Webster Tarpley's economic solutions won't work

[Geolibertarian]

I NEVER said no rules. Even Libertarians assign a role for government (tho some think private courts do this better than government), that the role is, to protect contract and private property, and other constitutional rights and natural laws....So, Libertarianism isn't anarchy.

No, but Royal Libertarianism isn't "freedom," either, because, by elevating landed property above labor-created property, it creates just what we had in the mid-19th century -- a "propertied" class, on the one hand, and a slave class, on the other.

As Lysander Spooner once put it (all emphasis original):

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

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...]

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


The key point here is that a group of private individuals presuming to "own" all the land comes first, and the "government" (or, more accurately, the State) into which they organize out of common interest comes second. (Whether they actually call it such is irrelevant). That's the inevitable result of allowing the concept of "private property" to be applied to the Earth on which all must live yet which none produced in the same unlimited, unconditional sense that it's applied to the products of human labor.

[Voskhod3]

e.g. the value of the money in YOUR pocket.

This is the crux of the matter. People are given money to put in their pocket as a "reward" for their labour. Even in a gold based system people don't make their own gold, it is given them in exchange for something else.

It's the people who decide how much money goes in your pocket as a reward that are the problem... 10 for you 90 for me (if you're lucky).

Eventually in your system you will have a group of people who decide what "fair" reward is. They are not usually the nice people. Your system too tends towards corporate monolopy which ends up being government monopoly when the corporations own the governments as they do now.

There is no escaping it in a free-market, someone will win the game.

[planning4acrash]

This is the crux of the matter. People are given money to put in their pocket as a "reward" for their labour. Even in a gold based system people don't make their own gold, it is given them in exchange for something else.

It's the people who decide how much money goes in your pocket as a reward that are the problem... 10 for you 90 for me (if you're lucky).

Eventually in your system you will have a group of people who decide what "fair" reward is. They are not usually the nice people. Your system too tends towards corporate monolopy which ends up being government monopoly when the corporations own the governments as they do now.

There is no escaping it in a free-market, someone will win the game.

In Communism and Fascism, government and oligarchy DECIDE how much you get for what, e.g. they manipulate markets to ensure that rubbish goods do well. Like, biofuels that are shite for the environment and anything else, but government decide that farmers should get lots of money for this.


You only have a group of people making this judgment in centralized systems. In Capitalism, the decision is between the purchaser and the seller. The seller has a choice to sell various things to various people, the buyer chooses to buy various things from various people. The buyer, even if he doesn't like the deal, will purchase, if that purchase is the best value available for them, and, if they consider the good worth more than their money, and vice versa.

Therefore, in Capitalism, even tho a decision is being made, each party has gained via the transaction. This is why the constitution attempts to stop government intervening in contracts, because contracts are what let being interact and benefit from the interaction.

It is rediculous to denounce something because decisions have been made. It is the fact of decisions, that allowed humans to rise above other organisms. To say that you want to re-build capitalism to get rid of decisions, is to show a complete lack of self confidence, and total lack of awareness of your humanity.

What you are infact saying is, that, because people make decisions, they could make a bad decision, so shouldn't make decisions. THE BIBLE says that free will IS THE IMPORTANT factor of humanity. REMEMBER THAT WE ARE MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD. To denounce decision making is to denounce your self, and thus to denounce God. It is blasphemous, and, in the vacuum, you invite Luciferians, who will make the decision for you for their own benefit.

[Voskhod3]

In Capitalism, the decision is between the purchaser and the seller.

The purchaser and the seller eventually become the same small group of people in a capitalist system - that's monopoly.

The labourers are the poor folk at the bottom who work for them and are "given" a smaller and smaller share of the wealth exhange between the people at the top, they have little or no say in the share of the wealth they get.

It doesn't matter how you dress it up.

The corporations and banks eventually own the system including the government, they become the government.

They make the rules.

They win.

[planning4acrash]

The purchaser and the seller eventually become the same small group of people in a capitalist system - that's monopoly.

Only if a small band of elitists benefit from fraud. Be it counterfiet, i.e. the feral reserve, or, via co-opting of the legal system and outright piracy, as seen with the British Empire, etc.

It is the piracy, fraud and criminality of the elite that create self-serving monopolies that do not meet the needs of the public. The criticism therefore, of capitalism, is that there has been a free market in criminality. I rather hope that free information, via the internet, will provide the market sophistication to iron out that problem, with some painful political re-adjustments.

Capitalism, absent fraud (particularly fiat money), can create big companies, but only if they meet the needs of the market (you and your family are the market, knock it, and you knock yourself, and your humanity). For example, we do need big companies to fund things like railroads.

The different with sound money, is that the general public will be significant shareholders, unlike now, when illuminous investment companies are the main shareholders.

[Voskhod3]

Only if a small band of elitists benefit from fraud.

They always do.

That is history.

I want to see a system that stops them.

Your system won't. A "free" system is good news for sociopaths.

[Magnumpi]

They always do.

That is history.

I want to see a system that stops them.

Your system won't. A "free" system is good news for sociopaths.

