05-07-12, 01:05 AM #101
I have a question: Why do you suppose Obama signed the NDAA on New Years Eve? At a time when there was no one around to challenge it? Why Joe? Why was this Act so important that he had to SNEAK it through on New Years Eve?
You don't think there's a PROBLEM with ANY politician sneaking such a bill through on NEW YEARS EVE and you claim you took an oath to uphold the US Constitution?
Anyone with half a brain KNOWS that when a politician sneaks a bill through on New Years Eve, while the Public is trying to enjoy itself - that this is an immoral sneaking underhanded event. I know for a fact if it were that Douche Bush Jr the media'd be all over him. But not Obama. Which is why Obama has so much Banking support. He was a nobody and he's got a lot of rich friends on WallStreet to pay back (see: Corzine).
05-07-12, 01:51 AM #102
The White House issued a statement saying that it would not veto the NDAA in mid-December, well before the festivities began, and just before the House and Senate passed the bill.
So, they told us weeks in advance that they were going to be sneakily allowing it to slip through when nobody was looking. as a sort of reverse psychology so that we wouldn't be looking when they did it. It was even more insidious than you imagine.
I am not sure what you mean by saying that it was done "when there was no one around to challenge it." When was the last time anyone ever challenged any law at the point where the President was signing it? I can't think of a single significant example. I can recall bills being challenged when they were being debated by Congress. I can recall bills be challenged after they became law. I cannot recall much outcry in the in between times. In this case, you had two and a half weeks, to make your case to the President not to sign, and one and a half of those were pre-Christmas. You also had a month prior to the bill's passing Congress to yell at Congress (which the White House did until certain provisions regarding detaining terrorists were softened). It seems to me the passage of this particular bill was very well telegraphed in advance of the actual event. If you read the Washington Post, it seemed like it was in the news every day for a while.
Last edited by Cavalier; 05-07-12 at 01:59 AM.
05-07-12, 01:56 AM #103
RE: Joe Prove a different system would work better.
Lets apply your "prove it" statement to ending Slavery.
The arguments in favor of Slavery were considered then to be (nearly) self-evidently true. One was Whiteman's burden. Without Slavery Africans would burn in Hell and would not be Civil. One was starvation/clothing. Without Slavery society couldn't cloth and feed itself. There were others, but that sums up the prevalent ones.
The counter to these arguments were this: Slavery is immoral.
There was an economic argument as well: Two hundred years in the future one person using satellites that will orbit the planet Earth will control remote massively large sophisticated machines running on dinosaur-juice which will plow 1000s of square miles of fields by remote control ushering in an Age of so much food Slavery will not only NOT be necessarily but Obesity will be an epidemic - society will be so awash in cheap food!
That is true isn't it? BUT, tell me Joe, how many people would believe the TRUTH?
The future would be so different that people can not imagine it. Two hundred years ago >95% of the population was involved in Farming. Thus, the only argument that was required was the moral argument. Slavery is immoral as it involves a violation of private property (the body) and uses force.
Last edited by Michael; 05-07-12 at 02:08 AM.
05-07-12, 02:54 AM #104
I'm expected to eat that shit?
I don't think so. Congress and POTUS fit together like hand in glove. They're all a pack of cheating lying wolves. The Constitution was there to Protect us FROM them not empower them to legally attack us.
Anyway, don't worry. Immorality take awhile to work its way out of the system like any other sickness. Which is why I suggest 120 years. Certainly 120 years ago you'd be hard pressed to find anyone willing to stand up and say Slavery (a 5000 year old institution) was immoral. A little over 200 years ago people stood up and said Aristocracy and Monarchy was immoral - it took 2000 years but it finally happened. Central Banks aren't going to end Civilization. North Koreans are still producing rockets - they just suck. It's not like their Civilization has ended, it's just extremely poor due to their very immoral idea of stealing through the State.
