So, doctor, your diagnosis of me is that I am mentally ill. My diagnosis of you is that you are an asshole, you should be getting help but they don't really treat it that well (maybe a beating, but even that doesn't really fix the problem).
1. Firearms: all types to be absolutely legal to own for everybody, including all types of WMDs, every single type of weapon designed until today or in the future.
2. Abortion: on demand. And this should not be a government related question.
3. Gay marriage: why is this even a question? Government should not be marrying people in the first place, I am for everybody's freedom maximization, which means government needs to be out of this (just as well as it should be out of business, out of money, out of economy).
4. All prisons need to be private, all police needs to be private, government should not be participating in these matters. More importantly: NO TAXED OR BORROWED OR PRINTED MONEY for any of it.
5. All drugs must be legal, it's not a government question, government shouldn't have any authority to tell people what to do with their lives.
6. FCC shouldn't exist.
7. Net neutrality is not a government question, government should be out of all business, out of all money and economic questions.
8. Keystone XL Pipeline: government should be out of all business, money and economy related questions.
9. There should be 0 welfare given to anybody under any circumstances by government from any taxed or borrowed or printed money (there shouldn't be any printed, borrowed money and income and wealth taxes must be understood what they are - theft). Based on that there shouldn't be any problems having any number of immigrants in the country if they are willing to come in, because they will never increase the oppression against tax payers. THEN it's amnesty for all current and future immigrants, because moving around is not a crime, theft is.
10. Same deal as 9.
11. Government shouldn't be in any form of debt monetization and promises, be it housing, student or automotive. Let the industry live based on the value it provides, then maybe college education will become worthwhile again and not be a 'mandatory requirement' for baristas and burger flippers.
12. Government shouldn't be in any business, including health care.
13. Government shouldn't be in any business, including roads and bridges. Infrastructure is built privately when there is a business case for it.
14. NOTHING should be nationalised / monopolized by government, so there shouldn't even be a question like that because government shouldn't be allowed to dictate anything in business, money, economy.
I will add that copyrights and patents are none of government business and should not be protected by government on behalf of any interests.
Home environment is better in a huge number of ways: 1. Fewer sick people around, less chances of spreading disease. 2. Fewer collectivists around, less chance of raising one. 3. Fewer ignorant fucktards around, less chance of getting arrested for building a digital clock.
Of-course, if you are not with the majority (that is wrong on an issue) you are mentally ill. That's what they did to dissidents back in the USSR, by the way, imprisoned them in the mental institutions because they did not obey and did not atone.
BasilBrush, and I will quote you this: Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform. Being in the majority and being right are completely different things and I am right and the majority is wrong on this.
We are talking about a party that just elected an insane collectivist as its leader, yes? Collectivists are thieves and need to be stopped in their tracks or they end up destroying everything they touch in the long run. In the short term it must feel good: steal from those who are in a minority and give it to yourself - the majority. Borrow and spend, print and spend, steal and spend.
In the long run that's what destroys the economy and society. Collectivism is brain cancer.
The very concept of special days on the calendar is retarded in the first place, regardless of what it is. How about the idiotic 'labour day' last week? Almost nobody was working. I had a few people coming to work anyway, didn't force them, but they didn't mind after I asked. Special days are annoying, idiotic vestiges of oppression by government power (mob) that I will not respect and for that reason I have 0 interest in them whatever they are.
'Common carrier' is the modern disguised version of nationalization. Forcing private individuals and companies to deal with people they don't want to deal with by a global cabbal of violent governments is stealing peoples right to freedom, nothing less than that. Of course everything that governments do is destruction of individual rights, theft, nationalization, monopoly creation. The correct approach is to remove all legal barriers to entry into banking, financing, payment processing, lending, borrowing and basically money and economy. The correct solution to all these problems is individual freedom, more freedom, not less. This means abolishing government control over individuals and businesses, removing government oppression, not adding more of it. Competition among free individuals is the only correct approach that does not end up costing much more in human and other forms of capital.
Of course most people animals do not understand the problem in the first place to understand the solution.