Well, historically no system prevents tyranny. It's asinine to think a 'system' will prevent corruption. That's like saying banning guns means criminals won't have them. The only way to prevent a government takeover is not have one. Or a corporate takeover by banning business. So basically, an anarchist, desert dwelling, post-apocalyptic non-society, each person to his own living in solitude is what you want.

[planning4acrash]

Well, historically no system prevents tyranny. It's asinine to think a 'system' will prevent corruption. That's like saying banning guns means criminals won't have them. The only way to prevent a government takeover is not have one. Or a corporate takeover by banning business. So basically, an anarchist, desert dwelling, post-apocalyptic non-society, each person to his own living in solitude is what you want.

Here, Here, a "system" is what causes corruption. We need freedom. Like, if we are allowed firearms, crime collapses, etc. If we have freedom to use whatever we want for currency, the free market moves towards gold and backed tokens, etc. and on.

Freedom ends tyranny, systems are infact tyranny.

[Magnumpi]

If we have freedom to use whatever we want for currency, the free market moves towards gold and backed tokens, etc. and on.

That's a point I brought up in the other thread. Let's just do this, then let the market decide what they accept. But then of course that leads to genocide, so, free competing currencies can't be allowed to thrive. Because everyone knows, damn well, that in a hypothetical company goes under, two guys show up for the property, one with funny money the other with a bag of gold, which of the two wins the bid.

And that's the point. The bankers do have most of the gold. That's true. But with government notes, the government holds all the wealth. With reserve notes, the bank holds all the wealth. You can always find more gold. Somewhere, someone is selling. And then the people at least hold some of the wealth, physically!

[planning4acrash]

That's a point I brought up in the other thread. Let's just do this, then let the market decide what they accept. But then of course that leads to genocide, so, free competing currencies can't be allowed to thrive. Because everyone knows, damn well, that in a hypothetical company goes under, two guys show up for the property, one with funny money the other with a bag of gold, which of the two wins the bid.

And that's the point. The bankers do have most of the gold. That's true. But with government notes, the government holds all the wealth. With reserve notes, the bank holds all the wealth. You can always find more gold. Somewhere, someone is selling. And then the people at least hold some of the wealth, physically!

The bankers have most of the gold? How about how they have almost ALL of the dollars?!?! You didn't factor that in.

The real genocide occurs when paper money goes awol, as IS occurring in Zimbabwe.

In Britain, here, you can find the lecture and book, Britain was flourishing when they had free currencies. Massive industrial growth had cut prices to the level where gold and silver coins were not good for small change. So, private companies produced beautiful gold and silver backed coins and tokens. e.g. give a baker one sovereign, and he'll give you tokens for 100 loaves of bread, and on.

The economy boomed as a result, and was DESTROYED when government created legal tender laws to outlaw the small change: http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2009-03-18_106_libertarian_coinage.mp3



----------------------
What kind of crazy evidence can you possibly provide to suggest that genocide occurs with gold!! Tyrants bring on fiat money to control the population as a pre-curser to genocide.

[planning4acrash]

The backing of existing cash reserves means, that the money IN YOUR POCKET is given a stable value. It means that the value of your money is fixed, and, this means that handcuffs are put on the Feral Reserve's abilities to inflate the currency:


What you should know about inflation: http://www.mises.org/story/2914

[Voskhod3]

How do you stop monopolies forming that hold people to ransom in this free non-governmental utopia?

[Geolibertarian]

How do you stop monopolies forming that hold people to ransom in this free non-governmental utopia?

This is part of what makes the Austrian School a "religion," in my view, because they take it as an article of faith that this won't happen in the absence of government (never mind how tyrannical societies -- and the oppressive governments to which they invariably give rise -- come to exist in the first place).

[Voskhod3]

because they take it as an article of faith that this won't happen in the absence of government

Then they are totally deluded.

Some people are just plain bad and they get together with other bad people until... well... look around. No amount of individuals standing up for themselves is going to stop them unless the good guys form large groups themselves.

Large collective groups for good or bad are inevitable, this inevitably leads to a need for arbitration (unless we advocate Ok Coral shootouts to resolve every dispute)... this leads to the need for law and governance of some form or other.

Most people are benign just want to live life without fuss and believe that others above them are like themselves (I know lots of them), they are way too trusting.

There are bad people out there.

A free system will let the bad people rule.

[Geolibertarian]

Thanks Geolibertarian, there is much food for thought there - I like the anti-privilege thing, I totally agree with that, openness and fairness should be above all things.

Can I ask a question, I'm really hung up about healthcare and I think healthcare provision should be fair and not based on privilege.

How would this work in a Geolibertarian system? Would that be big government?

Sorry for not responding to this sooner. Please see the following:

       http://propagandamatrix.com/forum/index.php?topic=1084.0

[Freeski]

How do you stop monopolies forming that hold people to ransom in this free non-governmental utopia?

This goes to the essence of freedom in my books. Since Wal-Mart, for example, can't survive without shoppers, the onus is on each and every one of us to not support them. Market forces are extremely powerful, when left free. It again comes down to personal responsibility.

[Voskhod3]

Walmart is one thing.

However land, oil, water, gas, roads and electricity are another ball game.

You NEED governence, you NEED arbitration, you NEED law and order, you need protection otherwise the bad guys will walk all over you.

