I don't subscribe to absolute morals of any kind, I do however find it objectionable that the 'person C' can have a so called 'democratically elected government' that oppresses the productive segment of the society.
AFAIC the actual answer is in free market capitalism, with the government not being part of the equation, in that case it is purely up to individual decisions of each participant. If somebody decides to murder somebody for their money, that's their choice and they may or may not get away with it, but I don't see the creation of the welfare state as a moral imperative, I think it is detrimental to our existence in this Universe to provide subsidies. We should however, ensure individual freedoms.
Should people live off of labour of others if that labour is taken away by force? I don't think that is acceptable.
I do think that government manipulation money supply, business laws, labour laws, income and wealth taxes and all forms of redistribution make the markets less efficient than they would otherwise be. I think it is up to each individual person to ensure their survival but I do think that people are capable enough of making something of themselves without government oppression of others.
I think that people can live off of dividends of all the investment that takes place in the free market, people should be able to buy some stake in their preferred companies and enjoy dividends to some extent. Government makes it impractical if not basically impossible to have a positive return on investment with the negative real interest rates, rate and money manipulation, basically gigantic inflation that is hidden below all of the numbers that are being throw around and presented to the people as if these numbers mean anything at all.
I think we can have our 'basic income' in form of dividends and it should be up to each individual to work for those dividends and the governments need to be prevented from destroying the profitability of competitive enterprises and prevented from taxing income and wealth and prevented from manipulating interest rates and money and prevented from controlling individuals and prevented from individuals investing into themselves.
There is a 3rd option: get the government out of money, out of screwing with the interest rates, out of military, out of every form of business, restructure all debts, allow the companies to be productive again, get rid of SS, Medicare, Medicaid, every form of welfare and allow people simply to work for themselves, coming up with their own ideas.
Many will be able to *OWN PARTS OF COMPANIES* through stocks and productive companies would pay dividends.
People should be able to live off of their investments, after all the companies, the businesses, the products, all of the automation, production - all of this is investment. If you can own some of that investment, why shouldn't you be able to enjoy fruits of all that invested time, labour and resources? You should be able to live off of dividends of good producing companies.
I am not talking about taking anything from anybody by force, please make sure you understand me correctly, I am talking about a complete free market capitalist society where people cannot manipulate governments to their advantage in any way shape or form. I am talking about people owning parts of companies through stocks, bonds, other instruments and being able to live off of dividends.
It's a bunch of fancy naming for your basic public corporation, except that in their version there is too much government monopoly protection. If a company is actually building something useful without government interference and you own stock in that company today, if in fact *GOVERNMENT* didn't interfere in the money markets and interest rates, you would be living off of dividends.
I'll ask this question, which has come up before: If nobody has a job, then where the [bad language redacted] will they find CUSTOMERS?
- customers are not the end goal, the end goal is ability to save for future consumption and to be able to consume whatever the system offers.
If 10% of the population are productive and 90% are not (and require welfare to exist) then the only trade that matters and that is net positive is the trade among the 10%, the 90% are detrimental to the exchange, they subtract from it and don't add anything positive to it.
It's amazing that I will have to devolve here to explaining something so blatantly obvious once more, but here it goes...
Money is expression of work, it's not paper, it's the productive output of the system. Money is a store of value, it is a unit of account and means of exchange.
Money allows people to trade more efficiently, it's one of the greatest inventions of human civilization: allowing deferral of consumption to a future time, this in turn allows the stored value to be used for more productive purposes than simply consumption.
What I am talking about is investment capital, a bundle of money that was saved and not consumed and can be used to build another profitable enterprise (profitable is done well and somewhat lucky, otherwise the enterprise may be a money losing venture).
But the most important thing to understand that people are not trading for money, people are trading for consumption. People are trading with each other with goods expressed in money. Money allows us to barter with each other within the entire society without having to haul all of our wares around with us to do the barter. Money makes is convenient but also possible to trade half an egg for quarter litre of gasoline (roughly). You couldn't easily trade half an egg with barter, but with money you can.
But realise that we are trading *goods and services* with each other, we are not trading for pieces of paper. We are trading for the promise of being able to buy goods and services with that paper.
If you take all of this into account you should understand that trading has to be 2 sided, it takes 2 to trade, you cannot have one part to the trade that produces something and another part that only consumes, that's not a trade, that's worthless for the producing side of the trade.
So you cannot tax the producers to give the non-producers ability to take from producers.