No, the difference between an employee and a contractor is this: an employee works for one company most of the time. If you are working for a company over 30 hours a week for example, courts will likely consider you to be an employee regardless. Basically if you are mostly working just for one company / employer, then you will be considered an 'employee', not a contractor.
HOWEVER if you are given your tools at work, you are considered an employee as well, but in case of Uber people use their own cars, so it's not as cut and dry here either, but it's not as simple as 'not receiving benefits'.
Benefits are just a form of remuneration, they are not a special indicator of somebody being an employee. Many employees just get a salary and no benefits.
No, it doesn't help labour. The people who are taking it upon themselves to be Uber drivers shouldn't want to be 'employees'. No company can afford employees who come and go as they please given the political reality of the USA and especially of California. This will reduce the number of people who will be able to work for Uber in California, thus it will hurt them, not help them.
There will be much fewer Uber drivers in California than without this ruling. Uber is not there to provide 'employees' with anything, they are there to make money by being the most efficient broker between supply and demand for rides.
Ha! I have been a vegetarian since the age of 18, which means I have been a vegetarian longer than I haven't. Became a vegetarian because I think it's better for health. For the first 8 years I was a vegan but later started eating cheese. What I miss here is the point of artificial eggs, the point of artificial anything. Why bother? If you are a vegetarian or a vegan, why bother eating something that is like an artificial egg in the first place?
Try ebay. Go to ebay or another similar site and search for cheap used desktops. I don't know about 20 dollar overall, but 20 USD for a computer and another 20 for shipping will give you your cheapest computer....
Some of these invaders (as far as I am concerned these people are illegal aliens, taking over the territory) are stating their reasons that they are going to Germany being that they expect to get "free education, housing, money". Well obviously! Obviously people will be coming for the " free"stuff that Germany is handing out. When the German politicians get elected on the promises of "free" stuff, the electorate really doesn't think that this means it will apply to large crowds of outsiders, they are voting these entitlements for themselves. International Marxism was dismissed in Germany after the first world war in lieu of national socialism. No German is actually interested in paying taxes to support some Indian or Syrian peasant. Well guess what, they are about to experience all of the wonders of international Marxism just about now, let's see how long before nationalistic rhetoric takes over. This applies to other European countries that are not doing too bad also.
Many here like to use the Nordic countries as examples of "successful socialism". Ha! The only " success there is the ability to oppress a rather small class of highly productive people to subsidise a rather small mob. Guess what happens as the mob grows in size uncontrollably when many other Africans, middle easterners decide that Norway or Sweden or Finland are not too cold for them not to try and invade also...
In any case, we are going to see serious limits imposed on both, free stuff provided and on free movement of people over the European territories.
Again, you are completely wrong. The rights only exist in a system where the government has authority defined by a very rigid fixed set of rules. The government is not granting anybody anything. The people that set up the government are granting it the authority to take individual rights away under a narrow set of circumstances. Rights do not exist in the vacuum at all because they have no reason to exist.
There is no concept of a right between two individuals of the same legal status. A 'right' as a concept only can exist in any way at all when there is a system that has authority over an individual under some circumstances and the authority is limited a very strict set of rules and if those rules are bent or broken then individual rights are oppressed.
To say that I 'believe in tyranny' is idiotic, I am an anarcho capitalist, I don't believe that we even should have a State with ANY authority over ANY individual rights in the first place. The reality is that you no concept of what a 'right' actually means.
There is no such thing as a 'creator', the only thing you can expect in a system that is set up by humans is to agree to a set of rules.
If these rules are followed by the institution that is the government, then individual rights are protected, since government does not take steps to oppress the individuals.
If these rules are not followed by the institution that is the government, then the individual rights are abused by the collective that set up that institution.
Rights do not exist between 2 individuals or between an individual and a business because there is no legal framework, within which one individual can legally abuse and oppress the rights of another individual. There is no legal framework that makes it possible for a company to oppress an individual.
All interactions between individuals and companies can be governed by a completely separate codex, we describe it as the criminal codex, where actions that are taken by an individual or a company against another individual or a company are considered criminal.
One individual murdering another individual does not fall under the purview of an 'oppressed right to life', that is nonsense, since legally both individual have the same rights and have no legal authority over each other. A case of murder falls under a section of the criminal law.
