Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jet,
What kind of sources can you cite for your damnation of money?
What options would you propose?
Also, what sort of testing of your therories has been done? By whom? When?
I suggest you read a book titled, "Money." It is not about how money works, or doesn't work. It is not about why money is needed. It is a history of money. That is: it just a history book about money.
Jet,
What kind of sources can you cite for your damnation of money?
What options would you propose?
Also, what sort of testing of your therories has been done? By whom? When?
I suggest you read a book titled, "Money." It is not about how money works, or doesn't work. It is not about why money is needed. It is a history of money. That is: it just a history book about money.
I did not d@mn money, but money madness. The learned belief that money has value, can be saved as a storehouse of value, and that money should be invested, at usury is the problem, not money itself.
Sources on usury / money:
[] Engineering Economic Analysis - time value of money calculations
[] Endless debates with Academicians / Economists
[] Correspondence with several thinkers outside the box
[] Science Fiction visionaries who got close to the right idea (Robert A. Heinlein, for example)
[] A realization that I was lied to by the greatest propaganda machine on the planet, and
[] Research into ancient Greek philosophy, and early Christian philosophy, regarding usury.
Popular cultural references to the "hidden nature" of money madness:
[] Gilligan's Island. The millionaires, with all their money tokens, cannot buy a rescue nor anything that was not found, nor made by the castaways.
This illustrates that money has no power outside the marketplace of goods and services. Tis madness to chase after an abstraction and ignore reality.
[] MONOPOLY - Parker Bros. Real Estate Trading Game. When the "board economy" grows so large that it runs out of money, the rules are simple - MAKE MORE MONEY TOKENS.
A Money Primer for Non-Insane People
MONEY IS:
[1] A medium of exchange
[2] An accounting symbol
[3] Proportional to the marketplace
MONEY HAS:
[4] No intrinsic value outside of the marketplace
MONEY IS NOT:
[5] real
MONEY CANNOT:
[6] be saved
[7] be invested,at usury, in a finite money token system
[8] be owned, in the sense that it can be bought and sold
MONEY SHOULD NOT:
[9] be limited or under restriction, save that of the marketplace
[10] be under the control of parasites (government, usurers)
[11] be worshiped
[12] be a goal of one's life
[1,2,3] Whether you realize it or not, money is a medium of exchange that facilitates the creation and trade of usable (surplus) goods and services. It is a mechanism that simplifies trade of different items, services, and volumes. As an accounting symbol, for the value of all goods and services in the marketplace, it must be proportional to that marketplace. If it ceases to be proportional, then someone will suffer inequitable trade.
[4] Money, as an accounting system, has no function if there is nothing in the marketplace. Without a marketplace, money cannot facilitate trade. A sum of money without anything to buy has no value.
[5] An accounting system, by which one tracks sum of items, goods, and services, should not be something from within the marketplace. In fact, if one uses an item taken from the marketplace, a mathematical error will occur. In set theory, if M(money) is proportional to S (sum of all goods / services), making anything from S, will generate a paradox. For example, if G (gold) is deemed to be the preferred money token, and it is 1% of the whole Sum, we can set up the equation:
G = (.01 S)
BUT
We must now make G have a value proportional to the whole set (S), so that we can trade.
G (proportional to) S.
So 1/10 G can buy 1/10 S.
HOWEVER
Gold, which is 1% of Sum of all, can buy all. Yet G is a subset of S.
G = (.01S), so (0.01S) = S.
One percent of the gold, as "money",can buy all the gold (which represents 1% of S).
See the problem now?
"Hard money" requires insanity to function. Anything of intrinsic value from within the marketplace cannot be used as money. Especially since the marketplace varies,disproportionate to the item deemed to be money.
