Why anyone who disagrees with Austrians on anything is a socialist or fascist!

[africknamerican]

What i am thinking is under this system there wouldnt be any rental property market anymore. Or if you taxed only a % of the rental income that would make renting more expensive.
Do you agree with that.


Yeah, there's still be a market for property.  1) Henry George said tax the land at nearly 100%! "Nearly" because you have to leave a nominal price in order for the market to work.  2) The private profit would be taken out of land itself, but people would still make money selling or renting buildings and other improvements. And all those activities, as well as any other business activities, would be totally untaxed. And we geolibertarians want to get rid of any other unnecessary regulations or restrictions as well (from restrictive zoning, to dumb environmental regs, to local liquor license restrictions ...) that get in the way of the free market. But the tax piece is the biggest one.

[africknamerican]

Dammit, hit "send" too soon. I had meant to say more, but I lost it. So I will try to recall.


1) There would still be a market for property. Henry George said tax the land at nearly 100%! "Nearly" because you have to leave a nominal price, like 5 or 10 %, in order for the market to work. With nearly all the land rent being taxed away, the owner would be incentivized to use the land very efficiently in order to profit. This would mean more development. The development (buildings, business activities) would be totally tax-free. 

2) Taxing land won't make rentals higher for tenants -- this is one of those things were land is different from manmade products. Actually, the heavy tax would force a lot of currently unused or underused land onto the market, which would create such competition that landlords would have to compete for tenants for a change!

On balance, heavy tax on land, combined with totally untaxing everything else, is a net gain for probably the vast majority of Americans. It's only a loser for slumlords, speculators who just want to make a buck shuffling land and not doing anything productive with it, and holders of large high-valued lands like the billionaires with their huge estates.

We want to get rid of any other unnecessary regs or restrictions as well (from restrictive zoning, to dumb environmental regs, to local liquor license restrictions ...) that get in the way of the free market. Also, welfare giveaways, corporate or personal. (Won't need any welfare in a Geolibertarian economy!) But the tax piece is the first and biggest piece.

[Freeski]

I hate labels but for the sake of making a point, all good decent Liberals, Commies, Republicans, Austrians, Keynesians, Democrats, Conservatives, Marxists, Lenninists, Trotskyites, Greenies, Socialists and Capitalists, etc., can probably agree that we must end the widespread corruption. We need to gut it and do a start-over.

[MonkeyPuppet]

It's about control, and every single government program, no matter how small or seemingly benign, requires the "authority" to force people to fund it.

Not to derail the thread, but I would think that this problem ^^^ could be nixed in one generation if we'd use the public school fool system for at least one good thing... several years of intense study concerning the U.S. Constitution, historical relevant literature and discussion on the subject, and at least one full year on the study of statutory construction (which would be a first!).

We'd have 1,000's of young people all saying the same thing... "What the f**ck is wrong with you people!?"  I know it sounds like they're saying that now, but the difference is they'd know why they're saying it.  Yeah yeah, saying and fixing/changing are two very different things, but it's a start, damnit!

I find little wrong with the taxing authority bequeathed to Congress in the Constitution.  The problem is the People... on the subject of taxation, they are ignorant to the point of being retarded.  Sure, they complain (and nothing more), but they have no idea what the actual limitations are so they acquiesce like the mindless sheep that they are to every [criminal] misapplication of law tossed at them.

[JT Coyoté]

No shit sherlock.   (with all due respect)  I dont see any austrian thinkers shying away from the fact that liquidation time is here.  

  No need to be snide Geo, your plans are not without huge gaping holes either.

  You propose a fascist system. The govt would print the money and spend it into circulation.  Who would get the money first is the key, haliburton? Come on, we would end up with the same fascist cronyism going on now.  And what happens to any savings you may have when the govt prints a trillion dollars for its next world war to "spend into circulation" with haliburton?

  I know what you're going to say, miraculous election and lobbying reform laws...i just dont buy it.  

   I have said before your proposals would be better than the current system but in the long run I could also see your proposals enabling a great monster much like the current system does.

  The austrian model has its downsides, but the fact that it would greatly inhibit the masters of war in their games with our lives makes it worth considering.  Your proposals would allow the govt to 'expand the economy as necessary' with endless war.  Very dangerous imho.

The way the money would be spent into the economy is nothing like you propose at all... This new system presupposes a free market.  First, the government prints and sets the value based on market analysis... then money is appropriated by the House to pay for the affairs of the federal government... for office supplies, computers, lights, heating fuel, all of the necessities to operate a much streamlined federal government, appropriations approved by the GAO, (Government Accounting office) and sustained by the Treasury. The federal government obtains these necessities from the private sector by bid...

Each state participates in whatever is needed through the senate now that we have repealed the 17th Amendment and the states now have representation again... The treasury however distributes the new money, at a rate to the old fraudulent currency, set by congress to reflect the market now considerably deregulated to allow for the growth of new technology and creative enterprise. debts based on fraudulent paper tied to federal reserve taxes and derivitive swindles will be forgiven and the holders of the fraudulent paper will become much less powerful or paupers based on the level of their fraud...

The new legislature controlled State banks will receive enough money from the Treasury to sustain their state economy at the level it is. This will come without interest from the treasury as per the agreed Constitutional Charter.  then it is distributed to each of the locally owned smaller banks that serves a local need... This money and credit is then distributed by the banks as loans to individuals, businesses etc, at low interest to the borrower collateralize with REAL Assets of course, to secure the loan... This small interest and collateral protection is to cover the operating costs of the banks as the accounting facility for keeping track of the money and credit which must pay for buildings, salaries and other infrastructure to maintain the bank and sustain it's growth as the economy grows... or to maintain a set level as prescribed by local people and local government.

The banks collect all aging bills and coins, which are replaced by the Treasury at a ratio based on local growth or decline so that value is maintained as it is  re-introduced by the bank into the community through normal business. The Bank maintains records of savings and investment values, and thus has a finger on the pulse of the local economy for the state and from the state to Congress in quarterly reports. Congress can then assess the total growth and appropriate, or unappropriate money based upon the known market movement. This information collected by the many banks is the communication of economic health in the market to the Treasury.

The money itself because it is debt free from the beginning since no large private bank is loaning cash and credit to the government, charging interest on the money Congress appropriates into the economy. Thus no national debt...this initial usury and the congressional promise to repay the fed through taxes of the people, is why the national debt is a fraud.

However, in the new system, the new money has no value, and no debt not even the cost of printing, because that cost is compensated for in the appropriations. It's value is then set, by congress based on what it buys in the in the market. The only way it increases in value is as the economy increases as it grows... to maintain the money's stability it's supply is geared directly to the market which sets its volume. Congress cannot arbitrarily expand or contract the supply like the private fed is famous for... therefore, recessions and depressions become a thing of the past. as long as the market remains healthy.