You'll notice how Obama reduced the tax on the top 0.1% ... he'll continue to cut tax as well as services. He has to. Philosophical Realities aside, even the POTUS has to bow to the free-market. Realities catch up one way or another.
As an aside:
Interestingly I hear some economists (still) thinking "We'll be OK, just look at the Japanese they're 200% GDP". I keep saying: We are NOT Japan. Japanese have increased their trade surplus 300% over the last 20 years. It's been a 140 year old economic policy dating way back to well before WWII. Ever since the Meiji restoration the Japanese have worried and worked towards surpassing the West in technological advancements. Take silicon. It's ALL made in Japan. Not the wafers. But the silicon itself. No one else can do it. Not even the Germans. There are tons of highly technical advance materials only the Japanese can do. For now. It'll take Korea and Taiwan one or two decades (if ever) to be able to reach where the Japanese are now. Not the USA. We've been going in the opposite direction. It's been a generation since we've given up.
You know what really backs the USD? The US Military. But, that equation is, as well, going to come to an end. People are around the world literally hate Americans. They hate our culture. They hate our presence. They hate our banks. They hate us.
I'm sure Joe thinks "financial sector" jobs are actually producing something real. They're not. AND the Asians will tire of paying for Americans to eat. That day is probably coming a lot sooner than most Americans realize. People were shocked at how quickly many Roman Providences fell. Literally overnight.
I think of all this as history repeating itself. It's interesting to watch to some degree - academic or otherwise.
05-07-12, 02:57 AM #105
"absolute" owner and free from duties owed to our sovereign) to any property. We hold our property in "fee simple" at most, which makes our interest subject to the rights of taxation, eminent domain and subject to the sovereign's police power.
It seems to me that some people may be unaware of how "property" developed in the west, and that the sovereign has always maintained rights in real and personal property. Because those people were unaware of the reservation of rights, they feel their expectations being violated when the sovereign enforces its rights.
Similarly food tends to be shared, often without regard to one's ability to be productive in the traditional sense. Even shirking (where one has the capacity to be productive, but elects not to) is not universally punished by a restricted access to food or other resources earned by others.
Further, though, the use of force does not necessarily suggest that the taker understands your ownership...all it suggests is that the taker understands your unwillingness to part with the item, which is a very different thing.
For example, let's say you're best man at a wedding and holding the bride's ring. I mug you and take it. The ring is not your property and it is not my property. Given the best man paradigm, I am likely to understand that. I know it is not your property per se, but I use force because I know that you are unlikely to be willing to give it to me...nothing more. Neither your ownership nor my lack of ownership is relevant. You can also imagine a scenario where I feel I am entitled to something you are holding, and I use force because you refuse to hand it over.
Let's say you are best man, and you drop a ring but don't notice it at first. I find it and pick it up, when you see it. You rush over and attempt to explain, and I can plainly see by your tux that you are in fact best man at a wedding. But I am greedy and I tell you that I'll sell you the ring for $500. Not having $500, and you being certain that I am not a nice person, you use force to take the ring back.
Personally, I'd say that use of force probably was morally justified, not because I have possession of "your" property, but because I am engaged in rent-seeking behavior based on your desire to avoid the distress (for yourself and bride and groom) that would ensue from your accident.
The notion that you infusing labor into an item through work, and that making it "yours" was mere speculation by John Locke, unsupported by any historical or sociological evidence of any kind. It certainly was not related to the actual development of the westernized concept of private property in the real world, which developed in Europe from feudal conceptions of property). Real-world, western, property was borne of the use of force. One major reason our property regimes work is because we know that force will be brought to bear on us if we attempt to deny others the property interests the law and society recognizes.
In any event, the research is clear that that was not the way hunter-gatherers regarded property. Your "work" was for the betterment of the group, and decisions about the use of items acquired through that work were decisions made by the group (or by the elders of the group) as a whole. There were socially imposed checks and balances to prevent abuses of that system.