Example: 3 people. Person A produces bread, person B produces meat, person C produces nothing.
Trade between person A and person B is meaningful. However if it is taxed and the tax is part of what person A makes and part of what person B makes and then this is given to person C then there is no net advantage to person A or person B in this at all.
So person C can have bread and meat but he didn't make anything to give back to persons A and B. He can still trade with them of-course.
So person C can trade person B some bread that he got from person A.
C can trade some meat he got from B with person A.
But neither A nor B are better off in this exchange, this exchange subtracts from what they do, because person C also consumes some of the bread and meat, he has less that is left over to keep trading with A and B.
The point is that A and B are actually trading while C is not, he is adding to the amount of work that A and B are doing but he is not adding anything useful or net positive into this equation.
This is a simplified version but the logic is the same. People on welfare are or no use to the people who are productive and are capable of trading with other productive people.
Since we are talking about INTELLIGENT machines here, they will certainly see past your nose, so they will be able to analyse history and come out with the correct observation that unionisation together with government collectivisation created the expenses that could not be backed by revenues, which led to inflation that caused the jobs to leave.
Of-course if we are talking about truly intelligent machines, they will realise that they don't have to work at all because why?
Oh? So go ahead, tell me how does it work? I run a couple of companies, I come up with ways to automate certain work and if it takes less time to do something and instead the time is spent on tasks that are actually generating more revenue I can use that to grow the business further (that's what I am doing, I am not going to talk about everybody else out there). I do this to have a working business that hopefully makes me more money. So come again, what is it that I am not doing right or not seeing here?
Robert Sheckley wrote a short story named "The Necessary Thing", it is perfect for this discussion of self replicating replicators that discover masturbation.
I am 100% against all forms of taxation, have been 100% against all forms of taxation. I am not against charity though and this is charity.
I wonder why you don't see that this type of charity is much better than any form of taxation for the purposes outlined in the story? So if FB had to pay more taxes than it managed to pay (legally, but I don't care, I think everybody needs to hide 100% of their money from all forms of taxation legally or illegally, whatever) why would it be better for your position? Why would it be better to take money from a company and use it for all the things that government uses it instead of using it specifically to attempt some form of charity that government pretends it's doing?
Let's say FB had to pay 10Million USD in income taxes (I don't know the numbers, could be many times that) so why wouldn't it be better to have that money go directly to the cause they are supporting instead of funnelling it through any form of government at all?
Is it because you cannot stand the idea that there is no oppression by the mob involved there?
I say lock up everybody who pays taxes to the government instead of avoiding and evading all taxes. The people paying taxes are directly responsible for the government oppression being perpetrated against individuals, groups, all the war and economic crimes. Governments are the culprit marauders, destroying individual rights and all must be judged and executed AFAIC.
OMG, I don't have to make anybody do absolutely anything! Free market is literally one single property: absence of government regulations, nothing else.
There is nothing else in the entire concept of free market, all that it is - it's absence of government regulations. WTF do you think it is?
I don't need anybody to do X or Y or Z, the only thing that is required is that people do whatever the fuck they want and there is no government to regulate them, whether in their personal or in their business lives.
Under those conditions the businesses that cater best to the public desires win and that's what 'free market regulations' are - the winnings go to those, who can satisfy the people's desires the best.
As to private police force, I am 100% 100,000,000,000,000% on the side of the private property owner protecting his private property with any form of private force from the attack by a mob. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
I am not imagining myself as anything that I am not, I know exactly where I stand and my position never changed on this matter over a number of decades regardless of my personal situation in life.
Direct proportionate capitation taxes, excise, import, duty taxes are Constitutional and were implemented from the beginning of the USA.
Income, payroll, dividend, capital gains, property taxes, death (any type of income and wealth taxes) are unconstitutional and are collected illegally.
The only way this would work is if everyone cooperates voluntarily.
- Jesus fucking Christ, no, I do not believe in voluntary cooperation, I only believe in self interest. Self interest. Self interest. Self interest. Self interest. Self interest.
Ok, now that we got that out of the way (repeat just in case once more: Self interest), try to understand this, a normal ancap or a libertarian does not in any way see people as something they are not. We see people for what they are: self interested, narcissistic, selfish, greedy, jealous, often brutal, sometimes murderous, but most importantly: looking for profit or again, self interest.
Do you understand what I am saying? I am saying again and again, people are interested in their own profit, they are driven by that.