We do not need government at all and if we skip the entire step of having a government then the entire concept of rights stops being relevant, since there is no higher authority than an individual but we will have to set up some form of criminal law and criminal justice system but this has nothing to do with rights.
A right to own and operate private property is the lack of authority of a government to steal that property, which is why 'no action is required' to ensure that the right is not abused.
Ownership and operation of private property cannot be considered 'a right' where it comes to interaction between 2 individuals, since to 'provide' such a right somebody would have to enforce it. Instead we can agree on a set of criminal laws that punish theft and damage to private property, possibly some fines in case of property damage / theft and harsher punishment that will have to be doled out in case of murder and such.
In order to maintain a criminal justice system no government is required and it is a separate discussion, but I am going to say that for a person who is supposedly pro-individual freedom you are displaying a certain lack of understanding of the reality and of meanings of these concepts.
Wrong, a right is a protection against government oppression. This protection requires a working Constitution. Government oppression happens when government is not bound by any rules, a Constitutional government is a government that is bound by rules. Unfortunately those rules can be bent and broken and then people lose their rights because government finds ways to get around those rules or just completely remove them.
The reason why rights are protections against government oppression is specifically because government cannot be punished for oppressing an individual. There is nobody to punish, no government official will be punished for the system oppressing the individual, which means that if you want rights to exist, you have to set up the government in such a way that it is given only very specific authorities under specific circumstances to limit individual freedoms but under all other circumstances such authorities cannot exist.
This is what the USA was premised upon, since it was created artificially as an attempt to provide individual rights, which did not exist prior to that time in any place on this planet, which is what made USA unique.
Unfortunately the rules were bent and broken and not because of a Monarch or a dictator, but because the mob destroyed individual rights in its desire to provide itself with entitlements at the expense of rights of others provided enough political capital for the politicians who were and are willing to use the mob to get into power and stay in power.
A right is a protection against government oppression guaranteed by the Constitution and the rules set up to limit government power. As to your right to keep arms and to protect your freedoms, that is only an extension of what I am talking about.
A right doesn't require anything from an INDIVIDUAL, but a right requires the COLLECTIVE to abide by the rules. Once the collective STOPS abiding by the rules you can attempt and use individual action to enforce your rights, but you will fail at that most likely since by that time the power of the collective grows much beyond your ability to defend your rights.
The Power of the State is absolute. What else is there to talk about here except for the complete lack of individual human rights?
A right is protection against government oppression, this is a case of government oppressing a 14 year old child all while using 'think of the children' rhetoric for its own political purposes.
Are you for real? First you are talking about the Fed fucking up the economy, (which is correct), then you bring up Marx, who had 0 understanding of economics but had a pretty good jealousy complex, using him to bash CAPITALISM? Maybe Free Market even?
Ha! Government creating the Federal reserve bank, the ability to print fiat money, ability to manipulate interest rates is the exact opposite of free market capitalism, so how the heck in 2 paragraphs you create such a gigantic dichotomy and try to pass it as a coherent whole?
Great Depression was started by the Federal reserve printing fiat to help UK to get rid of its bad debt to France. The market used the fake money to blow up huge bubbles in farming stock, then the market corrected itself, the bubble imploded. Then Hoover and then FDR took that recession and turned it into the Great Depression by printing much more money, by creating government programs and policies that should have never existed in the first place. The only thing that took USA economy OUT of depression was the END of the WWII, when government consumption fell by 60% and taxes fell by 30%.
The 1971 default on the gold dollar by Nixon happened as a result of the bubble that was inflated by the government spending of the 50s and 60s. The following stagflation pushed women into the workforce, so that they could supplement the income that was lost due to the men paying higher taxes. The falling currency value (inflation due to money printing) pushed production out of the USA from 1970s, this in turn pushed for more money printing by the government and market manipulation.
The Fed holds 0% interest rates for the last 7 years, this is the only thing that keeps the FAKE economy sort of spinning. USA cannot actually afford 1% interest rate, never mind 10% or near 22% that Paul Volcker had to push towards in 1981 to stabilise the economy.