It's simply mistaken to try to imprint modern notions of private property on primitive cultures, because the evidence clearly places them in communal societies.
I do agree that private property is so ingrained in our society that it is hard to imagine anyone living without it, but that belief has to give way to the historical and sociological evidence. Private property is not an objective feature of morality, but a social construction that came to dominate probably about 5,000 (and perhaps 10,000) years ago as people increasingly moved away from hunter-gatherer lifestyles, and saw the amount and number of goods in their lives multiply (and, as a result of expanded trade, the quality of those goods vary more wildly).
Then note, however. that agricultural communities often still had rules allowing the poor to take crops from one's far for their own private consumption, within limits. For example, the Bible says:
Originally Posted by Deuteronomy 23:24-25
Again, the exclusive right to the products of your own labor is clearly not a natural right. It's not one that our ancestors would have recognized as an absolute right, at the very least, but there are also limits on what society can ask of us.
What are those limits though? As noted, the Bible makes it clear that people can enter your land and eat food that has grown as a result of your labor, but also nations do have requirements for involuntary service (i.e. "drafts" or conscription) that are not usually held to be immoral so long as they are for a reasonable length of time (or, in some cases, for a cause that is viewed as vital by the broader public).
While there are limits, those limits are clearly delineated by some notion of a "fair" or "reasonable" distribution of benefits.
Last edited by Cavalier; 05-07-12 at 05:39 AM.
05-07-12, 06:33 AM #106
Interesting post and I'll try and respond soon (I'm about to get busy-er).
Two things that did pop into my mind before I forget:
- I would say that we do need to keep in mind that States are constructs. These lines we draw on a map don't really exist and in an ideal world wouldn't. In the past one didn't need a passport to move from America to France. You simply got on a boat, bought some land there or rented a property, opened a business. Done. You're French.
- a tribe might not have had ownership as we think of ownership (depending on the tribe). I'm not convinced they thought everything was owned by everyone. Maybe, but I find it hard to imagine that was the case in reality. That said, they sure as hell didn't think it was fine for someone to come into the tribe and take an arrow head. IOWs, tribes, being large families, MIGHT have acted like one large family - but if someone outside came along, I'm sure they knew damn well what property rights were!
I did like reading your post. I'll read it again when I have more time.
05-08-12, 08:01 PM #107
I would like to go into the History of property in the West as I do think that it is important. It's also be interesting to see how it is tied to the idea of copyright and patents
Chimps actually do not look at the entire game as 'their' property, but, they do recognize small bits of it as "theirs". They do have a sense of ownership.
I would look up a review but the intro here will do.
Here's a book:
There is a chapter "Is Meat the Hunters' Property" that I started to read... but... AHHHHH I have to get back to work!
Meat-Eating and Human Evolution
So, there are three things to discuss in this subsection.
1. The Evolution of Property/Ownership.
2. The Commons.
3. Property.... Ownership..... what is it?
Last edited by Michael; 05-09-12 at 01:14 AM.
05-08-12, 08:59 PM #108
05-09-12, 01:42 AM #109
I wouldn't End The Fed in a single day. Actually, I wouldn't end it at all. All I would do is legalize currency competition and repeal Income Tax. The markets would end the fed for me. And there we'd be. Better off.
05-09-12, 08:53 AM #110
05-09-12, 07:16 PM #111
Well Joe, if you believe in currency competition - speak with Ron Paul. Or, better yet, vote for him. His book: End the Fed states the case.
Oh, try paying your Income Tax in barter ... haha! That's be interesting. Try paying your Income Tax in "Joe's HomeGrown Currency A1". See how that works for you. Tell them, hey, I've only xeroxed the number I needed to pay you. AND look here, I have some assets to back those blank pieces of paper up. Just come to my Bank and we'll do a trade.
