Obviously you do not *understand* history, understanding goes beyond what you are doing with it. If you *understood* history you would have learned that every empire ended up diluting the value of its currency, with the inevitable failure of that currency and with the inevitable loss of the empire status. The status of the empire shifted from the former to some previously backwater place that had just enough economic freedom that for sometime the government there wouldn't be meddling with the economy and with the actual money. Eventually that backward place would grow and become the dominant economy and its growing government would then stifle and inevitably destroy the economy by taxes, laws but most importantly by declaring fiat and devaluing its currency.
The money of whatever the current economic empire is always desirable because the rest of the world can either exchange it for whatever the empire produces or store it because it is intrinsically valuable in itself (gold for example). However as the economy of the empire becomes more and more regulated by the growing government, the production leaves, so there is less to exchange for with the empire. The growing government needs more and more funding, eventually starts clipping the coins, diluting gold with less valuable metals, declaring the coins to have face value that is meaningless, not a weight of a precious and intrinsically valuable metal. Switching to paper and ultimately to an electronic fiat not backed by anything, gold nor production is the ultimate nail in the coffin of that empire. Thinking you understand and understanding are quite different things.
Wait, you are comparing a situation with some government wanting to steal from a company to a situation involving 2 private sides (employees and the employer)? I guess you don't see any difference but it does exist. It is not 'US workers', it is AT&T employees and it is a private contract issue, not a case of racketeering.
I understand. You believe this because it worked so far. It is similar to a drunk driver believing that because he didn't crash the car yet, based on that 'evidence' he can drive drunk and not crash due to the impairment. That *is* false.
Wrong. The main reason for the trade deficits is not that the USA 'controls' the reserve currency but the inability of the USA manufacturing to produce enough either to cover USA consumption or to pay for it with a balanced trade. USA is in enormous debt because the world subsidises its consumption. Reserve currency does not prevent the need to pay for consumption, that is just a silly excuse that will cost USA its entire economy.
If any of what you are selling had any merit China would have been worse off today than it was 40 years ago, the people there would have still been poorer than dirt. What you are selling is garbage though, collectivist garbage, which is why China brought hundreds of millions out of complete poverty by drastically reducing collectivism, not by growing it. USA is on a completely wrong path, has been on it for over a 100 year stretch now, it is a path of diseased collectivism and it is murdering, slaughtering USA economy.
Actually every single person that is not tied to the government in USA is suffering and it has nothing to do with 'corporate greed', it has to do with the collectivism (same type of collectivism that spawned the disease that are unions). If there were or there are any productivity gains in the USA (real productivity as opposed to inflation caused by the governments living on borrowed - actually on stolen money), those gains are despite the collectivism not because of it. Real productivity in the USA is negative, which is why the country is running half a trillion USD a year in trade deficits.
The culprits of the economic destruction are not in the companies, they are found in government offices and they operate on the ideology of 'helping' you.
Today people do not have to use any fiat at all, it's super easy to use gold money (google it) and exchange actual physical amounts of gold with people electronically without ever converting the gold to any other form of currency.
You don't need to pay taxes, this taxdoctrination has gotten completely out of hand. Again: you don't have to pay any taxes to anybody. The sooner the vast majority of people understands that they do not actually have to pay taxes, the better.
Also: why should anybody want to pay taxes in BTC? If BTC allows to get around taxes then all the better.
I left enough comments here over the years easily to be pulled out if needed, my position never changed. Government emerges when the collectivist power is left unchecked, that power needs to be checked by something. As to charity, I use the term in the most loose way possible, absolutely not talking about an organization of charity, only of the concept of voluntary donation. To what degree is your mind so warped that you cannot perceive the world without applying a government prism to it? Nobody needs to organize a charity for the charity to exist. The concept (voluntary donation) is the point, not the implementation detail.
A city is clearly too large a system to dictate and oppress residents of a house. You should be able to rent your house to whoever you want however you want any time you want.
loans are guaranteed by the Federal government, the same government that works in tandem with the Federal Reserve Bank to create money out of thin air. Half a million in 18 years? Sure, why not, maybe sooner. In the free market the cost of education is falling, technology allows for cheaper ways to communicate and test knowledge. In the government world costs never go down, that's not good for the government for costs to go down.
I would say you either have principles or you don't, if your definition of principles is: something that changes over time to provide convenience, then you have an 'ideology' like utilitarianism. I don't consider that to be an ideology based on principles. Defining black as white for the purposes of expediency, changing positions to whatever is most convenient at the time to the majority, AFAIC that does not have any fundamental principles, it is good politics though.