The problem is when the bad guys become the government, arbitrators and the law - like now.

[Freeski]

Walmart is one thing.

However land, oil, water, gas, roads and electricity are another ball game.

You NEED governence, you NEED arbitration, you NEED law and order, you need protection otherwise the bad guys will walk all over you.

The problem is when the bad guys become the government, arbitrators and the law - like now.

Why is the Wal-Mart example any different than, say, oil? With oil, someone has to find it, extract and refine it and get it to market. How or why is that any different from searching out products and loading them onto store shelves? If no one wants oil anymore, no one's going to go to the trouble of producing it and making it for sale. It's just supply and demand.

[Revolt426]

It's not just supply and demand.

It's regulation over the money supply.

There are tons of houses out there! Alot people would like them - but a Depression has been orchestrated by an Empire, based in London......

These actions have NOTHING to do with any such laws of supply and demand, because those laws do not take dynamics into interest.

Math is not Science, the Austrian school of economics does not take people into account or their minds. The Human mind must constantly update their infrastructure via science (New discoveries) as the population expands.

Putting a cap on this is equivelent to suicide of the race, but we need not go extinct because we are running out of Drinking Water.

There is a Scientific Solution that the private sector is currently unable to provide, which is De-Salination of Salt Water via Nuclear Power plants, which has been proven to work in numerous areas. This is one of many examples of how you must take the population into account in economics, not just laws and math.

[Freeski]

It's not just supply and demand.

It's regulation over the money supply.

There are tons of houses out there! Alot people would like them - but a Depression has been orchestrated by an Empire, based in London......

These actions have NOTHING to do with any such laws of supply and demand, because those laws do not take dynamics into interest.

Math is not Science, the Austrian school of economics does not take people into account or their minds. The Human mind must constantly update their infrastructure via science (New discoveries) as the population expands.

Putting a cap on this is equivelent to suicide of the race, but we need not go extinct because we are running out of Drinking Water.

There is a Scientific Solution that the private sector is currently unable to provide, which is De-Salination of Salt Water via Nuclear Power plants, which has been proven to work in numerous areas. This is one of many examples of how you must take the population into account in economics, not just laws and math.

I tread carefully in this area because I do know that I know way less than I actually know, if you know what I mean.

That said, the idea of there being a lot of houses out there that people want, that people can't afford, well you can say the same thing about big screen TVs or BMWs instead of Chevs, right? I see "consumer confidence" indexes and the entire system's obsession with getting us all to shop and spend beyond our means as a key factor in the problems we face. We need fast growth, they say, so that people will have more money to spend to enable manufacturers to produce even more stuff that we don't even need so we can create jobs that don't really need need to be done. Incumbent government is especially good at this leading up to an election.

If we lived more within our means and eliminated some of our own personal gluttony then yes, everything would slow down, and we'd all end up spending more quality time with our families and friends. Heck, we'd likely end up with a three-day work week.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against anyone who wants to work long hard hours and make buckets of cash (I run a business myself); what I don't like is the centrally-controlled manipulation of entire economies to further some mysterious sleazebag's own dreams -- something made possible by state "authority" in the marketplace. Sleazebags wouldn't last long in a truly free marketplace because word tends to get around.

And don't take this as though I don't believe in any government/state (because I haven't come to a conclusion in my mind on that one yet). What I do know, though, is that the vast majority of government can and should be deleted.

[Voskhod3]

Why is the Wal-Mart example any different than, say, oil? With oil, someone has to find it, extract and refine it and get it to market. How or why is that any different from searching out products and loading them onto store shelves? If no one wants oil anymore, no one's going to go to the trouble of producing it and making it for sale. It's just supply and demand.

It's not simply supply and demand.

Look at De Beers and diamonds.

Monopolise the market and control the supply.

This idea of a non-interventionalist market is a blueprint for some bad ass people to screw the majority.

Who's going to run your penal system?

[Freeski]

It's not simply supply and demand.

Look at De Beers and diamonds.

Monopolise the market and control the supply.

This idea of a non-interventionalist market is a blueprint for some bad ass people to screw the majority.

Who's going to run your penal system?

Okay, on the diamond example, people should only buy diamonds from non sleazy manufacturers - including all of their partners up and down the supply chain. If that means we have to educate ourself about who the good guys and bad guys are, so be it. Personal responsibility, diligence, caveat emptor. If De Beers is the only supplier (monopoly) then don't buy diamonds at all until a new good corporate competitor emerges to seize the opportunity created by the bad company.

Also, we've allowed ourselves into believing you have to spend X number of month's worth of salary on a big rock, just to prove you really do love your fiance. Ever wonder how that "cultural" trait became so ingrained in the public mind? It's because we as a people were lazy and bought into the industry-funded brainwashing.

Free markets work when we depend on ourselves, rather than on the state.

[Voskhod3]

Sorry, who's running your penal system?

You don't need a Police force?

Who makes the law?

[Geolibertarian]

Free markets work when we depend on ourselves, rather than on the state.

I'm all for free enterprise, but as I explained several posts back (at the top of this page), many of those who rail against "the State" are either blissfully unaware of--or in chronic denial about--how the State invariably comes to exist in the first place.