[6] If money is a mechanism to account for value, facilitate trade, and is proportional to the marketplace, you cannot "save" it. Taking money out of circulation only prevents it from its function – moving goods and services equitably. In fact, the more money taken out of circulation by hoarding / saving, the less trade can occur, since there is not enough money tokens to facilitate trade. By making money scarce (disproportionate to the marketplace), the sellers cannot sell, or must accept LESS money. If they cannot sell, they suffer. And if have to accept less money, they cannot equitably trade (nor pay outstanding bills).
[7] Though we might think we're"saving" money when we deposit it with bankers (usurers), buy bonds (usury) or "invest" it in stock corporations, for interest (usury), we are not. The money is put into circulation, facilitating trade. The usurer charges a fee, in money, for the use of that money, and pays a portion to the investor.
However, if the money token system is finite (as is precious metal coin), aggregate usury is impossible to pay. The sum of principle and interest owed exceeds the whole set of available money tokens. A proportion of debtors will default, simply because the money does not exist. And they will lose their valuable property pledged as collateral on the debt. That is why usury is proscribed as an abomination, and denounced by almost all religions.
When we're told that it's "wise to invest", mathematics says we are unwise.
For example, if "everybody" invested 10% of their money, within one time unit of usury, the resulting debt would be impossible to discharge.
Let S (whole sum of money), and 0.1 S (10% invested, at usury), for 10% simple interest per time unit, computes to:
Interest: 1.1 x (0.1 S) = 0.11 S
BUT
Add the usury to the remaining money supply and an error exists.
0.9 S + 0.11 S = 1.01 S
To pay the usury, the money supply (S) would have to grow 1%. If the supply is static or cannot grow at the necessary rate, investors will be unpaid, debtors will default.
This problem is compounded when the money token is borrowed into existence at usury. Each unit created imposes an obligation for more money, which, in turn, can only be created by greater debt. Ergo, debt-credit money tokens are catastrophic tools that destroy productive societies for the benefit of parasites and predators.
[* special note : in America's case, the bimetallic standard was another disaster in the making. A simple solution would be to make the unit dollar a silver coin, and designate a gold coin as an eagle, without stipulating any proportionality, by law. That way, the market value of the silver to gold would not create havoc. Contracts payable in dollars might be negotiated with eagles, but that would be a private agreement, not imposed by statutory law.]
[8] There are many people who believe that money must have an intrinsic value, such as precious metal (gold, silver, platinum) or it violates religious law. However, I sincerely doubt that God would impose a money token system that cannot function equitably. The marketplace of goods and services can always grow larger from
(a) rising population of laborers,
(b) tools that multiply the labor, and
(c) automation that produces goods and services without additional input of labor. If the money token system is finite, composed of scarce precious metal coin, it will impose chaos. The harder you work or produce, the less money you earn. If you are in debt, the harder you work, or produce, the less you earn, and thus cannot pay your creditor. Scarce money is a recipe for economic disaster. In fact, scarcity of money drives demand for credit, at usury, offered by bankers.
Therefore, a sound money system (honest accounting) cannot be composed of any "thing" that can be bought or sold in the marketplace, if equitable trade is to exist. It would be as absurd as charging a fee to make each tick mark on a tablet, used to keep score.
[9] For a "free market" to truly exist, the medium of exchange has to be free to grow / shrink in proportion to it. If any disproportionality exists, either the seller or the buyer will be cheated. Those who can manipulate the illusion of abstract money can enrich themselves at the expense of others. Mankind has suffered from the predation of usurers for millennia. And we still willingly cooperate with those who prey upon us. Worse, we are indoctrinated to copy them, and debase ourselves, and "run with the pack". And it's no surprise when folks are "thrown to the wolves!"
One way that the supply of money tokens can adjust is when producers / laborers of new goods and services can issue private promissory notes (ex: coupons) denominated in that which they can do, have or produce. A farmer can issue notes denominated in harvest, or animals, or products. Laborers can issue notes denominated in hours of labor or specific services. Enterprises can issue notes, denominated in that which they offer. A restaurant can issue notes, denominated in meals, or other services.