The payments debt at 0.13% are a staggering what, 350 Billion a year? What about 1% interest payment? At 18.37 TRILLION USD 1% interest rate is almost as unmanageable, forget 10%, 21%??? You can shut down the country.
You are looking at all of this and you are talking about Marx? MARX?
Well, the only thing I may ever agree with Marx is the need to abolish State in the first place, but that means no taxes, no Federal, no State taxes, no Federal, no State departments, no services, no Federal, no State checks either. I can agree with that.
Charlatans, that the so called 'main street economists' are will not go away with their nonsensical ideas about the need to 'guide' the economy in any way and their ways of 'guiding' the economy is what leads to the economic collapse. Of-course the economists are just mouthpieces of the government and of the Federal reserve, whose entire job is to justify the actions that politicians want to take anyway, actions that promise re-election rather than actions that promise a sound economy and a sound society.
A sound economy relies on the invisible hand of the market forces, directing scarce resources and re-allocating mis-allocated resources (and resources do get mis-allocated all the time, but in a free market economy the mis-allocation leads to lack of profits that eventually leads to ceasing of that particular activity and for a great reason n - resources that are mis-allocated hurt the economy).
Government routinely pushes policy designed to help politicians to get votes and not policy that makes any economic sense at all.
Money cannot be printed by government or pseudo-government agencies on the whim of a politician, who is promising 'free stuff'. Taxes on income and wealth are destructive to the economy because they reduce scarce savings and prevent economic activity from taking place. Government doesn't actually have anything of any value on its own, everything it doles out it has to take away first, and government doesn't "ask" for your taxes, government has guns.
Government economic policy is economic policy of a highway robber and the main stream economists are active cheerleaders to this highway robbery.
If actual empirical math model is created and it is used to forecast what will happen based on the money allocation, it may lead to a huge clash between the forces of evil (governments) and forces of science, and I don't think in that battle forces of science will win, because the mob chooses the evil, since the evil promises something for nothing.
Bernie Sanders is a force for evil, but so is Clinton, so is any politician who promises to do something for nothing, to take away from somebody to give to somebody else.
The Fed shouldn't exist and print and manipulate in the first place but it does. The economy needs market rates. Given the amount of debt and lack of production/productivity, the rates need to shoot up into high double digits. The Fed will not do that, since even low single digits will complete the economic collapse that was not allowed to run its course by the Fed so many times. From Greenspan, to Bernanke, to the current incarnation, they want to prop upnthe fake economy - stock and bond and housing and some other prices.
This worked for a long time given that the productive economies of the world absorber the Fed's inflation. However a couple of weeks back China decoupled from the USD and when the dollar pops and crashes, China will not be picking it up this time.
The Fed might even understand this, though I don't think Yellen personally understands anything at all.
In any case, USA needs high rates, but they also will crush its fake economy and the Fed proved that it will give the government whatever government wants and government never wants to be responsible for what is really happening. The problem of the welfare and robbery State will not be solved by the State or the people even, they don't want the actual solution, it is so painful they are scared of it.
The problem will be solved by the market, that will impose real interest rates by stopping credit and by refusing to take in fake money in exchange for real goods.
Wall street would make more REAL money with real interest rates in a healthy economy, but Wall street lives within the reality of the political system that prefers expediency and promises of free cake, so it uses fake 0% interest to its advantage the best it can. The Main street votes in politicians who promise free cake, that in turn leads to a fake economy.
This will end in pain and suffering of course. The collapse of the dollar and the US bond is closer than ever now, no more props by China and nobody else is big enough to prop the US up. Europe is not a coherent structure that can do it either. It was really a genious move by the US to set up the EU in hopes to create a bigger, more coherent market for its inflation. But I don't think it will help much at the end.
The much needed restructuring means a serious depression. The depression like none before, now that USA lost so much of its productive capacity. Americans should pray it is not some nationalist democrat that guides them through it but someone aligned with anarcho capitalist principles instead.
Slashdot Mirror
So, doctor, your diagnosis of me is that I am mentally ill. My diagnosis of you is that you are an asshole, you should be getting help but they don't really treat it that well (maybe a beating, but even that doesn't really fix the problem).