This is the essence of Lincoln's Legal Tender/Greenback, Constitutional money system... this money would not be directly monetized to any one commodity so it's value cannot be  manipulated from the outside by hoarders of gold and silver or whatever... it's value is set by Congress.  For 130 years, $20.67 US dollars bought an ounce of gold, and one dollar bought one ounce of silver...

It wasn't until the crooks took control of our banking that the US Dollar began to loose, and fluctuate is volume and value at the banker's whim. Because the constant borrowing of congress since all money for appropriations under the present system has to be borrowed from the federal reserve, by law. (The Federal Reserve Act) Before it can be spent into the economy, there is interest charged, and an equal amount of debt generated.  Then there is more interest tagged on when the money is released to small banks by the 12 regional branches of the private federal reserve.

To back the Money By Gold and Silver is not the same as monetizing it to these metals... YOU NEVER MONETIZE YOUR MONEY TO ANY COMMODITY... you may back it for security within your market but if most of the gold in the world is owned by the same bastards that run the federal reserve and the world bank, do you want your money to be monetized in gold, eh? Think about it.

You do not monetize your money to gold or silver, or wheat or tobacco or salt or platinum, or any commodity because the market in that commodity may be cornered, bought up by a bunch of crooks and they then own your money... The money should have no value in itself so the market cannot be used by crooks to manipulate it's value. Under the Constitution, the market demonstrates the value and Congress then sets that value...

Up until 1913 the economy grew at average of 10% every year since the day the Constitution was signed and ratified...

This is a very simple explanation, yet I think it gets to the essence of the idea...

JTCoyoté

"The government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency
and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government
and the buying power of consumers... By the adoption of these
principles, [a Constitutional monetary policy]... the taxpayers will
be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be the
master and become the servant of humanity."
~Abraham Lincoln

[worcesteradam]

so the proposal is to
1. Move the dollar bill window out of the FED and into the Treasury.
2. Fix the interest rate at 0% and permanently lock it there.

Now, 3, how is this money issued, (a)Is it given to private banks, (b)is it given to nationalised banks, (c)is the banking system bypassed and its spent into existence on government projects

[africknamerican]

Not to derail the thread, but I would think that this problem ^^^ could be nixed in one generation if we'd use the public school fool system for at least one good thing... several years of intense study concerning the U.S. Constitution, historical relevant literature and discussion on the subject, and at least one full year on the study of statutory construction (which would be a first!).

Well, just as soon as we get control of the NEA, the textbook publishers and the education bureaucracies ....

On the Constitutional taxing authority, I think that just like the monetary provisions, they failed to get it right. The Const. was actually a step backwards from the Articles of Confederation in several ways, and unfortunately it concentrated more power (or set up the means for later generations to grab more power) in Washington. It allowed for the taxation of goods rather than of land, the fairest type of revenue generation and the only one that doesn't inherently gum up the free market system -- but rather, makes it work normally.
 
On money, I would like to have a U.S. Treasury note currency, maybe with provisions for State currencies as well. (A lot of people think the Const. forbids paper money -- nope; it only says the Congress may coin metals, not that it could not issue paper. It does, however, forbid the States from issuing paper money.) Paper money worked well in the colonies when it was given a chance and was truly managed by the representatives of the People. People who advocate only gold and silver forget that even in the bimetallic days, those metals had to be augmented by an awful lot of paper money -- issued by private banks.

[JT Coyoté]

so the proposal is to
1. Move the dollar bill window out of the FED and into the Treasury.
2. Fix the interest rate at 0% and permanently lock it there.

Now, 3, how is this money issued, (a)Is it given to private banks, (b)is it given to nationalised banks, (c)is the banking system bypassed and its spent into existence on government projects

1 and 2 are correct...

You must now remove the idea of fractional reserve completely from your mind, since the new money has value only in exchanges of goods and services in the open market and in bank savings, it can be supplied at full reserve... currency speculation cannot happen with this stuff, because one would be more successful speculating on commodities... I have rewritten the first 4 paragraphs of my last post so they more clearly answer your last question(s).



"This new system presupposes a free market thus several methods of insertion into the economy are available.  The government spending method is the least of these with the direct bank approach being the most used.

First, the government prints and sets the value based on market analysis... then money is appropriated by the House to pay for the affairs of the federal government... for office supplies, computers, lights, heating fuel, all of the necessities to operate a much streamlined federal government.

Streamlined because of the return to the Constitution, Bill of Rights, the three pre-Civil War external Amendments, Lincoln's anti slavery Amendment becoming the new 14th Amendment... along with an additional section amending Lincoln's 14th, put before the states that forbids government borrowing, and another that forbids incorporeal entities such as corporations or foreign corporations from attaining person-hood or lobbying rights directly to the federal government. Also a section reasserting the protected sovereignty of the people through the States, as laid out in the preamble of the Constitution, and as the reason for the federal government's existence in the first place.

...All federal government sustaining appropriations are accounted for by the GAO, (Government Accounting office) approved by the States through the Senate, and finally sustained by the Treasury. The federal government obtains the necessities of operation from the private sector by public bid only with no insider shenanigans allowed... Each state participates in this process through the Senate now that the 17th Amendment, and the rest of the federal monster creating Amendments are repealed. Now, the People and the states have true constitutional representation once again at the federal level...

The Treasury distributes the new money, at a rate set by the market against fixed indicators to replace the old fraudulent currency at their pre-federal reserve rate; set by congress to reflect the market now, considerably deregulated to allow for the growth of new technology, manufacturing, farming, and creative enterprise.

Old debts based on fraudulent paper tied to federal reserve taxes and derivative swindles will be forgiven of the ones swindled.  The holders of the fraudulent paper or demand notes, will take the fall becoming much less powerful... some even paupers based on the level of their involvement in the horrendously lawless, federal reserve ponzie bankers fraud...

The new state legislature controlled State Banks will receive from the Treasury, money enough to sustain their state economies at the present level with currency value adjustment. This will come without interest from the treasury as per the agreed Constitutional Charter.  From the State Bank it is distributed to each of the locally owned smaller banks (they can be private or community run institutions) and serve individual and local needs within the guidelines of the Congressional banking charter agreement... This money and credit is then distributed by the banks to the people at the agreed exchange rate for replacement of FRNs and other federal reserve accounts not attached to the ponzi fraud... The new money and credit will also be distributed as new loans to individuals, businesses etc, at low interest secured by the borrower with collateral REAL Assets of course...

This small interest and collateral protection is to cover the operating costs of the banks as each of these accounting facilities must be able to function autonomously if need be.  This small interest will be offset in the Congressional quarterly growth assessment. Currency will then be created at the Treasury to "balance the ledger" so to speak. It will be compensated to the banks for keeping track of the money and credit is part of the economy to pay for buildings, salaries, and other infrastructure to maintain the bank and sustain it's growth as the economy grows.  