Because of this, they end up promoting policy reforms that, if fully implemented, would serve to destroy (as far as the majority of the population is concerned) the very "freedoms" they presume to defend and expand.

[Freeski]

Sorry, who's running your penal system?

You don't need a Police force?

Who makes the law?

What does "my" penal system have to do with the diamond example above? I'd like to hear your comments on that, first.

[Freeski]

I'm all for free enterprise, but as I explained several posts back (at the top of this page), many of those who rail against "the State" are either blissfully unaware of--or in chronic denial about--how the State invariably comes to exist in the first place.

Because of this, they end up promoting policy reforms that, if fully implemented, would serve to destroy (as far as the majority of the population is concerned) the very "freedoms" they presume to defend and expand.

I have been examining the property issue from a different angle, lately, (largely because of what you've pointed me to), but there seems to be a belief (or a fear) by many that if one can make a solid case for state management of one thing, say fire/police/courts/water, that somehow it must be a good idea to apply the same thinking to other things -- such as oil, snow removal, healthcare, insurance, affirmative action, education, internet regulation -- and there is the slipery slope. I'm all for the idea of identifying some specific things that the state can/should have involvement in, at least as an interim compromise, but that means axing the bulk of what they are already involved in.

[Voskhod3]

What does "my" penal system have to do with the diamond example above? I'd like to hear your comments on that, first.

De Beers ARE Diamonds, land is diamonds, diamonds is land. Land monopolies, how does a free system ensure fairness in the aquisition of land?

Anyway... who is going to run your law enforcement, judicial and penal systems?

Or does your system not have bad guys?

[Freeski]

De Beers ARE Diamonds, land is diamonds, diamonds is land. Land monopolies, how does a free system ensure fairness in the aquisition of land?

Anyway... who is going to run your law enforcement, judicial and penal systems?

Or does your system not have bad guys?

Look man, I'm not interested in your rapid-fire grilling about why I believe in a free market system. I could address your questions about law enforcement and the judicial system but your smart-ass remarks about "my system" tell me you're not really that interested. All I can tell you about "bad guys" is that they exist in any and all systems, in case you're wondering if I live in some naiive libertarian fantasy land. If you've already made your mind up, then great. Enjoy!

[Geolibertarian]

I'm not interested in your rapid-fire grilling about why I believe in a free market system.

An idle observation: have you ever noticed that Catholics (who by any definition of the term are "Christians") get by far the most harshest criticism, not from atheists, but from Protestants; and how this parallels with the age-old, hostile debates between various factions of the libertarian movement?

I know how much the parasitic ruling class thrives upon "divide-and-rule," so I wish I could "unite" everyone (not through "compromise," but through building a coaltion on the "common ground" we all have), but I'm at a loss as to how to do that, because the vast majority seem obsessed with focusing all day long on the things that divide us. (I'm not saying you're obsessed in that regard, just speaking generally.)

That isn't to say I oppose having honest discussions about the things we don't agree on, just that I'm frustrated at how little time we focus on all the things we do agree on.

No main point to all that, just throwing out random thoughts.

[Revolt426]

All I can tell you about "bad guys" is that they exist in any and all systems....

That is exactly why they must be regulated. Specifically, the Private Sector Financiers / Speculators. That doesn't mean that all Regulation is good, it means that parasitical regulation is necessary for any Freedom to be acheived.

What i find very disturbing is, (Not targetting you, because you are obviously aware of this), There are numerous people parroting Austrian Philosphies on the Forum and labeling them as the "Free Markets"......... and Austrian Fundamentals haven't the slightest thing to do with any freedom whatsoever.

Primarily their 2 pillars, which is Gold Must be used as a currency and All Government intervention/regulation is bad for the economy. In addition, they claim contractions of monetary supply are great because everything will just adjust and the dollar will strengthen (As if the markets had an invisible hand!) .......

However,  They do not just adjust. People go bankrupt (Farmers foremost) and starve to death, this is precisely what happened in every real Depression in U.S. history - which is contraction of the monetary supply or "Deflation". Austrians would prefer 30% Deflation as opposed to 10% inflation....... because the word inflation is so frightening to them that they ignore what the word DEFLATION would do.

If anyone wishes to see what deflation does, i would suggest looking at the period from 1929 to march 1933 because it resulted in economic collapse , massive unemployment, starvation and breadlines....... the result as of FDR's Inauguration was, the United States banking system was no longer functioning.

As for the use of Gold as a currency, this is another tremendous problem that has nothing to do with "Free Markets". Infact, you will probably become a slave if Gold is used as a currency because there is NOT ENOUGH Gold to supliment the expanding population. This may not have been the case 400 years ago because we didn't have 6.8 Billion Human Beings on the planet.... However, as of now, if we were to enstate a domestic Gold Standard the resulting deflation would essentially bankrupt the nation , making all who weren't elitists slaves to creditors. For instance, think of all the people who now owe debt in the form of mortgages , commercial loans, auto loans, student loans, installment loans, credit card loans etc....
 
Now, if you enstated a Gold Standard and followed Austrian Contract rules, you would owe *Example* 100,000$ on a mortgage, and your weekly salary would drop from a higher sum (If you were lucky enough to get a job) and would be more like 100 dollars a week. I am sure you can see it would take your entire life to pay off 100,000 dollars and you would likely die before paying it off.