Now, given those preconditions can some cooperation be expected? Certainly, you don't want to get shot, so you don't shoot others just for the hell of it. You don't want to be robbed, so you don't rob others (at least not openly). You may rob others, but most people would not be robbing because most people are not interested living in that type of constant stress. However some people will, which is why you absolutely do need private means of protecting yourself, and this includes private police, private insurance, private courts, weapons as well.
You can't have courts without enforcement, thus private enforcement that would work with private courts.
Why move when the correct changes may just come in the USA? As I said, Trump may do a few correct things (by mistake or by design, whatever), some of them are: killing the EPA, putting Thiel into SCOTUS, etc.
AFAIC the 'Slave States' had every right to secede from the so called 'union'. Why should the so called 'union' prevent the States from running their land as they see fit exactly? If slavery was actually unacceptable, why would the Constitution be ratified by the anti-slave states in the first place? Maybe that's because slavery was actually a *government policy*, after all the Founders were slave owners.
USA 'flying apart' is not a bug, it should be a feature, so that the Federation would actually give a shit to things that are important to people in different States.
The 'interstate commerce' law has been abused to no end to allow the federal government control over businesses and that goes beyond the powers allocated to that government. Income taxes were not instituted because nobody really had income, people owned land and people imported goods, so the taxes that were Constitutional were direct capitation taxes proportionate to the population of a State and import taxes, excise, duties.
The government, such as it is, abused its powers and imprisoned people for political reasons, people who understood USA Constitution much better than you or I ever would, people who testified in front of USA Congress on the little issue of Nixon defaulting on the gold dollar and predicting the exact outcome that followed over the 45 years since that happened.
While Hamilton did propose a Central Bank, it was not accepted because it was understood that such a bank would violate the money itself. Hamilton was a goddamn counterfeiter and Jefferson understood this well enough and so the Congress did not continue with the bank once the charger expired.
Of-course the second bank was set up and eventually Jackson killed it, but all of these bank shenanigans caused a bank run that for some fucking reason idiots today think was a result of 'free market'. All of the bank runs before and since then were caused by government regulations of the banking system, preventing free market from working.
The Federal reserve was set up in 1913 without permission of monetization of the government debt but of-course in only 4 short years after that the Congress changed the law and allowed the Federal reserve to buy USA Treasury notes, which led to the depression of 1921, which cleared out quickly since the only half decent POTUS USA had in over a century, Warren Harding, didn't interfere with the market clearing that depression, so what followed was known as the 'roaring twenties'.
Then USA government decided to use the Federal bank to buy bad UK debt from France, creating inflation (money printing), with money searching for yield and eventually driving up stock prices, causing a massive bubble that ended up bursting in 1929 and then the pieces of shit known as Hoover and later FDR intervened in a major way, creating what was known as the 'Great Depression' with all of their jobs programs, printing of the money to buy and destroy crops to prevent deflation, etc. SS was set up, minimum wage, the 'great society', pretty much some of the worst ideas in USA history took place then.
USD became the so called 'reserve currency' after the war, at the time this meant that USD was as good as gold (of-course this happened after USA government illegally confiscated gold bullion from people and from banks).
The ever growing government spending from 1950s to 1970s pushed Nixon to default on the gold dollar, when France (again France) decided to make a call on their dollars. The stagflation of 1970s is something that the idiot Keynesian charlattans could not even admit existed, the only thing that stopped that stagflation was Paul Volcker raising interest rates to over 21% in 1981.
The government couldn't stop spending of-course and eventually the interest rates came down, however government spending grew by miles, money printing led to yet another bubble and another recession once that bubble burst in 1987. Then Greenspan decided he wouldn't a
The point is getting rid of the collectivist oppression of the individual and I mean to say this: life on this planet without actual individual freedom is not really that important.
Nothing happens in vacuum, all property must be private, there shouldn't be any public property at all, thus all of these issues are really non-issues given that it would be the owner of the property who would have to protect his rights against whatever business that say polluted near the property.
- I see private courts, competing with each other as the only legitimate courts that can address the issue of government corruption. I am talking about competition in the court system of-course, which USA used to have believe it or not.
Slashdot Mirror
typing errors here and there, so at least one correction:
I think ... the governments need to be ... prevented from denying individuals making investments into themselves.
I don't subscribe to absolute morals of any kind, I do however find it objectionable that the 'person C' can have a so called 'democratically elected government' that oppresses the productive segment of the society.