All will be accomplished as prescribed by the people and local government, in keeping with the State and Federal Treasury charter. This balancing must be done often to keep the money itself at zero value thus stopping any speculation on cash and credit, since it merely represents the market as the exchange medium only and not a commodity in itself."

JTCoyoté

"Right after the Civil War there was considerable
talk about reviving Lincoln's brief experiment with
the Constitutional monetary system. Had not the
European money-trust intervened, it would have
no doubt become an established institution."
~W. Cleon Skousen, Historian

[Geolibertarian]

What I find absurd is the Geolibertarian claiming Mises was a rockefeller stooge or at least he implies so in his signature. Where is the extraordinary evidence to back up this extraordinary claim?

You apparently didn’t read my signature very closely, because if you had, you would have seen that it’s a quote of Richard Ebeling, a long-time promoter of the Austrian School:

"For the first years of Mises’s life in the United States...he was almost totally dependent on annual research grants from the Rockefeller Foundation.”

-- Richard M. Ebeling, “The Life and Works of Ludwig von Mises,” The Independent Review, Summer 2008

Those are his words, not mine. So if you find that “absurd,” then whine to him about it.

The role or lack thereof of government in Anarcho-Capitalism is far more ideal then in what I see GL advocating

I consider that a moot point, because thus far I’ve seen no “evidence” that (except for my support of debt-free Greenbacks) you’re even familiar with what I “advocate” in terms of governmental policy.
 

and that does imply a blanket approval of all things austrian-anarcho-capitalist of which I do have some issues with.

If you do have some issues with it, you’ve been curiously reluctant thus far to reveal what they are.

As for myself, I actually agree with anarcho-capitalists on quite a few issues, but this tends to be overshadowed by the fundamental disagreement I have with them on other issues.

Why does he use such hyperbole in a vicious way when talking about them?

I don’t. I merely call attention to the hyperbole they employ when talking about those with whom they disagree.

They’re the ones who are always insisting or implying that anyone who rejects any key aspect of Austrian School dogma is, by definition, a socialist, quasi-socialist, or fascist (thereby proving my point about “left-vs.-right” not being the only “false paradigm”). Then they have the nerve to act shocked and horrified when those they have arrogantly mischaracterized don’t respond with kindness.  

This thread title alone claims all austrians are irrational reactionaries.

No, it merely echoes the implied viewpoint of the Austrian Schooler whose post begins this thread -- the viewpoint that anyone who disagrees with the Austrian School is a socialist or fascist.

Nevertheless, although I don’t regard “all” Austrians as “irrational reactionaries,” I am of the opinion that most of them are.

Why?

Because, in the dozen-plus years I’ve been posting online, whenever someone starts waxing hysterical about how I’m a freedom-hating “socialist” (or something similar) merely for advocating debt-free Greenbacks or for daring to suggest that it’s categorically wrong to allow a mere subset of the population to assert exclusive, unconditional “ownership” of the earth on which all must live yet which none produced, that label-obsessed someone always turns out to be an Austrian Schooler.

So if the people you’re defending are referred to as “reactionaries” (whether by me, Webster Tarpley or others), it’s because they continually act that way. In a sense, they’re the political equivalent of the Christian fundamentalists I’ve seen who, in the same childlike fashion, go around attaching pejorative labels indiscriminately to anyone who commits the blasphemous sin of expressing a viewpoint on religion that conflicts with their own. Do you honestly expect most reasonable people to regard such behavior as non-reactionary? If so, then you may as well expect them to regard slavery as freedom while you’re at it.

[freedom_commonsense]

Heh, over here its Chicago-Schoolers (establishment right) versus Socialists (establishment left). Neither side has anything against the following:

     * occupational licensing barriers;

     * both wage and sales taxes;

     * corporatist trade agreements that, as such, are neither "free" nor "fair";

     * interventionist foreign policies;

     * compulsory schooling;

     * victim disarmament (otherwise known as "gun control"); and

     * governmental assaults on civil liberties.

Which at least Austrian schoolers do complain about (not saying I recommend them or anything).

However, the Chicago and Austrian schoolers are both fond of tearing down the likes of the social safety net, just when it's most needed during this recession. As Geolibertarian already stated, most of the programs that they rail against came about because of the Gilded Age (an era known for corporate excesses against workers, and dreadful conditions overall). A time where government was mostly hands-off in the economy.

I suppose as someone who's lived for some years with the effects of high rents, low wages and diminishing returns from improving skills, it's easier for me to agree with the following:

it’s categorically wrong to allow a mere subset of the population to assert exclusive, unconditional “ownership” of the earth on which all must live yet which none produced

If you do continue to allow that subset to assert unconditional ownership, then we'll continue to see poverty and near-slavery regardless of technological or individual progress.

[Freeski]

However, the Chicago and Austrian schoolers are both fond of tearing down the likes of the social safety net, just when it's most needed during this recession.

This assumption that anyone who disapproves of the social safety net is a) an Austrian, and b) that they all want to snap their fingers and eliminate it over night, is getting annoying. If that's your best argument against non-state-run free market principles then the argument is a dud.

Of course there has to be a transition period.

Ending the state-run safety net is part of the goal, not the implementation plan.

[donnay]

This assumption that anyone who disapproves of the social safety net is a) an Austrian, and b) that they all want to snap their fingers and eliminate it over night, is getting annoying. If that's your best argument against non-state-run free market principles then the argument is a dud.

Of course there has to be a transition period.

Ending the state-run safety net is part of the goal, not the implementation plan.

+1000000000000000000 infinity!

We didn't get to this point overnight and it certainly isn't going to be halted overnight!!  Unfortunately too many people, at this point, are dependent upon the system--some will even fight us to continued to be enslaved to the welfare/warfare state!!

[worcesteradam]

if you ended it there would be riots and a revolution if the rioters were not listened too.

[Geolibertarian]

We didn't get to this point overnight and it certainly isn't going to be halted overnight!!

Of course not. Advocates of austerity fascism are usually smart enough to employ a piecemeal approach to dismantling the social safety net.

Case in point:

-- "The budget [by Senator Rand Paul] provides two years of war funding, at the President’s requested levels."

-- "The food stamp program and the child nutrition program" (cut)

-- "The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program" (eliminate)

-- "Affordable Housing Program" (eliminate)

Source: http://campaignforliberty.com/materials/RandBudget.pdf

Unfortunately too many people, at this point, are dependent upon the system--some will even fight us to continued to be enslaved to the welfare/warfare state!!

It is the height of arrogance to suggest that, if someone merely opposes subjecting the American people to the same IMF-style austerity measures that were used by ruling-class parasites to turn numerous Thid World nations into poverty-stricken hell holes, then he must therefore want himself and others to be "enslaved to the welfare/warfare state."