Let me answer those as myself:
1. Firearms: all types to be absolutely legal to own for everybody, including all types of WMDs, every single type of weapon designed until today or in the future.
2. Abortion: on demand. And this should not be a government related question.
3. Gay marriage: why is this even a question? Government should not be marrying people in the first place, I am for everybody's freedom maximization, which means government needs to be out of this (just as well as it should be out of business, out of money, out of economy).
4. All prisons need to be private, all police needs to be private, government should not be participating in these matters. More importantly: NO TAXED OR BORROWED OR PRINTED MONEY for any of it.
5. All drugs must be legal, it's not a government question, government shouldn't have any authority to tell people what to do with their lives.
6. FCC shouldn't exist.
7. Net neutrality is not a government question, government should be out of all business, out of all money and economic questions.
8. Keystone XL Pipeline: government should be out of all business, money and economy related questions.
9. There should be 0 welfare given to anybody under any circumstances by government from any taxed or borrowed or printed money (there shouldn't be any printed, borrowed money and income and wealth taxes must be understood what they are - theft). Based on that there shouldn't be any problems having any number of immigrants in the country if they are willing to come in, because they will never increase the oppression against tax payers. THEN it's amnesty for all current and future immigrants, because moving around is not a crime, theft is.
10. Same deal as 9.
11. Government shouldn't be in any form of debt monetization and promises, be it housing, student or automotive. Let the industry live based on the value it provides, then maybe college education will become worthwhile again and not be a 'mandatory requirement' for baristas and burger flippers.
12. Government shouldn't be in any business, including health care.
13. Government shouldn't be in any business, including roads and bridges. Infrastructure is built privately when there is a business case for it.
14. NOTHING should be nationalised / monopolized by government, so there shouldn't even be a question like that because government shouldn't be allowed to dictate anything in business, money, economy.
I will add that copyrights and patents are none of government business and should not be protected by government on behalf of any interests.
Home environment is better in a huge number of ways:
1. Fewer sick people around, less chances of spreading disease.
2. Fewer collectivists around, less chance of raising one.
3. Fewer ignorant fucktards around, less chance of getting arrested for building a digital clock.
Of-course, if you are not with the majority (that is wrong on an issue) you are mentally ill. That's what they did to dissidents back in the USSR, by the way, imprisoned them in the mental institutions because they did not obey and did not atone.
BasilBrush, and I will quote you this: Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform. Being in the majority and being right are completely different things and I am right and the majority is wrong on this.
We are talking about a party that just elected an insane collectivist as its leader, yes? Collectivists are thieves and need to be stopped in their tracks or they end up destroying everything they touch in the long run. In the short term it must feel good: steal from those who are in a minority and give it to yourself - the majority. Borrow and spend, print and spend, steal and spend.
In the long run that's what destroys the economy and society. Collectivism is brain cancer.
The first rule of Fight Club is: you do not talk about Fight Club!
I dismiss the entire notion of a nation and of any imposed so called holidays.
The very concept of special days on the calendar is retarded in the first place, regardless of what it is. How about the idiotic 'labour day' last week? Almost nobody was working. I had a few people coming to work anyway, didn't force them, but they didn't mind after I asked. Special days are annoying, idiotic vestiges of oppression by government power (mob) that I will not respect and for that reason I have 0 interest in them whatever they are.
'Common carrier' is the modern disguised version of nationalization. Forcing private individuals and companies to deal with people they don't want to deal with by a global cabbal of violent governments is stealing peoples right to freedom, nothing less than that. Of course everything that governments do is destruction of individual rights, theft, nationalization, monopoly creation. The correct approach is to remove all legal barriers to entry into banking, financing, payment processing, lending, borrowing and basically money and economy. The correct solution to all these problems is individual freedom, more freedom, not less. This means abolishing government control over individuals and businesses, removing government oppression, not adding more of it. Competition among free individuals is the only correct approach that does not end up costing much more in human and other forms of capital.
Of course most people animals do not understand the problem in the first place to understand the solution.