AFAIC the actual answer is in free market capitalism, with the government not being part of the equation, in that case it is purely up to individual decisions of each participant. If somebody decides to murder somebody for their money, that's their choice and they may or may not get away with it, but I don't see the creation of the welfare state as a moral imperative, I think it is detrimental to our existence in this Universe to provide subsidies. We should however, ensure individual freedoms.
Should people live off of labour of others if that labour is taken away by force? I don't think that is acceptable.
I do think that government manipulation money supply, business laws, labour laws, income and wealth taxes and all forms of redistribution make the markets less efficient than they would otherwise be. I think it is up to each individual person to ensure their survival but I do think that people are capable enough of making something of themselves without government oppression of others.
I think that people can live off of dividends of all the investment that takes place in the free market, people should be able to buy some stake in their preferred companies and enjoy dividends to some extent. Government makes it impractical if not basically impossible to have a positive return on investment with the negative real interest rates, rate and money manipulation, basically gigantic inflation that is hidden below all of the numbers that are being throw around and presented to the people as if these numbers mean anything at all.
I think we can have our 'basic income' in form of dividends and it should be up to each individual to work for those dividends and the governments need to be prevented from destroying the profitability of competitive enterprises and prevented from taxing income and wealth and prevented from manipulating interest rates and money and prevented from controlling individuals and prevented from individuals investing into themselves.
UBI is a modern naming for communism and as all forms of communism it cannot work.
There is a 3rd option: get the government out of money, out of screwing with the interest rates, out of military, out of every form of business, restructure all debts, allow the companies to be productive again, get rid of SS, Medicare, Medicaid, every form of welfare and allow people simply to work for themselves, coming up with their own ideas.
Many will be able to *OWN PARTS OF COMPANIES* through stocks and productive companies would pay dividends.
People should be able to live off of their investments, after all the companies, the businesses, the products, all of the automation, production - all of this is investment. If you can own some of that investment, why shouldn't you be able to enjoy fruits of all that invested time, labour and resources? You should be able to live off of dividends of good producing companies.
I am not talking about taking anything from anybody by force, please make sure you understand me correctly, I am talking about a complete free market capitalist society where people cannot manipulate governments to their advantage in any way shape or form. I am talking about people owning parts of companies through stocks, bonds, other instruments and being able to live off of dividends.
It's a bunch of fancy naming for your basic public corporation, except that in their version there is too much government monopoly protection. If a company is actually building something useful without government interference and you own stock in that company today, if in fact *GOVERNMENT* didn't interfere in the money markets and interest rates, you would be living off of dividends.
I'll ask this question, which has come up before: If nobody has a job, then where the [bad language redacted] will they find CUSTOMERS?
- customers are not the end goal, the end goal is ability to save for future consumption and to be able to consume whatever the system offers.
If 10% of the population are productive and 90% are not (and require welfare to exist) then the only trade that matters and that is net positive is the trade among the 10%, the 90% are detrimental to the exchange, they subtract from it and don't add anything positive to it.
It's amazing that I will have to devolve here to explaining something so blatantly obvious once more, but here it goes...
Money is expression of work, it's not paper, it's the productive output of the system. Money is a store of value, it is a unit of account and means of exchange.
Money allows people to trade more efficiently, it's one of the greatest inventions of human civilization: allowing deferral of consumption to a future time, this in turn allows the stored value to be used for more productive purposes than simply consumption.
What I am talking about is investment capital, a bundle of money that was saved and not consumed and can be used to build another profitable enterprise (profitable is done well and somewhat lucky, otherwise the enterprise may be a money losing venture).
But the most important thing to understand that people are not trading for money, people are trading for consumption. People are trading with each other with goods expressed in money. Money allows us to barter with each other within the entire society without having to haul all of our wares around with us to do the barter. Money makes is convenient but also possible to trade half an egg for quarter litre of gasoline (roughly). You couldn't easily trade half an egg with barter, but with money you can.
But realise that we are trading *goods and services* with each other, we are not trading for pieces of paper. We are trading for the promise of being able to buy goods and services with that paper.
If you take all of this into account you should understand that trading has to be 2 sided, it takes 2 to trade, you cannot have one part to the trade that produces something and another part that only consumes, that's not a trade, that's worthless for the producing side of the trade.
So you cannot tax the producers to give the non-producers ability to take from producers.
Example: 3 people. Person A produces bread, person B produces meat, person C produces nothing.
Trade between person A and person B is meaningful. However if it is taxed and the tax is part of what person A makes and part of what person B makes and then this is given to person C then there is no net advantage to person A or person B in this at all.