Go for it. You'll feel the Full Weight of the Republic as it's boot presses in on your carotid. Tell them your theory on free barter in the USA.... you know, because we're a "free nation" of people "protected" FROM government under the US Constitution. Yeah, tell them that Joe.....
05-09-12, 07:20 PM #112
As I said: Under a FREE MARKET the Federal Reserve would END itself. Without Income Tax and the Police State enforcing it, USD would come to their own natural conclusion - which is to say, they'd be gone in a few years. See, it's not really a democracy Joe. People actually don't WANT to pay this tax. They do it because they're told to. That's how people are. It's called coercion. In a FREE market people just wouldn't use USD as better more efficient and profitable currencies would come onto the market.
05-09-12, 07:33 PM #113
The fact that the US govenrment wants it's debtors to paythe US Treasury in US dollars does not prevent you from paying your non government bills in the currency or the barter of choice, if you can get the other party to the transaction to accept your alternate currency or barter. Hell you could print your own money. And if you could get people to accept it as payment, assuming no misrepresentation or fraud, there is no law preventing it. But most people want to trade in dollars. And that is not the fault of the Federal Reserve.
05-09-12, 07:37 PM #114
Better more profitable currencies, and what would those be Michael?
05-09-12, 11:08 PM #115
Anyway, gold and silver would be the natural first currency and the US uses tax laws to ensure these currencies are never created outside of the fed which issues coins with fiat values unconnected to their inherent value as a coin. If YOU were to do this you need to say these coins you are minting are 'medallions' and NOT currency. A person just went to prison for issuing silver coins called Liberty Dollars.
Keep in mind only an IDIOT (Ignorance is Stength would think a Liberty Dollar is a real dollar and the numismatic value of the coin is worth more than it's face value!
On March 18, 2011, Von NotHaus was convicted of "making, possessing and selling his own coins", after a jury in Statesville, North Carolina deliberated for less than two hours. The jury found him guilty of one count under 18 U.S.C. § 485 and 18 U.S.C. § 2, one count of violating 18 U.S.C. § 486 and 18 U.S.C. § 2, and one count of conspiracy, under 18 U.S.C. § 371, to violate sections 485 and 486. He faces up to 15 years in jail, a $250,000 fine, and may be forced to give $7 million worth of minted coins and precious metals to the government, weighing 16,000 pounds. Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina, Anne M. Tompkins, described the Liberty Dollar as "a unique form of domestic terrorism" that is trying "to undermine the legitimate currency of this country". The Justice Department press release quotes her as saying: "While these forms of anti-government activities do not involve violence, they are every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country."
According to the Associated Press, "Federal prosecutors successfully argued that von NotHaus was, in fact, trying to pass off the silver coins as U.S. currency. Coming in denominations of 5, 10, 20, and 50, the Liberty Dollars also featured a dollar sign, the word "dollar" and the motto "Trust in God," similar to the "In God We Trust" that appears on U.S. coins".
VonNotHaus's attorney is appealing the decision and the arguments made by the prosecution in the case. Dollar, for example, is a term used by many nations for their currency and has a Czech, not American, origin.
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Notice how the Cattle (who prosecuted this American Citizen - which was so called 'free' to make his own currency, at least according to Joe) did so in under than 2 hours. Two hours. As if they understood the finer points of the human condition, that the body is private property, that labor is an extension of this, that we are free FROM government (or were). This is what the 'American' society has been reduced to. People are sick in their minds. Seriously, we're mentally ill. Like Slave owners from 200 years ago not understand that beating an African is immoral. People no longer understand what is and is not moral. Which is interesting, because we did - 2500 years ago.
Here's an aside!
I wonder if people in Australia know that in the USA, a waitress, who is only paid around $3.25 an hour (or less) must pay TAX on her tips! Yes, that's right. The government even sucks that little extra bit from their god damn tips left on the table! Ha!! If you don't pay in tax, they assume you are guilty (not assume you are innocent and just didn't make any tips) and you get fined ... or worse!