No, the difference between an employee and a contractor is this: an employee works for one company most of the time. If you are working for a company over 30 hours a week for example, courts will likely consider you to be an employee regardless. Basically if you are mostly working just for one company / employer, then you will be considered an 'employee', not a contractor.
HOWEVER if you are given your tools at work, you are considered an employee as well, but in case of Uber people use their own cars, so it's not as cut and dry here either, but it's not as simple as 'not receiving benefits'.
Benefits are just a form of remuneration, they are not a special indicator of somebody being an employee. Many employees just get a salary and no benefits.
No, it doesn't help labour. The people who are taking it upon themselves to be Uber drivers shouldn't want to be 'employees'. No company can afford employees who come and go as they please given the political reality of the USA and especially of California. This will reduce the number of people who will be able to work for Uber in California, thus it will hurt them, not help them.
There will be much fewer Uber drivers in California than without this ruling. Uber is not there to provide 'employees' with anything, they are there to make money by being the most efficient broker between supply and demand for rides.
Ha! I have been a vegetarian since the age of 18, which means I have been a vegetarian longer than I haven't. Became a vegetarian because I think it's better for health. For the first 8 years I was a vegan but later started eating cheese. What I miss here is the point of artificial eggs, the point of artificial anything. Why bother? If you are a vegetarian or a vegan, why bother eating something that is like an artificial egg in the first place?
Try ebay. Go to ebay or another similar site and search for cheap used desktops. I don't know about 20 dollar overall, but 20 USD for a computer and another 20 for shipping will give you your cheapest computer....
Some of these invaders (as far as I am concerned these people are illegal aliens, taking over the territory) are stating their reasons that they are going to Germany being that they expect to get "free education, housing, money". Well obviously! Obviously people will be coming for the " free"stuff that Germany is handing out. When the German politicians get elected on the promises of "free" stuff, the electorate really doesn't think that this means it will apply to large crowds of outsiders, they are voting these entitlements for themselves. International Marxism was dismissed in Germany after the first world war in lieu of national socialism. No German is actually interested in paying taxes to support some Indian or Syrian peasant. Well guess what, they are about to experience all of the wonders of international Marxism just about now, let's see how long before nationalistic rhetoric takes over. This applies to other European countries that are not doing too bad also.
Many here like to use the Nordic countries as examples of "successful socialism". Ha! The only " success there is the ability to oppress a rather small class of highly productive people to subsidise a rather small mob. Guess what happens as the mob grows in size uncontrollably when many other Africans, middle easterners decide that Norway or Sweden or Finland are not too cold for them not to try and invade also...
In any case, we are going to see serious limits imposed on both, free stuff provided and on free movement of people over the European territories.
Again, you are completely wrong. The rights only exist in a system where the government has authority defined by a very rigid fixed set of rules. The government is not granting anybody anything. The people that set up the government are granting it the authority to take individual rights away under a narrow set of circumstances. Rights do not exist in the vacuum at all because they have no reason to exist.
There is no concept of a right between two individuals of the same legal status. A 'right' as a concept only can exist in any way at all when there is a system that has authority over an individual under some circumstances and the authority is limited a very strict set of rules and if those rules are bent or broken then individual rights are oppressed.
To say that I 'believe in tyranny' is idiotic, I am an anarcho capitalist, I don't believe that we even should have a State with ANY authority over ANY individual rights in the first place. The reality is that you no concept of what a 'right' actually means.
There is no such thing as a 'creator', the only thing you can expect in a system that is set up by humans is to agree to a set of rules.
If these rules are followed by the institution that is the government, then individual rights are protected, since government does not take steps to oppress the individuals.
If these rules are not followed by the institution that is the government, then the individual rights are abused by the collective that set up that institution.
Rights do not exist between 2 individuals or between an individual and a business because there is no legal framework, within which one individual can legally abuse and oppress the rights of another individual. There is no legal framework that makes it possible for a company to oppress an individual.
All interactions between individuals and companies can be governed by a completely separate codex, we describe it as the criminal codex, where actions that are taken by an individual or a company against another individual or a company are considered criminal.
