the free market, every time


You might personally be operating in a strange, nebulous vacuum where numbers signify nothing but themselves, and only Monopoly money is real, but physical commodities and products, as part and parcel and a major component of entire economies, are driven by physical reality, where physical properties (intrinsic values) very much apply. Without intrinsic values, how do you know what you are paying for?


Because i desire it now - it has no value until I give.

Something can not be both intrinsic, and need it given the same thing.
It either has it or it doesn't
And it doesn't have it until I give.

There is no such thing as intrinsic value - period.
No matter how much myth you believe otherwise.



you're still locked into economic value only
Yes because we are talking economics, not physics.

Thought you had that clear a moment ago.



See? It is more complicated, isn't it?

In this, it is not.


Nothing but intrinsic values.

No, Nothing has intrinsic value.

Only those that hold economic theories that are not well thought out believe in intrinsic value.

What school do you adhere to, Steve? Most certainly not Austrian.

Steven Douglas
03-10-2012, 02:28 AM
Because i desire it now - it has no value until I give.

No, an apple doesn't need your worthless thoughts of economic exchange value to be an apple. In fact, it doesn't even require the human race to exist be an apple.

I have to go with your flow on this, realizing that you're stuck in your own definition mire, thinking that by me claiming that a thing has intrinsic value, I'm referring to market (READ = EXCHANGE) or some other abstract concept of value - which I am not, but you keep gravitating back to la-la land to assume.


Something can not be both intrinsic, and need it given the same thing.

Grammatically clumsy, but I got your intent (see how nifty that is - I can actually translate and clarify what I think is your intent)

If you had to "give" or "impute" something (mentally) to a thing, it cannot be said to be intrinsic to that thing. See how easy that is? Total agreement. That is not intrinsic value. That does not mean that intrinsic value does not exist - only that what you gave as an example is not it.

QUESTIONER: "Black Flag, what is the intrinsic value of 10 lbs. of Red Delicious Apples?"

BLACK FLAG: "The apples have no value until it is given or imputed. There is no such thing as intrinsic value."

QUESTIONER: "Steven Douglas, same question: What is the intrinsic value of 10 lbs. of apples?"

STEVEN DOUGLAS: "You answered your own question. That's like asking me how much does ten pounds of pure water weigh, and what does it contain?"

But let's say you want more intrinsic values.

A medium red apple averages 154 g., or 0.34 lbs., (INTRINSIC WEIGHT)
They are usually red in color (INTRINSIC COLOR)
Have a core, seeds, stem (INTRINSIC CHARACTERISTICS)

Ten pounds of such apples will contain, on average:
648 Total Carbohydrates
501 grams sugars
147.2 grams dietary fiber
Trace amounts of Vitamin A, Vitamin C, Calcium and Iron.

All these are intrinsic values, none of which were "given" by any human being, let alone required their existence or knowledge to have.

If there is a myth, it's that you are required for a thing to have intrinsic value. Again, cough up the hairball you keep trying to swallow. Market value is not intrinsic value.


What school do you adhere to, Steve? Most certainly not Austrian.

Economics: Austrian
Physics: Mainstream, mostly Newtonian

Knowledge of integrated circuit technology is not required for computer programming, even though computer programming would be meaningless, and would not have been possible, without integrated circuits. Likewise, intrinsic value is not an economic theory, even though it is used and taken for granted every day in economics, and without which the very field of economics would be entirely meaningless.

Jump out of your tree, stand back, and look at the forest. Every physical thing in the universe has intrinsic value(s), without which there would be no existence, let alone universe, let alone Earth, let alone humans, markets, or (much, MUCH later) a study of economics, and creation of economic theories.

Travlyr
03-10-2012, 04:02 AM
The only, very small step left to do is:

Enforce this upon our institutions to the same degree we enforce it upon ourselves individually.
Article VI?

enoch150
03-10-2012, 03:38 PM
Every physical thing in the universe has intrinsic value(s), without which there would be no existence, let alone universe, let alone Earth, let alone humans, markets, or (much, MUCH later) a study of economics, and creation of economic theories.

So you agree with Black Flat that Paul Or Nothing II (and Voltaire, apparently) was wrong when he said


Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value -- zero.

Black Flag just said nothing had intrinsic value, while you think everything has intrinsic value, including paper money. Got it.

It still looks like you're using the word 'value' when 'properties' is what you really mean. These definitions work for me:

Intrinsic: belonging to a thing by its very nature http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intrinsic
Value: relative worth, merit, or importance http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/value

The definition of value requires at least three things: a thing, another thing to be measured against, and a being to determine the relative importance of the items in question. A thing can not have relative worth, by its very nature. It is the characteristics of one thing when compared to another that a person can use to assign value. I'm sure you can see how this is important when talking about something like substitute products.

"Intrinsic value" only makes sense as an idiom.

Black Flag
03-10-2012, 05:48 PM
Article VI?

What enforcement exists in a constitution?

Travlyr
03-10-2012, 06:10 PM
What enforcement exists in a constitution?


Article. VI.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
... shall be bound thereby...

Ever hear of a Penal Bond?