Other problems with the Gold Coin Standard consist of
A) The Gold does not represent the economic or population expansion rate
B)  "Coin Clipping" was a serious problem when Coin standards were enstated
C) the elites control 80+% of the world Gold Supplies/Mines
D) Gold Standards make it impossible to recover from a Depression due to lack of or strangulation of currency to rebuild the Nation's infrastructure.
E) The very reason the Austrians say it works which is, "Scarcity" -  is the very reason it doesn't work. If the economy is to expand, the monetary base must expand. If the economy is to recover from a Depression the monetary base must expand rapidly so long as it is issued into Productive Scientific Infrastructure that enables the Private Sector to Function. For Example, Without Clean Water, the Human race cannot survive - and since we are running out of Clean Water (For Drinking and Crop Irrigation) , we must develope things to produce clean water such as Nuclear De-Salination of Salt Water, which has been proven to work. This is one of many examples of required infrastructure for civilization to continue to function...... others include:

* Repairing and scientifically updating the collapsing Bridges, Roads , Railways which are needed for transportation of Human Beings and Productive Goods
* Developing new Power Plants (4th Gen. Nuclear and eventually Laser Fusion) to provide power to factories , farms and the like for production
* Mass Transit which is more efficient then cars since the Auto Sector is dead (For years atleast)
* + Any Scientific Creation by use of the Human Mind that would improve living standards and spurr the private sector

The point being, a Physical Economy is based on it's underlying infrastructure. And infrastructure is a Scientific Developement. When population expands, infrastructure must be updated to facilitate that population or you get poverty, and if neglected long enough, genocide. This is why Africa is still a third world continent..... do you see any railways in Africa? Water ways? Means of Power and Transport for any private sector to be able to produce and transport goods?......... We are heading towards that situation if we allow our basic economic infrastructure to collapse...... and if we do not modernize it to facilitate population levels we will not recover from this nightmarish economic meltdown (This is not a Depression , it is a systemic collapse, so we must take all statistical economics and toss them)

[Freeski]

An idle observation: have you ever noticed that Catholics (who by any definition of the term are "Christians") get by far the most harshest criticism, not from atheists, but from Protestants; and how this parallels with the age-old, hostile debates between various factions of the libertarian movement?

I know how much the parasitic ruling class thrives upon "divide-and-rule," so I wish I could "unite" everyone (not through "compromise," but through building a coaltion on the "common ground" we all have), but I'm at a loss as to how to do that, because the vast majority seem obsessed with focusing all day long on the things that divide us. (I'm not saying you're obsessed in that regard, just speaking generally.)

That isn't to say I oppose having honest discussions about the things we don't agree on, just that I'm frustrated at how little time we focus on all the things we do agree on.

No main point to all that, just throwing out random thoughts.

[Freeski]

An idle observation: have you ever noticed that Catholics (who by any definition of the term are "Christians") get by far the most harshest criticism, not from atheists, but from Protestants; and how this parallels with the age-old, hostile debates between various factions of the libertarian movement?

I know how much the parasitic ruling class thrives upon "divide-and-rule," so I wish I could "unite" everyone (not through "compromise," but through building a coaltion on the "common ground" we all have), but I'm at a loss as to how to do that, because the vast majority seemed obsessed with focusing all day long on the things that divide us. (I'm not saying you're obsessed in that regard, just speaking generally.)

That isn't to say I oppose having honest discussions about the things we don't agree on, just that I'm frustrated at how little time we focus on all the things we do agree on.

No main point to all that, just throwing out random thoughts.

It's a good point, but at the same time, many of the divisive issues have in fact been analyzed - and even figured out - by very smart and thorough minds, and that's why I try to keep an open mind. Take property ownership: for eons I felt I understood that idea and had a solid position on it, until I started reading up on some of your perspectives. I don't neccessarily have a new position, but there's room for it, if and once I ever come to terms with my outstanding concerns about it.

One thing I'm sure we can all agree on is that the state is way too big and intrusive, so maybe a coalition of libertarians, constitutionalists and anarchists is needed for at least a phase one.

[planning4acrash]

There is no compromise. We either have morality, respect property rights, and decide to let the free market bottom out, or, we decide to covet thy neighbours goods, tax and steal, and fund whatever projects are considered right, by a person, not Tarpley, who is connected and decides they want it.

The simple common ground is with the founding fathers, taking into account new knowledge. We must recognize that direct taxation requires invasive big government. Scrap it. We must recognize that government regulations always support vested interests and destroy the free economy, lets rely on free courts that rely on juries. We must recognize that inflation is an immoral tax. Many of these things, are in scriptures. We need to go back to basics, back to liberty. To stop the Marxist nonsense that the state can manipulate human behaviour. We are made in the image of God. Until we provide freedom and trust in this truism, we will not have God's Kingdom on Earth, period.

[Freeski]

All I can tell you about "bad guys" is that they exist in any and all systems....

That is exactly why they must be regulated. Specifically, the Private Sector Financiers / Speculators. That doesn't mean that all Regulation is good, it means that parasitical regulation is necessary for any Freedom to be acheived.