One individual murdering another individual does not fall under the purview of an 'oppressed right to life', that is nonsense, since legally both individual have the same rights and have no legal authority over each other. A case of murder falls under a section of the criminal law.
We do not need government at all and if we skip the entire step of having a government then the entire concept of rights stops being relevant, since there is no higher authority than an individual but we will have to set up some form of criminal law and criminal justice system but this has nothing to do with rights.
A right to own and operate private property is the lack of authority of a government to steal that property, which is why 'no action is required' to ensure that the right is not abused.
Ownership and operation of private property cannot be considered 'a right' where it comes to interaction between 2 individuals, since to 'provide' such a right somebody would have to enforce it. Instead we can agree on a set of criminal laws that punish theft and damage to private property, possibly some fines in case of property damage / theft and harsher punishment that will have to be doled out in case of murder and such.
In order to maintain a criminal justice system no government is required and it is a separate discussion, but I am going to say that for a person who is supposedly pro-individual freedom you are displaying a certain lack of understanding of the reality and of meanings of these concepts.
Wrong, a right is a protection against government oppression. This protection requires a working Constitution. Government oppression happens when government is not bound by any rules, a Constitutional government is a government that is bound by rules. Unfortunately those rules can be bent and broken and then people lose their rights because government finds ways to get around those rules or just completely remove them.
The reason why rights are protections against government oppression is specifically because government cannot be punished for oppressing an individual. There is nobody to punish, no government official will be punished for the system oppressing the individual, which means that if you want rights to exist, you have to set up the government in such a way that it is given only very specific authorities under specific circumstances to limit individual freedoms but under all other circumstances such authorities cannot exist.
This is what the USA was premised upon, since it was created artificially as an attempt to provide individual rights, which did not exist prior to that time in any place on this planet, which is what made USA unique.
Unfortunately the rules were bent and broken and not because of a Monarch or a dictator, but because the mob destroyed individual rights in its desire to provide itself with entitlements at the expense of rights of others provided enough political capital for the politicians who were and are willing to use the mob to get into power and stay in power.
A right is a protection against government oppression guaranteed by the Constitution and the rules set up to limit government power. As to your right to keep arms and to protect your freedoms, that is only an extension of what I am talking about.
A right doesn't require anything from an INDIVIDUAL, but a right requires the COLLECTIVE to abide by the rules. Once the collective STOPS abiding by the rules you can attempt and use individual action to enforce your rights, but you will fail at that most likely since by that time the power of the collective grows much beyond your ability to defend your rights.
If you think you are having an argument with me you should re-read my comment. A right is protection against government oppression.
The Power of the State is absolute. What else is there to talk about here except for the complete lack of individual human rights?
A right is protection against government oppression, this is a case of government oppressing a 14 year old child all while using 'think of the children' rhetoric for its own political purposes.
Are you for real? First you are talking about the Fed fucking up the economy, (which is correct), then you bring up Marx, who had 0 understanding of economics but had a pretty good jealousy complex, using him to bash CAPITALISM? Maybe Free Market even?
Ha! Government creating the Federal reserve bank, the ability to print fiat money, ability to manipulate interest rates is the exact opposite of free market capitalism, so how the heck in 2 paragraphs you create such a gigantic dichotomy and try to pass it as a coherent whole?
Great Depression was started by the Federal reserve printing fiat to help UK to get rid of its bad debt to France. The market used the fake money to blow up huge bubbles in farming stock, then the market corrected itself, the bubble imploded. Then Hoover and then FDR took that recession and turned it into the Great Depression by printing much more money, by creating government programs and policies that should have never existed in the first place. The only thing that took USA economy OUT of depression was the END of the WWII, when government consumption fell by 60% and taxes fell by 30%.
The 1971 default on the gold dollar by Nixon happened as a result of the bubble that was inflated by the government spending of the 50s and 60s. The following stagflation pushed women into the workforce, so that they could supplement the income that was lost due to the men paying higher taxes. The falling currency value (inflation due to money printing) pushed production out of the USA from 1970s, this in turn pushed for more money printing by the government and market manipulation.