When the note is tendered to the maker, it is extinguished when the trade is completed. If an entrepreneur needs to purchase goods or services, but has no "money", he can emit promises (notes) to capitalize. He need not beg for debt-credit, at usury, from a bankster. He then discharges his promises, when his enterprise is up and running, without the burden of usury, nor the requirement to fight for a share of scarce money tokens.
[10] A money system should not be under the control of parasites (government, usurers), who produce no goods nor services. A government may offer its services for oversight and offering recourse and remedy, in the pursuit of justice (giving everyman his due).
A private promissory note money token system, by itself, would probably be limited in scope to a local community, where the people knew the credit worthiness of the note makers.
For a larger marketplace, a widely circulating note / money token, is necessary. A bank, acting as a note warehouse, may be one solution. A note could be tendered, discounted by the bank, and bank notes given in exchange. There would be no pressure to create new money tokens, because there would be no usury, nor compound interest. The bank can either tender the note for discharge (making profit from the discount) or sell it to another.
[11] Obviously, we've been taught to worship money, chase after it, be persuaded to act against our better natures, by it. That must change. And the first place change occurs is within each individual.
[12] We must all awaken from the nightmare where money was the goal of one's life work. True prosperity is the creation of usable goods and services, their exchange, and the time to enjoy those goods and services. Any other activity is counterproductive, including war, usury, theft, and parasitism.
I did not d@mn money, but money madness. The learned belief that money has value, can be saved as a storehouse of value, and that money should be invested, at usury is the problem, not money itself.
Sources on usury / money:
[] Engineering Economic Analysis - time value of money calculations
[] Endless debates with Academicians / Economists
[] Correspondence with several thinkers outside the box
[] Science Fiction visionaries who got close to the right idea (Robert A. Heinlein, for example)
[] A realization that I was lied to by the greatest propaganda machine on the planet, and
[] Research into ancient Greek philosophy, and early Christian philosophy, regarding usury.
Popular cultural references to the "hidden nature" of money madness:
[] Gilligan's Island. The millionaires, with all their money tokens, cannot buy a rescue nor anything that was not found, nor made by the castaways.
This illustrates that money has no power outside the marketplace of goods and services. Tis madness to chase after an abstraction and ignore reality.
[] MONOPOLY - Parker Bros. Real Estate Trading Game. When the "board economy" grows so large that it runs out of money, the rules are simple - MAKE MORE MONEY TOKENS.
A Money Primer for Non-Insane People
MONEY IS:
[1] A medium of exchange
[2] An accounting symbol
[3] Proportional to the marketplace
MONEY HAS:
[4] No intrinsic value outside of the marketplace
MONEY IS NOT:
[5] real
MONEY CANNOT:
[6] be saved
[7] be invested,at usury, in a finite money token system
[8] be owned, in the sense that it can be bought and sold
MONEY SHOULD NOT:
[9] be limited or under restriction, save that of the marketplace
[10] be under the control of parasites (government, usurers)
[11] be worshiped
[12] be a goal of one's life
[1,2,3] Whether you realize it or not, money is a medium of exchange that facilitates the creation and trade of usable (surplus) goods and services. It is a mechanism that simplifies trade of different items, services, and volumes. As an accounting symbol, for the value of all goods and services in the marketplace, it must be proportional to that marketplace. If it ceases to be proportional, then someone will suffer inequitable trade.
[4] Money, as an accounting system, has no function if there is nothing in the marketplace. Without a marketplace, money cannot facilitate trade. A sum of money without anything to buy has no value.
[5] An accounting system, by which one tracks sum of items, goods, and services, should not be something from within the marketplace. In fact, if one uses an item taken from the marketplace, a mathematical error will occur. In set theory, if M(money) is proportional to S (sum of all goods / services), making anything from S, will generate a paradox. For example, if G (gold) is deemed to be the preferred money token, and it is 1% of the whole Sum, we can set up the equation:
G = (.01 S)
BUT
We must now make G have a value proportional to the whole set (S), so that we can trade.