But there's the paradox. If we the people can't be trusted to regulate ourselves, what makes us think we can actually pick the good guys from the human cesspool to keep the bad guys in line? Such a job, such power, is especially inviting to psychopaths, crooks and egoists and they already use deception to assume these positions of power. I think the Better Business Bureau "seal of approval" concept is a possible approach, where reputation, transparency and people power is paramount.

[Geolibertarian]

There is no compromise.

Translation: anyone who doesn't worship at the feet of the almighty Austrian School is, by definition, an infidel who hates freedom and liberty!

 

Thanks for proving my point for me.

[Revolt426]

All I can tell you about "bad guys" is that they exist in any and all systems....

But there's the paradox. If we the people can't be trusted to regulate ourselves, what makes us think we can actually pick the good guys from the human cesspool to keep the bad guys in line? Such a job, such power, is especially inviting to psychopaths, crooks and egoists and they already use deception to assume these positions of power. I think the Better Business Bureau "seal of approval" concept is a possible approach, where reputation, transparency and people power is paramount.

If you take the approach that humans are not able to maintain civilization you are dooming yourself before even attempting to recover. This has also been proven false - you are reacting off of about 40 years of backwards monetary policy and Government and disregarding the history of the Nation.

[bushido_aria]

Please forgive me as I'm still reading much of this thread, but I did want to comment on a couple things below. And Geo, I love your educated and thorough posts.

I don't agree with Tarpley on everything, nor do I disagree with the Austrian School on everything.

In fact, I actually agree with Austrian Schoolers on many issues. Like them, I oppose all of 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 (i.e. "gun control"); and

     * governmental assaults on civil liberties
 
And even on the issue of monetary reform, once fractional reserve banking has been outlawed and the current debt-based money system completely replaced by a debt-free greenback system, I would at least be open (particularly if certain election reforms remained unimplemented) to the idea of reforming the legal tender law so that U.S. Treasury currency is good merely for the payment of all public debts (as opposed to both public and private), since that would allow for a web of competing private currencies to rise up along side the national currency, thereby keeping those in charge of the latter in check.

Agreed on all accounts.

However, there are four key issues on which I passionately disagree with the Austrian School:

(a) the idea that the only way to get out of the current depression is to let everything collapse first -- i.e., to let the very banking criminals who caused this crisis in the first place foreclose on everyone, and to euphemistically call this fraud-based looting of the real economy a market-based "correction" or "adjustment";

I agree with you, but I don't know how we can actively make a collapse not occur. At this point, there will have to be a contracting of the global economy, but the local economy could be activated and grow exponentially if given the opportunity. So the large chain of grocery stores fail...without HR 875 the local farmer can take up some of that slack. Ideally, those out of work at the moment would look to return to the jobs lost to us over the past 50 years--manufacturing, farming, etc. but with the compulsory education and the jobs available in the past 50 years, people don't know how to perform those professions or refuse to do so because they prefer their air-conditioned 8-5 desk jobs. My point is that unless there is McCorp or McFactory for people to apply to, the average American doesn't know how to start or what to start a small farm or a small broom-making operation. Schools and especially universities teach everyone they have to work for someone else so the idea of being self-sufficient isn't in the culture as much. I firmly believe that local communities are the solution. Would local currencies work better for this?

(b) the idea that the only way to have "sound" money is to institute gold-based money system;

I also agree that gold is not the only way, but I prefer that the currency be backed by something physical. I don't care if it's peanuts, blankets, toilet bowls, or platinum. If there is a physical component, it makes it more difficult for someone hitting a PRINT button to hyper inflate the currency. Many Native American tribes used common items such as acorns or fox furs or even blankets (which in one tribe they would burn the excess in the fall) for trade. Yes acorns probably don't have the intrinsic value that an automobile does, but if you're trading them, you still have to physically gather 5,000 or how many ever acorns to purchase an item. Without something physical or some way of physically auditing a system, we end up in virtual world which is how we got where we are now. Paper, in theory, could work, but given the amount of corruption in the monetary system, I would not trust them with paper. Especially if it is hooked up to a computer and printer.

(c) this cartoonish notion that all government regulations are bad by definition, and the consequent reluctance of the Austrian Schoolers over at lewrockwell.com to even mention the word "derivatives," presumably since doing so would call attention to the fact that the quadrillion-dollar derivatives bubble could never have been created to begin with had the Glass-Steagall Act -- a form of "government intervention" -- not been repealed in 1999; and

Also agreed. But there needs to be a discussion on how we come to such regulations and to acknowledge and accommodate business/industry needs with regulations. By all means, illegal activities such as the derivatives should not be allowed or even "regulated" and we shouldn't pump mercury into our water table. With the current amount of corruption, however, now I'm highly leery of allowing government regulation of much of anything because they can use it to control. Criminal matters laws and legislation such as the Glass-Steagall Act make the most sense but for quality control I'm more in favor of industries having their own initiatives. For example, the different kinds of organic certification. The USDA is the least rigid and if you're a good consumer, you know it. It's how JD Power and Associates makes a living. But, I digress. Thoughts?

(d) the notion that there's no fundamental difference between commodity speculation, on the one hand, and land speculation, on the other (see this and this).