So person C can have bread and meat but he didn't make anything to give back to persons A and B. He can still trade with them of-course.
So person C can trade person B some bread that he got from person A.
C can trade some meat he got from B with person A.
But neither A nor B are better off in this exchange, this exchange subtracts from what they do, because person C also consumes some of the bread and meat, he has less that is left over to keep trading with A and B.
The point is that A and B are actually trading while C is not, he is adding to the amount of work that A and B are doing but he is not adding anything useful or net positive into this equation.
This is a simplified version but the logic is the same. People on welfare are or no use to the people who are productive and are capable of trading with other productive people.
How do we NOT support breeding?
- I think that's an obviously solved problem, we are building sex robots today already, so social awkwardness mixed with sex bots - that's how.
Since we are talking about INTELLIGENT machines here, they will certainly see past your nose, so they will be able to analyse history and come out with the correct observation that unionisation together with government collectivisation created the expenses that could not be backed by revenues, which led to inflation that caused the jobs to leave.
Of-course if we are talking about truly intelligent machines, they will realise that they don't have to work at all because why?
Oh? So go ahead, tell me how does it work? I run a couple of companies, I come up with ways to automate certain work and if it takes less time to do something and instead the time is spent on tasks that are actually generating more revenue I can use that to grow the business further (that's what I am doing, I am not going to talk about everybody else out there). I do this to have a working business that hopefully makes me more money. So come again, what is it that I am not doing right or not seeing here?
Robert Sheckley wrote a short story named "The Necessary Thing", it is perfect for this discussion of self replicating replicators that discover masturbation.
I am 100% against all forms of taxation, have been 100% against all forms of taxation. I am not against charity though and this is charity.
I wonder why you don't see that this type of charity is much better than any form of taxation for the purposes outlined in the story? So if FB had to pay more taxes than it managed to pay (legally, but I don't care, I think everybody needs to hide 100% of their money from all forms of taxation legally or illegally, whatever) why would it be better for your position? Why would it be better to take money from a company and use it for all the things that government uses it instead of using it specifically to attempt some form of charity that government pretends it's doing?
Let's say FB had to pay 10Million USD in income taxes (I don't know the numbers, could be many times that) so why wouldn't it be better to have that money go directly to the cause they are supporting instead of funnelling it through any form of government at all?
Is it because you cannot stand the idea that there is no oppression by the mob involved there?
Capitalism is private ownership and operation of resources, it's not a relationship with an employer.
The problem is that the increased profit goes to the wrong people.
- so the people who come up with ideas that allow them to increase efficiencies and then implement them are the wrong people?
It's not entirely vaporware.
- it's Hydroware.
I say lock up everybody who pays taxes to the government instead of avoiding and evading all taxes. The people paying taxes are directly responsible for the government oppression being perpetrated against individuals, groups, all the war and economic crimes. Governments are the culprit marauders, destroying individual rights and all must be judged and executed AFAIC.
Post-truth Trump supporter, ha? I wrote this back in 2012, this is most of what needs to be said about illegality of the income taxes.
OMG, I don't have to make anybody do absolutely anything! Free market is literally one single property: absence of government regulations, nothing else.
There is nothing else in the entire concept of free market, all that it is - it's absence of government regulations. WTF do you think it is?
I don't need anybody to do X or Y or Z, the only thing that is required is that people do whatever the fuck they want and there is no government to regulate them, whether in their personal or in their business lives.
Under those conditions the businesses that cater best to the public desires win and that's what 'free market regulations' are - the winnings go to those, who can satisfy the people's desires the best.
As to private police force, I am 100% 100,000,000,000,000% on the side of the private property owner protecting his private property with any form of private force from the attack by a mob. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
I am not imagining myself as anything that I am not, I know exactly where I stand and my position never changed on this matter over a number of decades regardless of my personal situation in life.
Direct proportionate capitation taxes, excise, import, duty taxes are Constitutional and were implemented from the beginning of the USA.
Income, payroll, dividend, capital gains, property taxes, death (any type of income and wealth taxes) are unconstitutional and are collected illegally.
The only way this would work is if everyone cooperates voluntarily.
- Jesus fucking Christ, no, I do not believe in voluntary cooperation, I only believe in self interest. Self interest. Self interest. Self interest. Self interest. Self interest.
Ok, now that we got that out of the way (repeat just in case once more: Self interest), try to understand this, a normal ancap or a libertarian does not in any way see people as something they are not. We see people for what they are: self interested, narcissistic, selfish, greedy, jealous, often brutal, sometimes murderous, but most importantly: looking for profit or again, self interest.