No, I did not 'change my stance' and I certainly don't think government is necessary, I do think that it is difficult to move away from all things government all the time to no government without a system that prevents an alternative government from emerging. I do not think that government's 'will' should be enforced, I don't believe in collectivism, slavery and oppression.
What should exist is something to prevent collectivism from oppressing and enslaving. How such a thing would be funded? By people who would willingly provide some money through a charity, an anti slavery/anti oppression charity so to speak. I certainly wouldn't steal people's money by force.
Actually real ideology cannot be situational. Real positions are not changing regardless of the circumstances, otherwise it's expedience and not a position or ideology in the first place. My position never changed and I have been on both sides of the poverty line, AFAIC income (including payroll) and property taxes are slavery by their very nature. This of-course means that all business regulations, money manipulation, interest rate manipulation by government fall under the same category.
I enjoy private roads, the public roads I have to suffer through. There is no question at all that nothing should be public, especially power companies, education, roads, health care, even military. Military in the hands of government is the cause of all the wars and humanitarian disasters through thousands of years, history cannot be more obvious if you bother to look at it.
Income, payroll, property, sales taxes, business regulations, labour laws, money manipulation, interest rate manipulation.... Anarcho capitalism with as tiny a government as possible without creating an alternative government is the answer to all this government theft. Politicians and all other government employees are looking at profitable companies are salivating at the prospect of holding guns to their heads in most obvious racketeering of all time - something bad may happen to your company if you don't pay up. I think businesses really need to step up their game and help to reduce governments to dust, but they don't do that because the legal power that the governments sell is so sweet, it can be used to destroy competition. It is short sighted of-course, it's better to have a real free market and competition without government oppression rather than try and use that oppression, this strategy cannot have long term positive results for anybody, even those who are currently able of buying access to government oppression for their own benefit.
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
In this case the idea being that Google for some reason would do something that would benefit somebody else other than Google, the company. Where do such notions originate exactly?
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously you do not *understand* history, understanding goes beyond what you are doing with it. If you *understood* history you would have learned that every empire ended up diluting the value of its currency, with the inevitable failure of that currency and with the inevitable loss of the empire status. The status of the empire shifted from the former to some previously backwater place that had just enough economic freedom that for sometime the government there wouldn't be meddling with the economy and with the actual money. Eventually that backward place would grow and become the dominant economy and its growing government would then stifle and inevitably destroy the economy by taxes, laws but most importantly by declaring fiat and devaluing its currency.
The money of whatever the current economic empire is always desirable because the rest of the world can either exchange it for whatever the empire produces or store it because it is intrinsically valuable in itself (gold for example). However as the economy of the empire becomes more and more regulated by the growing government, the production leaves, so there is less to exchange for with the empire. The growing government needs more and more funding, eventually starts clipping the coins, diluting gold with less valuable metals, declaring the coins to have face value that is meaningless, not a weight of a precious and intrinsically valuable metal. Switching to paper and ultimately to an electronic fiat not backed by anything, gold nor production is the ultimate nail in the coffin of that empire. Thinking you understand and understanding are quite different things.
Wait, you are comparing a situation with some government wanting to steal from a company to a situation involving 2 private sides (employees and the employer)? I guess you don't see any difference but it does exist. It is not 'US workers', it is AT&T employees and it is a private contract issue, not a case of racketeering.
This is a private matter of a company and its employees, government must not be allowed to get involved in the first place.
I understand. You believe this because it worked so far. It is similar to a drunk driver believing that because he didn't crash the car yet, based on that 'evidence' he can drive drunk and not crash due to the impairment. That *is* false.
Wrong. The main reason for the trade deficits is not that the USA 'controls' the reserve currency but the inability of the USA manufacturing to produce enough either to cover USA consumption or to pay for it with a balanced trade. USA is in enormous debt because the world subsidises its consumption. Reserve currency does not prevent the need to pay for consumption, that is just a silly excuse that will cost USA its entire economy.
If any of what you are selling had any merit China would have been worse off today than it was 40 years ago, the people there would have still been poorer than dirt. What you are selling is garbage though, collectivist garbage, which is why China brought hundreds of millions out of complete poverty by drastically reducing collectivism, not by growing it. USA is on a completely wrong path, has been on it for over a 100 year stretch now, it is a path of diseased collectivism and it is murdering, slaughtering USA economy.