Now, putting aside for the moment the fourth issue (since I've never heard Webster address land speculation), I'll simply say that, such is the intensity of my disagreement with Austrian Schoolers on the first three, that if there were a presidential election tomorrow, and the only two candidates on the ballot were Webster Tarpley and Lew Rockwell, I'd choose Tarpley.

Not because I agree with him on everything, but because he (if nothing else) would at least not implement policies that would turn half the population into Third World peasants.

I don't know enough about land and market speculation to really comment intelligently on the matter. Thanks for your thoughts, Geo.

I agree that stirring the pot uselessly to divide is not helping anyone, but these are the types of questions and debate that needs to be going on for after we actually have control of the country again. While these debates can be activating, they are debates that will need to happen regardless and we might as well learn how to debate effectively, civilly, and respectfully in the process.

[aerborne]

B) I am aware you  know about the Lombard Banking Collapse and the Bubonic Plague... Do you think the plague just appeared out of no where? no, actually the plague appeared because Europe was in a Dark Age and had no MEDICAL CARE.

Are we to believe that the bubonic plague spread because the people of the 1400s didn't have medical care?

I hate to burst your bubble but this argument ignores every aspect of what the plague is, how it spread, and basically all medical research on the matter, but to further compound this fallacy: Penicillin wasn't discovered until 1928, an almost a full 500 years after. It remained an untreatable disease for 500 years.

Lets start with:

ABSURD notion that gold has intrinsic value, considering gold cannot grow little GOLD LEGS and produce Labour and PHYSICAL GOODS that other nations purchase,

I wonder: are you married? Did you put a physical good on your wifes finger at the ceremony? Lets look at other uses of gold: http://geology.com/minerals/gold/uses-of-gold.shtml
Have circuit boards made with gold plated contacts produced anything? There's a VERY real value to gold, and very REAL productivity provided by it. This argument is as absurd as saying Iron has no "intrinsic value" because it "Can't grow little IRON LEGS and produce Labour and phsysical goods..." Gold is a raw material, it's used in almost every industry. THAT'S Why it has value. It's rarity gives it a higher value then other raw materials which is why gold, rather then Iron was used as a medium of exchange.

There is not enough gold on the Planet to sustain 7 Billion Human Beings if pegged to economic expansion. The main result would be a deflationary holocaust - so riddle me this. If you purchased a house via a 200,000$ mortgage and the dollar returned to the Gold standard, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PAY IT OFF AFTER THE RESULTING DEFLATION?. Keep in mind, the Gold Standard would strangle the economy for currency which is in itself a crime against humanity, but regardless, if payrolls go down and the dollar deflates you will be a SLAVE for the remainder of your life, paying off a mortgage, or even a simple student loan.

As I've already pointed out the plethora of uses what makes you think there's not enough gold on the planet to sustain 7 billion human beings? Is it that 7Billion is a big number? Do you know the ammount of gold used in the world right now and the amount still unmined? Lets look at gold today. At a mere $885.00 per ounce there is enough gold to support the production of electronics, medicines and medical equipment, Aerospace equipment, and all of the worlds department stores, retail stores, etc with stockpiles of jewelry, AND a booming bullion trade. You *ARGUE* that there will be a deflationary holocaust, but you don't present any evidence. Why would there be a deflationary holocost? It's a pretty glaring omission, please take care in not making strawmen if you try to explain the views of austrian economics and why they would cause a deflationary holocaust.

In any case, your first assertion that we have "PLenty of Drinking Water" is a lie, go TELL THAT TO THE CITIZENS OF SOMALIA AND THE CONGO.

Here's an emotional appeal, and a lie of omission, AND a baseless assumption. You're ignoring the role the NWO and banksters have HAD in collapsing somalia to the point that it's at. The shortage of water and food in somalia has nothing to do with whether there IS a shortage of water and food, and everything to do with the NWO's genocide of africa. You omit the circumstances and causes that CREATE the geographical shortage, to say that there *IS* a shortage as a general assertion.

... The key point here is that a group of private individuals presuming to "own" all the land comes first, and the "government" (or, more accurately, the State) into which they organize out of common interest comes second. (Whether they actually call it such is irrelevant). That's the inevitable result of allowing the concept of "private property" to be applied to the Earth on which all must live yet which none produced in the same unlimited, unconditional sense that it's applied to the products of human labor.

Here you quoted Lysander Spooner, an individualist anarchist, to support the policies he very vehemently opposed, even in the very document you quoted him from! The very argument you're trying to make, that somehow austrian economic theory was responsible for this situation ignores the black codes (http://history-world.org/black_codes.htm), ignores the Jim Crow Laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws) that existed well into the 1960s, and Ignores the lynch mobs that were allowed to kill black people without consequence. Your argument here, is another lie of omission, and compounded by the source who was very anti-government, and anti-lincoln. Black people weren't allowed BY LAW to own land, and that had NOTHING to do with economic theory, and CERTAINLY isn't supported by any school of libertarian thought.

How do you stop monopolies forming that hold people to ransom in this free non-governmental utopia?

This is part of what makes the Austrian School a "religion," in my view, because they take it as an article of faith that this won't happen in the absence of government (never mind how tyrannical societies -- and the oppressive governments to which they invariably give rise -- come to exist in the first place).