G (proportional to) S.
So 1/10 G can buy 1/10 S.
HOWEVER
Gold, which is 1% of Sum of all, can buy all. Yet G is a subset of S.
G = (.01S), so (0.01S) = S.
One percent of the gold, as "money",can buy all the gold (which represents 1% of S).
See the problem now?
"Hard money" requires insanity to function. Anything of intrinsic value from within the marketplace cannot be used as money. Especially since the marketplace varies,disproportionate to the item deemed to be money.
[6] If money is a mechanism to account for value, facilitate trade, and is proportional to the marketplace, you cannot "save" it. Taking money out of circulation only prevents it from its function – moving goods and services equitably. In fact, the more money taken out of circulation by hoarding / saving, the less trade can occur, since there is not enough money tokens to facilitate trade. By making money scarce (disproportionate to the marketplace), the sellers cannot sell, or must accept LESS money. If they cannot sell, they suffer. And if have to accept less money, they cannot equitably trade (nor pay outstanding bills).
[7] Though we might think we're"saving" money when we deposit it with bankers (usurers), buy bonds (usury) or "invest" it in stock corporations, for interest (usury), we are not. The money is put into circulation, facilitating trade. The usurer charges a fee, in money, for the use of that money, and pays a portion to the investor.
However, if the money token system is finite (as is precious metal coin), aggregate usury is impossible to pay. The sum of principle and interest owed exceeds the whole set of available money tokens. A proportion of debtors will default, simply because the money does not exist. And they will lose their valuable property pledged as collateral on the debt. That is why usury is proscribed as an abomination, and denounced by almost all religions.
When we're told that it's "wise to invest", mathematics says we are unwise.
For example, if "everybody" invested 10% of their money, within one time unit of usury, the resulting debt would be impossible to discharge.
Let S (whole sum of money), and 0.1 S (10% invested, at usury), for 10% simple interest per time unit, computes to:
Interest: 1.1 x (0.1 S) = 0.11 S
BUT
Add the usury to the remaining money supply and an error exists.
0.9 S + 0.11 S = 1.01 S
To pay the usury, the money supply (S) would have to grow 1%. If the supply is static or cannot grow at the necessary rate, investors will be unpaid, debtors will default.
This problem is compounded when the money token is borrowed into existence at usury. Each unit created imposes an obligation for more money, which, in turn, can only be created by greater debt. Ergo, debt-credit money tokens are catastrophic tools that destroy productive societies for the benefit of parasites and predators.
[* special note : in America's case, the bimetallic standard was another disaster in the making. A simple solution would be to make the unit dollar a silver coin, and designate a gold coin as an eagle, without stipulating any proportionality, by law. That way, the market value of the silver to gold would not create havoc. Contracts payable in dollars might be negotiated with eagles, but that would be a private agreement, not imposed by statutory law.]
[8] There are many people who believe that money must have an intrinsic value, such as precious metal (gold, silver, platinum) or it violates religious law. However, I sincerely doubt that God would impose a money token system that cannot function equitably. The marketplace of goods and services can always grow larger from
(a) rising population of laborers,
(b) tools that multiply the labor, and
(c) automation that produces goods and services without additional input of labor. If the money token system is finite, composed of scarce precious metal coin, it will impose chaos. The harder you work or produce, the less money you earn. If you are in debt, the harder you work, or produce, the less you earn, and thus cannot pay your creditor. Scarce money is a recipe for economic disaster. In fact, scarcity of money drives demand for credit, at usury, offered by bankers.
Therefore, a sound money system (honest accounting) cannot be composed of any "thing" that can be bought or sold in the marketplace, if equitable trade is to exist. It would be as absurd as charging a fee to make each tick mark on a tablet, used to keep score.