That I continually have to explain this over and over again proves that the Austrian School propagnda machine has done its job all too well. John D. Rockefeller would be proud.

[donnay]

Of course not. Advocates of austerity fascism are usually smart enough to employ a piecemeal approach to dismantling the social safety net.

Case in point:

-- "The budget [by Senator Rand Paul] provides two years of war funding, at the President’s requested levels."

-- "The food stamp program and the child nutrition program" (cut)

-- "The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program" (eliminate)

-- "Affordable Housing Program" (eliminate)

Source: http://campaignforliberty.com/materials/RandBudget.pdf

It is the height of arrogance to suggest that, if someone merely opposes subjecting the American people to the same IMF-style austerity measures that were used by ruling-class parasites to turn numerous Thid World nations into poverty-stricken hell holes, then he must therefore want himself and others to be "enslaved to the welfare/warfare state."



That I continually have to explain this over and over again proves that the Austrian School propagnda machine has done its job all too well. John D. Rockefeller would be proud.

What you do not seem to get is the fact that, at the barrel of a gun, we are forced to pay for these unconstitutional programs.  It is at the height of arrogance for people to EXPECT all of us to pay for their expenses.  And those people who are forced to pay cannot simply get ahead--how is that fair and how does that allow others to prosper?  Let outreach programs come from the communities and churches--not the government!

Two years of war funding, is a phase-out plan--we have troops over in Iraq and Afghanistan for 8 years now-- 8 years of destruction and occupation!!  But then again, Ron Paul said in the last Presidential debate (2007) when asked if he were president, what he would do about our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq and he said, "We marched right in, we can march right out!"  To me, that is a much better plan!

[Geolibertarian]

What you do not seem to get is the fact that, at the barrel of a gun, we are forced to pay

Are you so determined to wrap the anarcho-capitalist dogma of the Austrian School in the American flag that you're willing to imply (without stating so outright, of course) that the taxation authorized in the Constitution was not meant to be levied (if necessary) "at the barrel of a gun"?

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

-- http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8

And are you unaware of the fact that many of the Founders initially called for a tax on land values?

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

http://savingcommunities.org/foundersplan/whyfounders.html

Why America's Founders Wanted a Property Tax on Land Value, And NOT a Sales Tax!

Why a Land Value Tax?

Land for ordinary citizens

William Penn wanted to keep aristocrats from grabbing up land as they had in Europe. He declared Pennsylvania a "commonwealth" where each landholder would pay a modest rent that "would put an end to taxes, leave not a beggar, and make the greatest bank for national trade." The first tax in Pennsylvania was a land value tax.

Thomas Jefferson also saw that land monopoly made ordinary Europeans poor, while cheap land made Americans rich. He also proposed taxes on real estate to prevent land grabbers from driving land prices up.

Keeping taxing power local

Under the Articles of Confederation, the federal government taxed each state on its land value. Each state would tax each county, and citizens would never have to deal with state or federal tax collectors. Our founders did not trust strong central governments. They believed that people govern their own communities better than powerful states can govern them.

[Continued...]

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

for these unconstitutional programs.

Not only are the terroristic wars of aggression and banker bailouts that taxpayers have been financing at least as "unconstitutional" as the social safety net you're so eager to see dismantled, they are FAR more costly and destructive.

That's why not a single dime should be cut from the safety net as long as any tax money is still being wasted on illegal wars and bailouts. Yet so deeply ingranined is the class bias of austerity-promoting right-wingers that they insist on targeting the social safety net first.

Now that is what I call the...

height of arrogance

And those people who are forced to pay cannot simply get ahead--how is that fair and how does that allow others to prosper?

News flash: it's the trillions being wasted on wars and bailouts that's financially crippling us, not the comparative crumbs being tossed to the poor and disabled!

But it's soooo much more fun and soothing to the ego to blame the the victims of economic terrorism (especially if they were poor to begin with) instead of the terrorists themselves, isn't it?  

       http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=196128.0

Let outreach programs come from the communities and churches--not the government!

Oh, don't worry, the ruling-class policy of austerity fascism will return us to the late 19th century soon enough.

Then Austrian Schoolers can cheer and high-five each other as millions of destitute people either starve to death or become indentured servants in modern-day versions of the Victorian slavehouse "workhouse":

       http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=160459.msg1008934#msg1008934

Two years of war funding, is a phase-out plan--

Oh please, that's what politicians always say: "Two more years of financing these terroristic wars of aggression, then, because we're so principled and devoted to the Constitution, we'll start bringing the troops home where they belong. No, seriously, we really do mean it this time!"  

We can't afford another two months of these ridiculous wars, let alone another two years. The international bankers know this, of course, which is why they're essentially "running out the clock" on us at this point.

Remember when Lindsey Williams said that, according to his high-level contact, "two years" is precisely the amount of time that the ruling elite had concluded it would take to finish making the American people "so poor" that we'd be powerless to resist them? For chrissake, whose side are you austerity-promoting Austrian Schoolers really on?

[donnay]

Are you so determined to wrap the anarcho-capitalist dogma of the Austrian School in the American flag that you're willing to imply (without stating so outright, of course) that the taxation authorized in the Constitution was not meant to be levied (if necessary) "at the barrel of a gun"?

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

-- http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8

And are you unaware of the fact that many of the Founders initially called for a tax on land values?

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

http://savingcommunities.org/foundersplan/whyfounders.html

Why America's Founders Wanted a Property Tax on Land Value, And NOT a Sales Tax!

Why a Land Value Tax?

Land for ordinary citizens

William Penn wanted to keep aristocrats from grabbing up land as they had in Europe. He declared Pennsylvania a "commonwealth" where each landholder would pay a modest rent that "would put an end to taxes, leave not a beggar, and make the greatest bank for national trade." The first tax in Pennsylvania was a land value tax.

Thomas Jefferson also saw that land monopoly made ordinary Europeans poor, while cheap land made Americans rich. He also proposed taxes on real estate to prevent land grabbers from driving land prices up.

Keeping taxing power local

Under the Articles of Confederation, the federal government taxed each state on its land value. Each state would tax each county, and citizens would never have to deal with state or federal tax collectors. Our founders did not trust strong central governments. They believed that people govern their own communities better than powerful states can govern them.

[Continued...]

The Constitution and Property Rights

(...)

* The Founders were worried that Congress might use the tax system to loot property owners in some states for the advantage of other states. Accordingly, they required that direct taxes (mostly importantly property and income taxes) be apportioned among the states (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4). They also required that indirect taxes, such as import duties, be levied uniformly (I-8-1 and I-9-6). They flatly denied Congress power to tax exports (I-9-5).

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/04/04/the-constitution-and-property-rights/

Not only are the terroristic wars of aggression and banker bailouts that taxpayers have been financing at least as "unconstitutional" as the social safety net you're so eager to see dismantled, they are FAR more costly and destructive.