How do you stop monopolies from forming in your system? How have we stopped them from forming today? We haven't. So what's the point, any argument you make to stop monopolies would be based on faith as well. You're monetary reform certainly doesn't address it.

Then they are totally deluded.

Some people are just plain bad and they get together with other bad people until... well... look around. No amount of individuals standing up for themselves is going to stop them unless the good guys form large groups themselves.

Large collective groups for good or bad are inevitable, this inevitably leads to a need for arbitration (unless we advocate Ok Coral shootouts to resolve every dispute)... this leads to the need for law and governance of some form or other.

Most people are benign just want to live life without fuss and believe that others above them are like themselves (I know lots of them), they are way too trusting.

There are bad people out there.

A free system will let the bad people rule.

Bad people rule now. How do you reconcile this with the real world where our constitutional republic is now a police state run by evil people? Your solution is more government for bad people to infiltrate just as easily as the create the monopolies.

Walmart is one thing.

However land, oil, water, gas, roads and electricity are another ball game.

You NEED governence, you NEED arbitration, you NEED law and order, you need protection otherwise the bad guys will walk all over you.

The problem is when the bad guys become the government, arbitrators and the law - like now.

who has made the claim that there won't be arbitration, law and order and protection? Do you seriously intend to imply that austrian economics wants no police force or contract enforcement or arbitration? Who's going to settle car accidents and insurance companies if not for arbitration?

Math is not Science, the Austrian school of economics does not take people into account or their minds. The Human mind must constantly update their infrastructure via science (New discoveries) as the population expands.

Putting a cap on this is equivelent to suicide of the race, but we need not go extinct because we are running out of Drinking Water.

There is a Scientific Solution that the private sector is currently unable to provide, which is De-Salination of Salt Water via Nuclear Power plants, which has been proven to work in numerous areas. This is one of many examples of how you must take the population into account in economics, not just laws and math.

http://www.watercone.com/ This is a solution as well! I bet the free market could provide watercones and lifestraws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LifeStraw far cheaper then the government can provide nuclear powered water desalinization. Also math is science, and the londoner's built up houce prices way beyond what people could afford through FRAUD. Even webster tarpley agrees that liar loans are fraud, it's in the name: LIAR loan.

It's not simply supply and demand.

Look at De Beers and diamonds.

Monopolise the market and control the supply.

This idea of a non-interventionalist market is a blueprint for some bad ass people to screw the majority.

Who's going to run your penal system?

Do you think De Beers has it's monopoly through honest business practices or do you think governments look away as atrocities in the diamond trade are committed?

Primarily their 2 pillars, which is Gold Must be used as a currency and All Government intervention/regulation is bad for the economy. In addition, they claim contractions of monetary supply are great because everything will just adjust and the dollar will strengthen (As if the markets had an invisible hand!) .......

This is a complete mischaracterization of austrian economics (strawman). First, Austrian economics doesn't say gold must be used as money, It says the free markets will decide what to use as money and has decided (historically) on gold. Under Austrian economic theory, farmers in indiana could use corn to shop at walmart if they'll accept it. Farmers could write an IOU for bushels of corn and get a line of in-store credit to buy things with. Austrian economics is as ron paul has proposed in many bills, to let americans use whatever they want, so things like the American Liberty Dollar could come into use to compete with the dollar.

You've also mischaracterized them on money contractions. Austrian Economics doesn't say that a 30% contraction of the money supply in 3 years is "good." It says that growth in free markets tends to reduce prices due to growth in supplies. This system lowers the cost of living. If your salary stays the same would you prefer your cost of living to (A) increase (B) stay the same or (C) decrease. Lowering prices is not a contraction of the money supply, and Austrian Economics makes such distinction.

As far as your gold standard rhetoric: I've already outlined how gold has value.

We could in fact return to the classical gold standard such as all major nations were on before World War I and the United States from the 1850s to 1933. The major advantages would be a return to fixity of weight and to genuine redeemability in gold coin. A classical gold standard would be infinitely superior to either the current or the Bretton Woods system. In this case the particular definition chosen would not matter very much, except that it should be much higher than $35 so as not to tempt an unnecessary and massive deflationary contraction that would, at the very least, turn public opinion away from the gold standard for decades to come. More important, the classical gold standard would return to the very same system that created boom-and-bust cycles and brought us 1929 and at least the first four years of the Great Depression. It would, in short, retain the Federal Reserve System, and its system of cartelized banking, special privilege, and virtually inevitable generation of inflation and contraction. Finally, while the ultimate monetary com- modity, gold, would be supplied by the free market, the dollar would not be truly denationalized, and it would still be a creature of the federal government.

Maybe, you should read many of the *VARIOUS* proposals from the Austrian Economics, before making your strawmen. Some have been outline, and critiqued within austrian economics. http://mises.org/rothbard/genuine.asp Rothbard is a good starting point, or even Ron Paul.

[Revolt426]

I am not even going to reply to your nonsense becuase you've been debunked and it's not even worth it, if anyone reads the entire thread here:
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=98465.0

They can clearly see that.

I dont waste time with Trolls.

[Revolt426]

And for the record, MATH is not SCIENCE.