[9] For a "free market" to truly exist, the medium of exchange has to be free to grow / shrink in proportion to it. If any disproportionality exists, either the seller or the buyer will be cheated. Those who can manipulate the illusion of abstract money can enrich themselves at the expense of others. Mankind has suffered from the predation of usurers for millennia. And we still willingly cooperate with those who prey upon us. Worse, we are indoctrinated to copy them, and debase ourselves, and "run with the pack". And it's no surprise when folks are "thrown to the wolves!"
One way that the supply of money tokens can adjust is when producers / laborers of new goods and services can issue private promissory notes (ex: coupons) denominated in that which they can do, have or produce. A farmer can issue notes denominated in harvest, or animals, or products. Laborers can issue notes denominated in hours of labor or specific services. Enterprises can issue notes, denominated in that which they offer. A restaurant can issue notes, denominated in meals, or other services.
When the note is tendered to the maker, it is extinguished when the trade is completed. If an entrepreneur needs to purchase goods or services, but has no "money", he can emit promises (notes) to capitalize. He need not beg for debt-credit, at usury, from a bankster. He then discharges his promises, when his enterprise is up and running, without the burden of usury, nor the requirement to fight for a share of scarce money tokens.
[10] A money system should not be under the control of parasites (government, usurers), who produce no goods nor services. A government may offer its services for oversight and offering recourse and remedy, in the pursuit of justice (giving everyman his due).
A private promissory note money token system, by itself, would probably be limited in scope to a local community, where the people knew the credit worthiness of the note makers.
For a larger marketplace, a widely circulating note / money token, is necessary. A bank, acting as a note warehouse, may be one solution. A note could be tendered, discounted by the bank, and bank notes given in exchange. There would be no pressure to create new money tokens, because there would be no usury, nor compound interest. The bank can either tender the note for discharge (making profit from the discount) or sell it to another.
[11] Obviously, we've been taught to worship money, chase after it, be persuaded to act against our better natures, by it. That must change. And the first place change occurs is within each individual.
[12] We must all awaken from the nightmare where money was the goal of one's life work. True prosperity is the creation of usable goods and services, their exchange, and the time to enjoy those goods and services. Any other activity is counterproductive, including war, usury, theft, and parasitism.
Another way to put it is in the words of Sitting Bull:
I don't believe that people can ever really "own" the land. It's a descendent of the belief that one can own boththe land and the people who work it, with the laborers tiedirrevocably by birth to the land.
Last edited by fatchance2005; 01-27-2009 at 02:06 PM..
I don't believe that people can ever really "own" the land. It's a descendent of the belief that one can own boththe land and the people who work it, with the laborers tiedirrevocably by birth to the land.
I disagree. Both premises are wrong.
Land ownership by individuals is a human concept rooted in survival and morality.
If you cannot own the land, you cannot claim the right to the fruits of that land.
Whoever comes along and can displace you, has a superior right to the land and its fruits.
Without ownership, you cannot exclude incompatible activities.
Without ownership, you are at the mercy of another.
Collective ownership of all land is a fraud and a nullity. To accept that your right to life, and the fruits of your labor are dependent upon the majority opinion of the whole population is vile and disgusting. Whoever controls the collective controls all - and that is a recipe for tyranny and slavery.
Another essay on the point:
The nature and importance of private ownership of land
Private ownership of the land is sometimes considered as absurd as a flea owning the dog it rides upon. But a flea can't comprehend, nor is it self aware, nor can it kill all the other fleas, as well as the dog it rides upon. Of course, when the flea kills the dog it needs to survive, it's committing suicide. We're not going to deal with that. We want life - abundant life.
From the land, all things men need are found. Even the ocean rests upon land. The land is the primary tool that men use to support their right to life. The private ownership of this tool is critical to natural liberty. And natural liberty is only exercised upon unclaimed lands, or upon one's own property. Everywhere else is either a trespass, or an exercise in liberty upon the public ways.
Some criticize that the first "owner" of land "steals" it from all others. That's one of the twisted tales of the socialist thief. Unclaimed lands are the property of "everyone" in the collective, says the wet eyed socialist. All the world's starving masses, and suffering peoples are the victims of the evil land owners who exclude them from free access. But why didn't the socialists go out and claim some worthless land, and improve that land's productivity, and so produce a surplus with which to help the needy?