The Fed holds 0% interest rates for the last 7 years, this is the only thing that keeps the FAKE economy sort of spinning. USA cannot actually afford 1% interest rate, never mind 10% or near 22% that Paul Volcker had to push towards in 1981 to stabilise the economy.
The payments debt at 0.13% are a staggering what, 350 Billion a year? What about 1% interest payment? At 18.37 TRILLION USD 1% interest rate is almost as unmanageable, forget 10%, 21%??? You can shut down the country.
You are looking at all of this and you are talking about Marx? MARX?
Well, the only thing I may ever agree with Marx is the need to abolish State in the first place, but that means no taxes, no Federal, no State taxes, no Federal, no State departments, no services, no Federal, no State checks either. I can agree with that.
Charlatans, that the so called 'main street economists' are will not go away with their nonsensical ideas about the need to 'guide' the economy in any way and their ways of 'guiding' the economy is what leads to the economic collapse. Of-course the economists are just mouthpieces of the government and of the Federal reserve, whose entire job is to justify the actions that politicians want to take anyway, actions that promise re-election rather than actions that promise a sound economy and a sound society.
A sound economy relies on the invisible hand of the market forces, directing scarce resources and re-allocating mis-allocated resources (and resources do get mis-allocated all the time, but in a free market economy the mis-allocation leads to lack of profits that eventually leads to ceasing of that particular activity and for a great reason n - resources that are mis-allocated hurt the economy).
Government routinely pushes policy designed to help politicians to get votes and not policy that makes any economic sense at all.
Money cannot be printed by government or pseudo-government agencies on the whim of a politician, who is promising 'free stuff'. Taxes on income and wealth are destructive to the economy because they reduce scarce savings and prevent economic activity from taking place. Government doesn't actually have anything of any value on its own, everything it doles out it has to take away first, and government doesn't "ask" for your taxes, government has guns.
Government economic policy is economic policy of a highway robber and the main stream economists are active cheerleaders to this highway robbery.
If actual empirical math model is created and it is used to forecast what will happen based on the money allocation, it may lead to a huge clash between the forces of evil (governments) and forces of science, and I don't think in that battle forces of science will win, because the mob chooses the evil, since the evil promises something for nothing.
Bernie Sanders is a force for evil, but so is Clinton, so is any politician who promises to do something for nothing, to take away from somebody to give to somebody else.
Job Control Language.
The Fed shouldn't exist and print and manipulate in the first place but it does. The economy needs market rates. Given the amount of debt and lack of production/productivity, the rates need to shoot up into high double digits. The Fed will not do that, since even low single digits will complete the economic collapse that was not allowed to run its course by the Fed so many times. From Greenspan, to Bernanke, to the current incarnation, they want to prop upnthe fake economy - stock and bond and housing and some other prices.
This worked for a long time given that the productive economies of the world absorber the Fed's inflation. However a couple of weeks back China decoupled from the USD and when the dollar pops and crashes, China will not be picking it up this time.
The Fed might even understand this, though I don't think Yellen personally understands anything at all.
In any case, USA needs high rates, but they also will crush its fake economy and the Fed proved that it will give the government whatever government wants and government never wants to be responsible for what is really happening. The problem of the welfare and robbery State will not be solved by the State or the people even, they don't want the actual solution, it is so painful they are scared of it.
The problem will be solved by the market, that will impose real interest rates by stopping credit and by refusing to take in fake money in exchange for real goods.
Wall street would make more REAL money with real interest rates in a healthy economy, but Wall street lives within the reality of the political system that prefers expediency and promises of free cake, so it uses fake 0% interest to its advantage the best it can. The Main street votes in politicians who promise free cake, that in turn leads to a fake economy.
This will end in pain and suffering of course. The collapse of the dollar and the US bond is closer than ever now, no more props by China and nobody else is big enough to prop the US up. Europe is not a coherent structure that can do it either. It was really a genious move by the US to set up the EU in hopes to create a bigger, more coherent market for its inflation. But I don't think it will help much at the end.
The much needed restructuring means a serious depression. The depression like none before, now that USA lost so much of its productive capacity. Americans should pray it is not some nationalist democrat that guides them through it but someone aligned with anarcho capitalist principles instead.
Begun the drone war has.