That's why not a single dime should be cut from the safety net as long as any tax money is still being wasted on illegal wars and bailouts. Yet so deeply ingranined is the class bias of austerity-promoting right-wingers that they insist on targeting the social safety net first.

Now that is what I call the...

News flash: it's the trillions being wasted on wars and bailouts that's financially crippling us, not the comparative crumbs being tossed to the poor and disabled!

But it's soooo much more fun and soothing to the ego to blame the the victims of economic terrorism (especially if they were poor to begin with) instead of the terrorists themselves, isn't it? 

       http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=196128.0

Oh, don't worry, the ruling-class policy of austerity fascism will return us to the late 19th century soon enough.

Then Austrian Schoolers can cheer and high-five each other as millions of destitute people either starve to death or become indentured servants in modern-day versions of the Victorian slavehouse "workhouse":

   How absurd!  How is a Free Market anarchist capitalistic system (not crony capitalism like we currently have) one in which people will be slaves to a workhouse?   You would have the freedom to start your own business--with no restrictions or you could work for someone else.  If you do not like the practices of the person you work for, you are free to leave and find another job.  Another plus, no taxes on your income, so you can keep the fruits of your labor to do with as you see fit! 

So who's side are you on? 

[Geolibertarian]

The Constitution and Property Rights

(...)

* The Founders were worried that Congress might use the tax system to loot property owners in some states for the advantage of other states. Accordingly, they required that direct taxes (mostly importantly property and income taxes) be apportioned among the states (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4). They also required that indirect taxes, such as import duties, be levied uniformly (I-8-1 and I-9-6). They flatly denied Congress power to tax exports (I-9-5).

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/04/04/the-constitution-and-property-rights/

Translation: just as overprivileged bankers successfully used their powerful influence to ensure that Congress was given the power to borrow paper money at interest from a private bank instead of the explicit power to issue such money itself at no interest, overprivileged plantation owners successfully used their powerful influence to ensure that the tax burden fell disproportionately on the underprivileged poor. Hence the point I've often made that, good as the Constitution is overall, it's far from perfect.

How absurd!  How is a Free Market anarchist capitalistic system (not crony capitalism like we currently have) one in which people will be slaves to a workhouse?

Through privilege-induced rack-renting:

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

"This imperfect policy of non-intervention, or laissez-faire, led straight to a most hideous and dreadful economic exploitation; starvation wages, slum dwelling, killing hours, pauperism, coffin-ships, child-labour -- nothing like it had ever been seen in modern times....People began to say, perhaps naturally, if this is what State absentation comes to, let us have some State intervention.

"But the State had intervened; that was the whole trouble. The State had established one monopoly, -- the landlord's monopoly of economic rent, -- thereby shutting off great hordes of people from free access to the only source of human subsistence, and driving them into the factories to work for whatever Mr. Gradgrind and Mr. Bottles chose to give them. The land of England, while by no means nearly all actually occupied, was all legally occupied; and this State-created monopoly enabled landlords to satisfy their needs and desires with little exertion or none, but it also removed the land from competition with industry in the labour market, thus creating a huge, constant and exigent labour-surplus." [Emphasis original]

-- Albert Jay Nock, Free Speech and Plain Language, pp. 320-1

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

That's "how."

And before you object that there would be no "State" under an anarcho-capitalist system, I've already explained numerous times in this forum why the State is the inevitable byproduct of the land tenure system that ancaps advocate.

You would have the freedom to start your own business--with no restrictions or you could work for someone else.

Not if you're born landless, you wouldn't, because you'd first have to compete with countless other landless peasants for the opportunity to earn the money needed to pay one of the self-appointed "owners" of the earth for permission to merely exist on "their" planet:

       http://www.progress.org/archive/fold239.htm
       http://www.wealthandwant.com/docs/ajo_slavery.html

But royal libertarians (of which ancaps are a subset) would sooner say 2+2=5 than admit to this.

So who's side are you on?

I'm on the side of all human beings, not just the portion who claim to "own" the earth on which all must live yet which none produced.

Henry George was, too, which is why ruling-class oligarchs went to so much trouble to neutralize the threat that his enormous popularity posed to their privileges (and hence to the unearned fortunes those privileges afforded them), and why they subsequently financed the Austrian School out of obscurity in the U.S.

[donnay]

Translation: just as overprivileged bankers successfully used their powerful influence to ensure that Congress was given the power to borrow paper money at interest from a private bank instead of the explicit power to issue such money itself at no interest, overprivileged plantation owners successfully used their powerful influence to ensure that the tax burden fell disproportionately on the underprivileged poor. Hence the point I've often made that, good as the Constitution is overall, it's far from perfect.

In 1913 Congress abdicated their responsibilities to a private banking cartel.  The constitution is quiet perfect, it is the human beings that aren't.

[worcesteradam]

we need to get those private bankers

give the power to create money to the poor

[Geolibertarian]

In 1913 Congress abdicated their responsibilities to a private banking cartel.

You need to watch The Money Masters again, because Congress had relented to private banking interests numerous times before that:

       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXt1cayx0hs

The constitution is quite perfect,

Even though it was written by the very human beings whom you rightly claim in the very next breath are not perfect?

Talk about trying to have it both ways.

[freedom_commonsense]

I guess you have to be a victim of rack-renting yourself to appreciate how it holds the poor in a thrall of poverty and prevents a competitive, vibrant economy...

Real estate\property owners have continually voted themselves free money over here in the UK, and continue to hold the rest of us hostage by getting special treatment to keep values high (of course this also benefits the banks they borrowed from).

[donnay]

You need to watch The Money Masters again, because Congress had relented to private banking interests numerous times before that:

       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXt1cayx0hs

Even though it was written by the very human beings whom you rightly claim in the very next breath are not perfect?

Talk about trying to have it both ways.

Yes congress did abdicate a lot earlier on indeed.  Most of those rat bastards should have been tried for treason, then!

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."
    ~ Woodrow Wilson



Pardon me, I should have said the concept of the constitution.  The founders were indeed not perfect men, but their ideas were--bullet proof!

[worcesteradam]

I watch the gameshows on TV. I see the great unwashed on there.
They are always asked what they are gonna do with the money if they win, and the top answer is go on a holiday
ive never once heard one of them complain about rack renting

The average person in the west doesnt realise how well off they are. If Property is expensive its because of the demand to live here

[freedom_commonsense]

I watch the gameshows on TV. I see the great unwashed on there.
They are always asked what they are gonna do with the money if they win, and the top answer is go on a holiday
ive never once heard one of them complain about rack renting

Well by definition those with a lot of money can just buy it outright..

The average person in the west doesnt realise how well off they are. If Property is expensive its because of the demand to live here

I see. So you're saying I should go to the cheapest areas, which have worse employment prospects and high crime? Seems I can't win...