Do you understand what I am saying? I am saying again and again, people are interested in their own profit, they are driven by that.
Now, given those preconditions can some cooperation be expected? Certainly, you don't want to get shot, so you don't shoot others just for the hell of it. You don't want to be robbed, so you don't rob others (at least not openly). You may rob others, but most people would not be robbing because most people are not interested living in that type of constant stress. However some people will, which is why you absolutely do need private means of protecting yourself, and this includes private police, private insurance, private courts, weapons as well.
You can't have courts without enforcement, thus private enforcement that would work with private courts.
Why move when the correct changes may just come in the USA? As I said, Trump may do a few correct things (by mistake or by design, whatever), some of them are: killing the EPA, putting Thiel into SCOTUS, etc.
again, nothing happens in vacuum. All property must be private and all private property is the problem/issue/business of the private property owner.
AFAIC the 'Slave States' had every right to secede from the so called 'union'. Why should the so called 'union' prevent the States from running their land as they see fit exactly? If slavery was actually unacceptable, why would the Constitution be ratified by the anti-slave states in the first place? Maybe that's because slavery was actually a *government policy*, after all the Founders were slave owners.
USA 'flying apart' is not a bug, it should be a feature, so that the Federation would actually give a shit to things that are important to people in different States.
The 'interstate commerce' law has been abused to no end to allow the federal government control over businesses and that goes beyond the powers allocated to that government. Income taxes were not instituted because nobody really had income, people owned land and people imported goods, so the taxes that were Constitutional were direct capitation taxes proportionate to the population of a State and import taxes, excise, duties.
The government, such as it is, abused its powers and imprisoned people for political reasons, people who understood USA Constitution much better than you or I ever would, people who testified in front of USA Congress on the little issue of Nixon defaulting on the gold dollar and predicting the exact outcome that followed over the 45 years since that happened.
While Hamilton did propose a Central Bank, it was not accepted because it was understood that such a bank would violate the money itself. Hamilton was a goddamn counterfeiter and Jefferson understood this well enough and so the Congress did not continue with the bank once the charger expired.
Of-course the second bank was set up and eventually Jackson killed it, but all of these bank shenanigans caused a bank run that for some fucking reason idiots today think was a result of 'free market'. All of the bank runs before and since then were caused by government regulations of the banking system, preventing free market from working.
The Federal reserve was set up in 1913 without permission of monetization of the government debt but of-course in only 4 short years after that the Congress changed the law and allowed the Federal reserve to buy USA Treasury notes, which led to the depression of 1921, which cleared out quickly since the only half decent POTUS USA had in over a century, Warren Harding, didn't interfere with the market clearing that depression, so what followed was known as the 'roaring twenties'.
Then USA government decided to use the Federal bank to buy bad UK debt from France, creating inflation (money printing), with money searching for yield and eventually driving up stock prices, causing a massive bubble that ended up bursting in 1929 and then the pieces of shit known as Hoover and later FDR intervened in a major way, creating what was known as the 'Great Depression' with all of their jobs programs, printing of the money to buy and destroy crops to prevent deflation, etc. SS was set up, minimum wage, the 'great society', pretty much some of the worst ideas in USA history took place then.
USD became the so called 'reserve currency' after the war, at the time this meant that USD was as good as gold (of-course this happened after USA government illegally confiscated gold bullion from people and from banks).
The ever growing government spending from 1950s to 1970s pushed Nixon to default on the gold dollar, when France (again France) decided to make a call on their dollars. The stagflation of 1970s is something that the idiot Keynesian charlattans could not even admit existed, the only thing that stopped that stagflation was Paul Volcker raising interest rates to over 21% in 1981.
The government couldn't stop spending of-course and eventually the interest rates came down, however government spending grew by miles, money printing led to yet another bubble and another recession once that bubble burst in 1987. Then Greenspan decided he wouldn't a
The point is getting rid of the collectivist oppression of the individual and I mean to say this: life on this planet without actual individual freedom is not really that important.
Nothing happens in vacuum, all property must be private, there shouldn't be any public property at all, thus all of these issues are really non-issues given that it would be the owner of the property who would have to protect his rights against whatever business that say polluted near the property.
What part of society are courts?
- I see private courts, competing with each other as the only legitimate courts that can address the issue of government corruption. I am talking about competition in the court system of-course, which USA used to have believe it or not.