Black Flag
03-10-2012, 06:15 PM
... shall be bound thereby...

Ever hear of a Penal Bond?

So where does it say that the law as applied to a man shall be applied equally upon all the institutions of men?

To me it say some foreign law created by treaty is the supreme law.

And the Constitution does not equate the law that applies to you, Travlyr, applies to any government - foreign or domestic. Indeed, the Constitution specifically claims the government can do things that you by law could never do, such as steal someone's land.

Travlyr
03-10-2012, 06:34 PM
So where does it say that the law as applied to a man shall be applied equally upon all the institutions of men?

To me it say some foreign law created by treaty is the supreme law.

And the Constitution does not equate the law that applies to you, Travlyr, applies to any government - foreign or domestic. Indeed, the Constitution specifically claims the government can do things that you by law could never do, such as steal someone's land.
I am not sure to what you are referring, but there is an amendment process. I am so glad that our ancestors listed our rights in the 'Bill of Rights' because I may have never become aware of my rights otherwise. Certainly, the U.S. Constitution is a flawed document. Yet, it initiated a great experiment in liberty that if we could somehow agree to reinstate the rule of law, then we could again enjoy liberty, peace, and prosperity while making governance even better. We have all the tools and knowledge.

Black Flag
03-10-2012, 06:46 PM
I am not sure to what you are referring, but there is an amendment process.

Pray tell why I would agree to a Constitution that destroys my rights so that I can appeal to this device -by which has defeated the very right I wish to enforce by my agreement to the destruction of my rights - so to reverse the very essence of the very thing I agreed with in the first place.

In other words, why would I agree to something that destroys the thing I want so I can change that something, thus my necessary agreement to it so not destroy the thing I want?

Why not just throw the mess in the trash?


I am so glad that our ancestors listed our rights in the 'Bill of Rights' because I may have never become aware of my rights otherwise.

Read a book - I can suggest dozens of profound thinkers - you don't have to read it in a document that was created to destroy those very rights.




Certainly, the U.S. Constitution is a flawed document. Yet, it initiated a great experiment in liberty that if we could somehow agree to reinstate the rule of law, then we could again enjoy liberty, peace, and prosperity while making governance even better. We have all the tools and knowledge.

Yep, the knowledge that believing you can constrain evil by paperwork is -now proven- fundamentally ridiculous and foolhardy.

Travlyr
03-10-2012, 07:00 PM
Pray tell why I would agree to a Constitution that destroys my rights so that I can appeal to this device -by which has defeated the very right I wish to enforce by my agreement to the destruction of my rights - so to reverse the very essence of the very thing I agreed with in the first place.
Because they will kill you with a drone locked on your cell phone GPS if you refuse to stand up for yourself.



In other words, why would I agree to something that destroys the thing I want so I can change that something, thus my necessary agreement to it so not destroy the thing I want?
Have you read the 'Bill of Rights?' Have you read the Magna Carta?



Why not just throw the mess in the trash?
If you know your rights, then you can enforce your rights. Did you even bother to watch what Carl Miller had to say?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_CAtNqtbic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_CAtNqtbic


Yep, the knowledge that believing you can constrain evil by paperwork is -now proven- fundamentally ridiculous and foolhardy.
Because ignoring the Constitution has worked so well? Explain what the hell you mean by that.

WilliamC
03-10-2012, 07:00 PM
Pray tell why I would agree to a Constitution that destroys my rights so that I can appeal to this device -by which has defeated the very right I wish to enforce by my agreement to the destruction of my rights - so to reverse the very essence of the very thing I agreed with in the first place.

In other words, why would I agree to something that destroys the thing I want so I can change that something, thus my necessary agreement to it so not destroy the thing I want?

Why not just throw the mess in the trash?

Because the last time that was tried resulted in a War Between the States.

I do think that the US Federal Government failing in some manner to that of the former Soviet Union, i.e. a catastrophic economic collapse, is pretty much inevitable, but I'm not desirous of another Civil War, my State fared rather poorly in the last one, and I would rather there be a much more peaceful solution this time around.

Unfortunately I don't know if my rathers have much to do with what will actually happen, but as long as there is a chance I'm willing to work towards it.

As far as I can tell Ron Paul is, if not the last chance, then the last best chance we have of getting ourselves in order as a Nation, we might still be able to "work through this" as he says. I don't know if I agree that it will be too late by 2016, but the longer the United States keeps operating with a bankrupt monetary system the worse the inevitably correction will be for everyone.

Black Flag
03-10-2012, 07:47 PM
Because the last time that was tried resulted in a War Between the States.

Oh, I am not advocating doing such a thing now - because you are correct.

There are too many people who like the way government runs now, so they would fight - and there are a bunch who want to re-establish some parts of the Constitution and they would fight ... though these two are natural enemies, they would work together to fight anyone who dares touch the Constitution.


No one - not even Paul - can restore the American Dream - the best he and those like him might do (on a very outside chance) is to delay this current form from inevitable decay.

But the US will not disappear - it will decentralize.

When Washington's check no longer clear the bank, the politics of Washington will be ignored - and return to its more local and adept roots - your town, city or county.