In fact a lot of people are indeed trapped in ghetto neighborhoods and going nowhere fast.

Well I suppose emigrating is a valid option...

[Geolibertarian]

I watch the gameshows on TV. I see the great unwashed on there.
They are always asked what they are gonna do with the money if they win, and the top answer is go on a holiday
ive never once heard one of them complain about rack renting

There are lots of things the distraction-obsessed "unwashed" never "complain" about, even though it effects them directly. For instance, I never hear them complain about how private banks parasitically extract countless billions in usurious interest from the economy each year in exchange for the nothing out of which they create the so-called "money" they loan. Does that alone justify concluding that there's nothing seriously wrong with the current debt-based money system?

If not, then neither does it justify concluding that rack-renting isn't a serious problem in urgent need of a real solution.

http://www.nlihc.org/detail/article.cfm?article_id=7864&id=48

[Freeski]

Two key points in this debate IMO:

These austerity measures are merely propaganda schemes and transfers of wealth in an already-rigged game. They win no matter what. You can analyze their bullshit all you want, but you can't equate it with a truly free society. The "Austrian" understands and BELIEVES that we can and should be responsible for ourselves: the complete opposite of today's evil nanny state.



To freedom_commonsense - it's the same in your situation. We already live in an orchestrated society. We're already there. We expect the government to create jobs for us, to build the roads, provide water, pick up garbage, make us wear our seatbelts and pay our taxes on time! I say get the government out of business altogether and let the people figure it out on their own. We can do amazing things.



But who would build the roads?

Roads in a Stateless Society (3 min.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjbyq-0ofNA

Who says we even need roads?

[donnay]

Two key points in this debate IMO:

These austerity measures are merely propaganda schemes and transfers of wealth in an already-rigged game. They win no matter what. You can analyze their bullshit all you want, but you can't equate it with a truly free society. The "Austrian" understands and BELIEVES that we can and should be responsible for ourselves: the complete opposite of today's evil nanny state.



To freedom_commonsense - it's the same in your situation. We already live in an orchestrated society. We're already there. We expect the government to create jobs for us, to build the roads, provide water, pick up garbage, make us wear our seatbelts and pay our taxes on time! I say get the government out of business altogether and let the people figure it out on their own. We can do amazing things.



But who would build the roads?

Roads in a Stateless Society (3 min.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjbyq-0ofNA

Who says we even need roads?

Absolutely!!  "We don't need no stinkin' roads!"  Not to mention, if you are in construction you have job security in America--there isn't a stinkin' road in America that isn't under construction of some sort.  Not to mention, in my state, off duty police officers are paid, to the tune of, $60.00 an hour to sit in their car with their lights on at the beginning and end of construction zones.  If the cops get out of their cars with the neon vest they get an extra $30.00 for hazard pay--I kid you not!  Tell me that isn't a racket right there?

[Geolibertarian]

One of the fatal flaws of anarcho-capitalist dogma is that it assumes that "government" (or, more accurately, "the State") is the sole source of tyranny; that there is therefore no such thing as private tyranny; and that if we simply phase government out of existence altogether, there will magically be equal freedom for all, and hence no enslavement or oppression of any kind.

This, of course, is so ridiculously cartoonish that it insults the intelligence of anyone who's even remotely familiar with world history and who has at least a basic understanding of human nature. But people who are smart enough to know better still insist on drinking the ancap Kool-Aid anyway, presumably because it requires a lot less thought to throw the baby out with the bathwater than it does to exercise discernment as to which governmental policies should be abolished outright (e.g., wars of aggression, Nazi-style police state measures, etc.) and which should be replaced with much better policies (e.g., replacing our debt-based money system with a debt-free money system instead of merely "ending the Fed").

Although left-wing gatekeeper, Noam Chomsky, is wrong on several issues (e.g., 9/11 truth, gun control, etc.), he nevertheless has provided many piercing insights on this subject over the years.

The following two excerpts are an illustration of this, and since they bear directly on the issue being discussed, I thought I'd post them here for everyone to read and consider:

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

“…the Wall Street Journal ran a story headlined ‘What Fidelity Wants It Usually Gets, And It Wants Massachusetts Tax Cut.’ It opened by stating that ‘when Fidelity Investments talks, Massachusetts listens’ -- or else.

“Massachusetts listens, the article explains, because Fidelity is one of the biggest firms in the state and can easily shift operations across the border to Rhode Island. That was exactly what it was threatening to do unless Massachusetts granted it ‘tax relief’ -- a subsidy, in effect, since ‘the people’ pay more taxes to compensate for it. (New York recently had to do the same, when major financial firms threatened to move to New Jersey.) Massachusetts granted Fidelity the ‘relief.’

"A few months earlier, Raytheon had demanded tax and utility rate relief, perhaps to compensate for the fact that its shares had only about tripled in value in the past four years, while dividends per share rose 25% as well. The report on the business pages raised the (rhetorical) question whether Raytheon ‘is asking for tax dollars with one hand while passing money to shareholders with the other.’

"Again, Massachusetts listened to the threat to transfer out of state. Legislators had planned a big tax break for Massachusetts businesses generally, but restricted it to Raytheon and other ‘defense contractors.’

"It’s an old story. Until the late 19th century, corporations were limited to functions explicitly determined by the state charters. That requirement effectively disappeared when New Jersey offered to drop it. Corporations began incorporating in New Jersey instead of New York, thus forcing New York to also drop the requirement and setting off a ‘race to the bottom.’

“The result was a substantial increase in the power of private tyrannies, providing them with new weapons to undermine liberty and human rights, and to administer markets in their own interest. The logical is the same when GM decides to invest in Poland, or when Daimler-Benz transfers production from Germany, where labor is highly paid, to Alabama, where it isn’t.

“By playing Alabama off against another competitor, North Carolina, Daimler-Benz received subsidies, protected markets and risk protection from ‘the people.’ (Smaller corporations can get into the act too, when states are forced to compete to bribe the powerful.)

“Of course, it’s far easier to play this game with states than countries. For Fidelity to move to Rhode Island, and for Raytheon to move to Tennessee, is no major problem -- and Massachusetts knows it. Transferring operations overseas would be rather more difficult.

“’Conservatives’ are surely intelligent enough to understand that shifting decisions to the state level does not transfer power to ‘the people’ but to those powerful enough to ask for subsidies with one hand and pocket them with the other. That’s the ‘profound philosophical principle’ that underlies the efforts of ‘conservatives’ to shift power to the states.

“There are still some defenses at the federal level, which is why it’s been made the enemy (but not, of course, the parts that funnel money to large corporations -- like the Pentagon, whose budget is going up, over the objections of more than 80% of the people).