It is an axiom of agriculture, that increased productivity from improved food production excludes competing activities. You can't herd upon cultivated lands. And you can't harvest that which has been trampled by others. If the agriculturalist wants to keep the benefit of increased food production from those who would take it from him, he needs to exclude others and seek protection from attack.
Enter government.
In the past, government was organized force to protect the interests of the land holder, embodied in the upper class, the ruling warlord, general, emperor or monarchy. Only after time, did the parties without land gain any measure of protection of their rights.
But in all governments, protecting the property right of the land owner is the paramount duty.
In regard to the American Revolution, the land holders were the major force, and afterward, were the enfranchised parties who voted, ran for office, and were the main beneficiaries of the protections of liberty.
The reason why private ownership of land becomes crucial to freedom, is that any other condition of land ownership reduces the freedom of the people.
Ownership of land, in common, or collectively, is deceptive. The question of dominion of that land is the reason why common ownership is a fraud. Dominion is control and freedom of use. A group can control land, but no group can collectively exercise freedom.
Freedom to act, individually, is impossible to administer collectively. It would require the collective to have the prescience and prophetic ability beyond reason. Therefore, collective ownership must always be a restriction of access, use, and custody of the land.
When a collective makes rules and regulations for the use of common land, freedom ends. When a collective grants custody of land to the holder, the holder is not free to use that land in whatever manner he chooses - no free enterprise. Invention, innovation, and creativity will always be penalized by the collective, obedience is mandated by law.
What is not mandatory is forbidden. That's the watchword of collective ownership. And the power of the collective is wielded by those who gain control of the collective. And though such power may appear benign, the net result is tyranny. The imposition of limited choice is the elimination of free choice.
When the collective "owns" the tools of production, i.e., land, the workers are reduced to sharecroppers on their new master's land. The management shares the booty with the other collectivists. That's just another form of slavery where producer is deprived of the rights of ownership. The socialist / communist parasites want the collective host to be grateful that it's allowed to live another day, and feed the parasites. Sounds like the flea and dog, again. This time we're the dog being sucked dry by hordes of consuming fleas.
The absolute ownership of one's life, labor and fruits of that labor depend upon the private ownership of land. Natural liberty, which is true freedom, relies upon the unalienable right to absolutely own land. When that right is eradicated, there is no absolute right to life. For without that which the land provides: free and unrestricted access to air, water, shelter, food, and a place to pursue happiness, life is a privilege at the whim of the collective.
When the collective can control one's right to life, one is reduced to a slave.
If one chooses to be a slave, that's reasonable. But when that status of slavery is imposed, there are only two choices - comply or die. At that point, the words of Patrick Henry are appropriate. "Give me liberty or give me death!"
The slavers hate that.
A dead slave is useless - he stinks up the place. And the only thing they can do to a free man is kill him.
Is it a surprise that the Collective Revolutionaries need a bloodbath to enforce their domination of the people?
Eternal vigilance is the price for liberty. It's important to know that liberty flows from private ownership of land. For only upon one's own land, can one find lasting happiness.
The opponents of private property will raise arguments, ad infinitum, but all you need to ask these verbal combatants is: "If you are right, and no one can own private property, who will own you and yours?"
If they deny that they own themselves, their labor and the fruits of their labor, politely ask them to surrender them to you - for no law protects property not owned by the holder. If they object, then they're hypocrites, seeking to keep what is theirs, while plotting to take that which is yours.
The collectivists who don't want to surrender their property, while taking yours, are nothing less than pirates ashore.
Such pirates deserve our contempt and our eternal opposition.
I disagree. Both premises are wrong.
Land ownership by individuals is a human concept rooted in survival and morality.
If you cannot own the land, you cannot claim the right to the fruits of that land.
Whoever comes along and can displace you, has a superior right to the land and its fruits.