Actually every single person that is not tied to the government in USA is suffering and it has nothing to do with 'corporate greed', it has to do with the collectivism (same type of collectivism that spawned the disease that are unions). If there were or there are any productivity gains in the USA (real productivity as opposed to inflation caused by the governments living on borrowed - actually on stolen money), those gains are despite the collectivism not because of it. Real productivity in the USA is negative, which is why the country is running half a trillion USD a year in trade deficits.
The culprits of the economic destruction are not in the companies, they are found in government offices and they operate on the ideology of 'helping' you.
Some people are getting rich from it though.
Which qualifies you as a dummy.
No, dummy, there is no government decree, no government fiat, it is not fiat by definition. Learn the goddamn language.
Today people do not have to use any fiat at all, it's super easy to use gold money (google it) and exchange actual physical amounts of gold with people electronically without ever converting the gold to any other form of currency.
You don't need to pay taxes, this taxdoctrination has gotten completely out of hand. Again: you don't have to pay any taxes to anybody. The sooner the vast majority of people understands that they do not actually have to pay taxes, the better.
Also: why should anybody want to pay taxes in BTC? If BTC allows to get around taxes then all the better.
I left enough comments here over the years easily to be pulled out if needed, my position never changed. Government emerges when the collectivist power is left unchecked, that power needs to be checked by something. As to charity, I use the term in the most loose way possible, absolutely not talking about an organization of charity, only of the concept of voluntary donation. To what degree is your mind so warped that you cannot perceive the world without applying a government prism to it? Nobody needs to organize a charity for the charity to exist. The concept (voluntary donation) is the point, not the implementation detail.
A city is clearly too large a system to dictate and oppress residents of a house. You should be able to rent your house to whoever you want however you want any time you want.
loans are guaranteed by the Federal government, the same government that works in tandem with the Federal Reserve Bank to create money out of thin air. Half a million in 18 years? Sure, why not, maybe sooner. In the free market the cost of education is falling, technology allows for cheaper ways to communicate and test knowledge. In the government world costs never go down, that's not good for the government for costs to go down.
that's what private security is for, unless you believe the government police is near you to protect you somehow....
I would say you either have principles or you don't, if your definition of principles is: something that changes over time to provide convenience, then you have an 'ideology' like utilitarianism. I don't consider that to be an ideology based on principles. Defining black as white for the purposes of expediency, changing positions to whatever is most convenient at the time to the majority, AFAIC that does not have any fundamental principles, it is good politics though.
No, I did not 'change my stance' and I certainly don't think government is necessary, I do think that it is difficult to move away from all things government all the time to no government without a system that prevents an alternative government from emerging. I do not think that government's 'will' should be enforced, I don't believe in collectivism, slavery and oppression.
What should exist is something to prevent collectivism from oppressing and enslaving. How such a thing would be funded? By people who would willingly provide some money through a charity, an anti slavery/anti oppression charity so to speak. I certainly wouldn't steal people's money by force.
Actually real ideology cannot be situational. Real positions are not changing regardless of the circumstances, otherwise it's expedience and not a position or ideology in the first place. My position never changed and I have been on both sides of the poverty line, AFAIC income (including payroll) and property taxes are slavery by their very nature. This of-course means that all business regulations, money manipulation, interest rate manipulation by government fall under the same category.
I enjoy private roads, the public roads I have to suffer through. There is no question at all that nothing should be public, especially power companies, education, roads, health care, even military. Military in the hands of government is the cause of all the wars and humanitarian disasters through thousands of years, history cannot be more obvious if you bother to look at it.
It doesn't matter that the theft is done with the active or silent agreement of a majority, theft is theft regardless of any type of 'purpose'.
Income, payroll, property, sales taxes, business regulations, labour laws, money manipulation, interest rate manipulation.... Anarcho capitalism with as tiny a government as possible without creating an alternative government is the answer to all this government theft. Politicians and all other government employees are looking at profitable companies are salivating at the prospect of holding guns to their heads in most obvious racketeering of all time - something bad may happen to your company if you don't pay up. I think businesses really need to step up their game and help to reduce governments to dust, but they don't do that because the legal power that the governments sell is so sweet, it can be used to destroy competition. It is short sighted of-course, it's better to have a real free market and competition without government oppression rather than try and use that oppression, this strategy cannot have long term positive results for anybody, even those who are currently able of buying access to government oppression for their own benefit.
I am going to use Charles Babbage's quote here:
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
In this case the idea being that Google for some reason would do something that would benefit somebody else other than Google, the company. Where do such notions originate exactly?
There are more automobiles in Switzerland than there are Libraries of Congress in the USA. There.
... before it gains some momentum? Obviously USA has plenty of mass for that.