“According to a poll reported in the Washington Post, an enormous number of people think anything the federal government does is bad -- except for the military, which we need (of course) to counter grave threats to US security. (Even so, people didn’t want the military budget increased, as Clinton, Gingrich and the others proceeded to do.) What could explain this? the Post wondered.

“Could it be the fifty years of intense corporate propaganda, in the media and elsewhere, that have been trying to direct people’s fear, anger and hatred against the government and make private power invisible to them? That isn’t suggested as a reason. It’s just a mystery why people have these strange ideas.

“But there’s no question they have them. When somebody wants to vent his anger at the fact that his life is falling apart, he’s more likely to put a bomb in federal building than in a corporate headquarters.

“There are plenty of things wrong with government, but this propaganda opposes what’s right with it -- namely, that it’s the one defense people have against private tyrannies.”

--Noam Chomsky, The Common Good, pp. 20-22

“The Argentine government is in the grips of a neoliberal frenzy, obeying the orders of international financial institutions like the World Bank and the IMF. (Neoliberalism is basically nothing more than the traditional imperial formula: free markets for you, plenty of protection for me. The rich themselves would never accept these policies, but they’re happy to impose them on the poor.)

“So Argentina is ‘minimizing the state’ -- cutting down public expenditures, the way our government is doing, but much more extremely. Of course, when you minimize the state, you maximize something else -- and it isn’t popular control. What gets maximized is private power, domestic and foreign.

“I met with a very lively anarchist movement in Buenos Aires, and with other anarchist groups as far away as northeast Brazil, where nobody even knew they existed. We had a lot of discussions about these matters. They recognize that they have to try to use the state -- even though they regard it as totally illegitimate.

“The reason is perfectly obvious: When you eliminate the one institutional structure in which people can participate to some extent -- namely the government -- you’re simply handing over power to unaccountable private tyrannies that are much worse. So you have to make use of the state, all the time recognizing that you ultimately want to eliminate it.

“Some of the rural workers in Brazil have an interesting slogan. They say their immediate task is ‘expanding the floor of the cage.’ They understand that they’re trapped inside a cage, but recognize that protecting it when it’s under attack from even worse predators on the outside, and extending the limits of what the cage will allow, are both essential preliminaries to dismantling it. If they attack the cage directly when they’re so vulnerable, they’ll get murdered.

“That’s something anyone ought to be able to understand who can keep two ideas in their head at once, but some people here in the US tend to be so rigid and doctrinaire that they don’t understand the point."

--Noam Chomsky, The Common Good, pp. 84-85

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

[Freeski]

But people who are smart enough to know better still insist on drinking the ancap Kool-Aid anyway, presumably because it requires a lot less thought to throw the baby out with the bathwater than it does to exercise discernment as to which governmental policies should be abolished outright (e.g., wars of aggression, Nazi-style police state measures, etc.) and which should be replaced with much better policies (e.g., replacing our debt-based money system with a debt-free money system instead of merely "ending the Fed").

Brilliant argument, Geo. True libertarians are lazy frauds. Now I understand.

[freedom_commonsense]

<snip>

Where did I say I wanted the government "to create jobs"? It wouldn't need to if we had debt-free currency and a tax system that fell in line with the benefits received (not one that penalises working and rewards speculation).

[Freeski]

Where did I say I wanted the government "to create jobs"? It wouldn't need to if we had debt-free currency and a tax system that fell in line with the benefits received (not one that penalises working and rewards speculation).

Well, you'll have to give me the reference where I apparently said you said that.

But to the topic, I do fully support the notion that the state has no business whatsoever in business, especially "creating jobs".

[freedom_commonsense]

Well, you'll have to give me the reference where I apparently said you said that.

You implied it with a "we", directly after you referenced my username, in post #66.

But to the topic, I do fully support the notion that the state has no business whatsoever in business, especially "creating jobs".

I see. So you would have voted against the Sherman Anti-Trust Act then? Fraud provisions?

[worcesteradam]

could we turn food stamps into the new government money
if we had a presidential television announcement to advertise that food stamps were now accepted as payment of federal taxes, then businesses would start accepting them

[birther truther tenther]

One of the fatal flaws of anarcho-capitalist dogma is that it assumes that "government" (or, more accurately, "the State") is the sole source of tyranny; that there is therefore no such thing as private tyranny; and that if we simply phase government out of existence altogether, there will magically be equal freedom for all, and hence no enslavement or oppression of any kind.

Anarcho-capitalism is the endgame for the global corporatcracy.  Big Business gets to do whatever it feels like while peasants are subjugated to laws, I mean corporate policies.

Lew Rockwell and his buddies have the same worldview as the Bilderbergers of a stateless global corporation ruling over everything.


The funny thing about Austrian Schoolers is that they claim they want to live like the Jetsons.  The joke is, anarcho-capitalism will result in a Flintstones society.

The space shuttle, the internet, nuclear power plants, hydroelectric dams, canals, the interstate highway system, and even the Cumberland Road were all created by state intervention.

What private investment group would risk putting billions of capital (that they don't have) upfront to build a highway, space shuttle, dam or any infrastructure if there is a good chance they won't see the benefits until their grandchildrens' lifetime?  They would be insane.

It would be easier and less risky to just enslave your fellow man to till the fields, and ride on horseback.

The reason why the 20th Century had an exponential increase in technological development was because of state intervention.  The Phoenix, Arizona Metropolitan area wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for state intervention.  Roosevelt Dam was built with Federal money and that irrigated the Salt River Valley.  The Central Arizona Project was a federal project to build a over 300 mile long canal to water most of Phoenix, Tucson, and Pinal County.  Palo Verde Nuclear and the Dams which power Phoenix were built with Federal Monies, and the Highway System was built by federal monies to connect Arizona with the rest of the country.

If Austrian Schoolers were in charge, Arizona would still be a Confederate Territory and the Sierra Club would be happy because it would still be pristine desert, accessible only by dirt roads, because no private investment group wants to put money upfront to pave them.

Absolutely!!  "We don't need no stinkin' roads!"

Apparently you must have missed this part of the United States Constitution...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_road




The Austrian School is a Rockefeller front to pacify the few who are a mere inch off of the Republican-Democrat reservation.  The "free-market" they advocate is incompatible with their gold standard view.  How can you have a gold standard if you are an anarchist.  How can you make gold cost $20 an ounce and have any kind of uniformity or standard weight and measure if there are no laws.  What's an ounce? what's twenty bucks?  The Austrians claim to be Constitutionalists, but how can they be if they promote anarchy which is against the views of the founding founders?

The Austrian School is a bunch of hot air fantasy crap just like the Venus Project.  Their head is in the clouds and not in the real world.

Thank You Geolibertarian for exposing these Anarcho-clowns.  I threw in my two cents, and hopefully it helps out.

[Freeski]

You implied it with a "we", directly after you referenced my username, in post #66.

I see. So you would have voted against the Sherman Anti-Trust Act then? Fraud provisions?