Look, you guys have the system you love to live in - so enjoy it. You should be really happy: You have BIG government growing bigger. BIG military now able to murder Citizens. BIG Banks that are even BIGGER than Too-Big-Too-Fail. LESS Civil Rights (you know, because a 'Terrorist' might do 'something' - like mint a coin! Haaa!). Massive devaluation of our currency leaving retirees eating cat food. Poor Americans getting poorer. Inner cities turning into shitholes that would make Afghanistan look like Paradise. You must love that now, to pay for all the bullshit promised by immoral politicians - that for most families BOTH partners must work. Then they have so send their children (if they can even afford to have one) to be raised by Child Supervision Facilities (some now State run as well!). All while Bankers like Corzine swindling Billions with their bitch Obama or Bush or Mitt or whomever in thier pockets.
You couldn't dream up a better Farm! Moo Moo Mooooo!!! Mooo! That one is minting a coin! Moooo! He's trying to escape!!! .... MOOOOO!!!!
(meanwhile in the small pen on the right: moo moo.... honey, can we write that computer off as a work expense.... moo moo mooy moo.?)
Income Tax is good.
I live in a Democracy.
I try to write things off on my Income Tax
Because I like Income Tax
.... seeing the oxymoron yet?
Morality, Federal Reserve style.
So, don't worry. We live in YOUR ideal system. Fractional Lending. You must LOVE when the government auctions off your children's future labor to the Chinese vie bonds - you know, so they can bail out their buddies on wallstreet through the Fed, who can then buy houses pennies on the dollar. Fund wars around the world. Yup, life is just wonderful. Live it up.
Last edited by Michael; 05-09-12 at 11:26 PM.
05-10-12, 12:35 AM #116
You still have not defined what you mean by big government. According to you your ideal government would take us back to a time where government spending as a percent of GDP was higher than it is today.
05-10-12, 02:40 AM #117
You did read the link about the "Domestic Terrorist" who is guilty of... *gosh* minting silver and gold rounds that are worth about 10 time MORE than their face value? Something we as Citizens had been doing for centuries even before we were Americans. So, a fellow Citizen was sentenced to 15 years in prison for minting his own rounds and it doesn't even cause an eyebrow raise? Yes the Fed counterfeits $7 trillion and you can't gush praise fast enough.
RE: Shrinking government.
I'd suggest about 15% of it's present size would be a good target to aim for. That said, why not trying to get BACK to the size it was under Clinton... that'd be a start (which I stated before). Ideally we'd have as small a government as is possible.
But, don't worry Joe, we're on your Federal Reserve Train to prosperity. Yup, all aboard. Free cat food in the rear.
05-10-12, 03:16 AM #118
05-10-12, 05:33 AM #119
haha... yeah Joe - and YOU accuse others of being deceitful:
The Obama administration says the government will grow to 2.15 million employees this year, topping 2 million for the first time since President Clinton declared that “the era of big government is over” and joined forces with a Republican-led Congress in the 1990s to pare back the federal work force.
Gotta milk a lotta Cattle to keep this BABY fed......
05-10-12, 07:45 AM #120
Two, the data I used was government employment. You are trying to use government spending as a percent of GDP. This gets back to how you define big government. I have asked you for a definition of big government for weeks now, and you have not answered it. So again, how do you define big government Michael? Is is government spending or number of employees or some other metric?
By GeoffP in forum Religion ArchivesLast Post: 10-25-10, 08:45 AMReplies: 43
By 786 in forum PoliticsLast Post: 04-14-10, 08:52 PMReplies: 4
By Captain Kremmen in forum Religion ArchivesLast Post: 02-04-09, 06:42 AMReplies: 19
By lucifers angel in forum Art & CultureLast Post: 09-28-08, 10:06 AMReplies: 1
By kwhilborn in forum Pseudoscience ArchiveLast Post: 05-12-07, 11:49 PMReplies: 0