Thanks -- here's the quote:

To freedom_commonsense - it's the same in your situation. We already live in an orchestrated society. We're already there. We expect the government to create jobs for us, to build the roads, provide water, pick up garbage, make us wear our seatbelts and pay our taxes on time! I say get the government out of business altogether and let the people figure it out on their own. We can do amazing things.

To be clear, I'm suggesting that as long as there is state management of the economy, we are at their mercy. If they want increased production in one area, they do so at the expense of some other area of the economy -- they implement favoritism to encourage some and deter others. In a truly free market, consumers are the boss, consumers dictate the price of everything by voting with their wallets -- and the same goes for housing. Jobs are simply the result of consumer demand. It's a beautiful, natural thing, but only if left to the people.

You said:

I see. So you're saying I should go to the cheapest areas, which have worse employment prospects and high crime? Seems I can't win...

I absolutely agree that we can't win under today's fascist economy.

As for anti-trust legislation, I believe the solution for consumer protection is three-fold.

1) a return to free market principles and the natural law of supply and demand (end the fascist controlled economy)
2) an end to state involvement in education (end the brainwashing*)
3) principled political leadership to make this happen (to teach/re-teach about how liberty works)

The result then is an informed, rugged, self-sufficient people who are actually capable of doing their own due diligence, be it on their own or by hiring someone to help them make the right decision.

* Excerpt from a British Columbia Teachers' Federation training manual that I was reading earlier today.

Classroom Management/Environment (page 23)
http://bctf.ca/uploadedfiles/Public/SocialJustice/Issues/LGBTQ/Resources/GenderSpectrum.pdf

At the beginning of the year, share your commitment to creating a safe, bullying-free environment for all students. Show students they can count on you to follow through on your commitment to them.

Address the class in non-gendered ways (i.e. avoid “boys and girls”). For inclusive language ideas, see pg. 26.

Seating arrangements. Seat students in non-gendered ways. Question students who seat themselves with only same-gendered people.

Line ups. Line students up randomly, not by gender.

Groups and teams. Create mixed-gender groups and teams.

Calling on students. Encourage girls to be vocal and active participants in the classroom. Track how often you take comments and answers from boys. Make sure girls get equal airtime.

Display signs, posters, safe space stickers, class books, and library books that depict a range of gender presentations.

--------------
Whether its education, consumer protection or housing, the root of the problem is the same.

[worcesteradam]

The corporations are just subsidiaries of the larger corporation called the state

The East India Company was simply absorbed by the British Government to create the official British Empire.
All these corporations of today will merge into the world corporation, currently the UN/Commonwealth, they cannot exist without its authorisation at present.
Its not money globalists want, its power.

[Geolibertarian]

Brilliant argument, Geo. True libertarians are lazy frauds. Now I understand.

This coming from someone who accuses anyone who doesn't blindly accept each and every aspect of anarcho-capitalism as divine gospel of "not trusting freedom."  

Since you're obviously going to take anything critical I say of that ideology as a personal insult against you, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Geolibertarian]

Thank You Geolibertarian

You're quite welcome. Glad to see you've started posting again.

[Geolibertarian]

The corporations are just subsidiaries of the larger corporation called the state

Corporations are creatures of "the State" (as defined by Albert Jay Nock), yes, but the State itself is a creature of landlordism:

"Land is the basis of an aristocracy, as De Tocqueville, in accord with common view, observes. Other forms of privilege help to create it, but ownership of land is the chief cause. This does not occur where none of the land has a high price and where plenty of good land is to be had for nothing. Only where it is hard to get, where the price of some of it is high, and where its ownership is unequal, does the ownership of land constitute a privilege. For then some, perhaps many, must ask leave of its owners for its use, and must accompany that request with a payment of rent, fixed by competition with others who desire to use it -- a competition that intensifies as population grows. At all times and among all peoples in the world's history, those who have owned the land have been the masters of those who were compelled to use it. We retain in the common term 'landlord' the early meaning of lord of the land. We have forgotten that many of the names of rank in titled aristocracy arose originally from the tenure of land."

-- Henry George Jr., http://www.progress.org/archive/hgjr7a.htm

As I've explained many times before, it's a group of private individuals presuming to "own" all the land that comes first, and the State into which they organize out of common interest that comes second.

As Lysander Spooner put it (boldface emphasis added):

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

http://lysanderspooner.org/node/59

In process of time, the robber, or slaveholding, class -- who had seized all the lands, and held all the means of creating wealth -- began to discover that the easiest mode of managing their slaves, and making them profitable, was not for each slaveholder to hold his specified number of slaves, as he had done before, and as he would hold so many cattle, but to give them so much liberty as would throw upon themselves (the slaves) the responsibility of their own subsistence, and yet compel them to sell their labor to the land-holding class -- their former owners -- for just what the latter might choose to give them.

Of course, these liberated slaves, as some have erroneously called them, having no lands, or other property, and no means of obtaining an independent subsistence, had no alternative -- to save themselves from starvation -- but to sell their labor to the landholders, in exchange only for the coarsest necessaries of life; not always for so much even as that.

These liberated slaves, as they were called, were now scarcely less slaves than they were before. Their means of subsistence were perhaps even more precarious than when each had his own owner, who had an interest to preserve his life. They were liable, at the caprice or interest of the landholders, to be thrown out of home, employment, and the opportunity of even earning a subsistence by their labor. They were, therefore, in large numbers, driven to the necessity of begging, stealing, or starving; and became, of course, dangerous to the property and quiet of their late masters.

The consequence was, that these late owners found it necessary, for their own safety and the safety of their property, to organize themselves more perfectly as a government and make laws for keeping these dangerous people in subjection; that is, laws fixing the prices at which they should be compelled to labor, and also prescribing fearful punishments, even death itself, for such thefts and tresspasses as they were driven to commit, as their only means of saving themselves from starvation.

These laws have continued in force for hundreds, and, in some countries, for thousands of years; and are in force today, in greater or less severity, in nearly all the countries on the globe.

The purpose and effect of these laws have been to maintain, in the hands of the robber, or slave holding class, a monopoly of all lands, and, as far as possible, of all other means of creating wealth; and thus to keep the great body of laborers in such a state of poverty and dependence, as would compel them to sell their labor to their tyrants for the lowest prices at which life could be sustained.

The result of all this is, that the little wealth there is in the world is all in the hands of a few -- that is, in the hands of the law-making, slave-holding class; who are now as much slaveholders in spirit as they ever were, but who accomplish their purposes by means of the laws they make for keeping the laborers in subjection and dependence, instead of each one's owning his individual slaves as so many chattels.

[Continued...]

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

That's the dirty little secret ancaps don't want anyone to know about, because it shows that their entire ideology is based on a contradiction: eliminate the State, but further entrench the very land tenure system the State grew out of in the first place.