Without ownership, you cannot exclude incompatible activities.
Without ownership, you are at the mercy of another.
Collective ownership of all land is a fraud and a nullity. To accept that your right to life, and the fruits of your labor are dependent upon the majority opinion of the whole population is vile and disgusting. Whoever controls the collective controls all - and that is a recipe for tyranny and slavery.
Another essay on the point:
The nature and importance of private ownership of land
Private ownership of the land is sometimes considered as absurd as a flea owning the dog it rides upon. But a flea can't comprehend, nor is it self aware, nor can it kill all the other fleas, as well as the dog it rides upon. Of course, when the flea kills the dog it needs to survive, it's committing suicide. We're not going to deal with that. We want life - abundant life.
From the land, all things men need are found. Even the ocean rests upon land. The land is the primary tool that men use to support their right to life. The private ownership of this tool is critical to natural liberty. And natural liberty is only exercised upon unclaimed lands, or upon one's own property. Everywhere else is either a trespass, or an exercise in liberty upon the public ways.
Some criticize that the first "owner" of land "steals" it from all others. That's one of the twisted tales of the socialist thief. Unclaimed lands are the property of "everyone" in the collective, says the wet eyed socialist. All the world's starving masses, and suffering peoples are the victims of the evil land owners who exclude them from free access. But why didn't the socialists go out and claim some worthless land, and improve that land's productivity, and so produce a surplus with which to help the needy?
It is an axiom of agriculture, that increased productivity from improved food production excludes competing activities. You can't herd upon cultivated lands. And you can't harvest that which has been trampled by others. If the agriculturalist wants to keep the benefit of increased food production from those who would take it from him, he needs to exclude others and seek protection from attack.
Enter government.
In the past, government was organized force to protect the interests of the land holder, embodied in the upper class, the ruling warlord, general, emperor or monarchy. Only after time, did the parties without land gain any measure of protection of their rights.
But in all governments, protecting the property right of the land owner is the paramount duty.
In regard to the American Revolution, the land holders were the major force, and afterward, were the enfranchised parties who voted, ran for office, and were the main beneficiaries of the protections of liberty.
The reason why private ownership of land becomes crucial to freedom, is that any other condition of land ownership reduces the freedom of the people.
Ownership of land, in common, or collectively, is deceptive. The question of dominion of that land is the reason why common ownership is a fraud. Dominion is control and freedom of use. A group can control land, but no group can collectively exercise freedom.
Freedom to act, individually, is impossible to administer collectively. It would require the collective to have the prescience and prophetic ability beyond reason. Therefore, collective ownership must always be a restriction of access, use, and custody of the land.
When a collective makes rules and regulations for the use of common land, freedom ends. When a collective grants custody of land to the holder, the holder is not free to use that land in whatever manner he chooses - no free enterprise. Invention, innovation, and creativity will always be penalized by the collective, obedience is mandated by law.
What is not mandatory is forbidden. That's the watchword of collective ownership. And the power of the collective is wielded by those who gain control of the collective. And though such power may appear benign, the net result is tyranny. The imposition of limited choice is the elimination of free choice.
When the collective "owns" the tools of production, i.e., land, the workers are reduced to sharecroppers on their new master's land. The management shares the booty with the other collectivists. That's just another form of slavery where producer is deprived of the rights of ownership. The socialist / communist parasites want the collective host to be grateful that it's allowed to live another day, and feed the parasites. Sounds like the flea and dog, again. This time we're the dog being sucked dry by hordes of consuming fleas.
The absolute ownership of one's life, labor and fruits of that labor depend upon the private ownership of land. Natural liberty, which is true freedom, relies upon the unalienable right to absolutely own land. When that right is eradicated, there is no absolute right to life. For without that which the land provides: free and unrestricted access to air, water, shelter, food, and a place to pursue happiness, life is a privilege at the whim of the collective.
When the collective can control one's right to life, one is reduced to a slave.
If one chooses to be a slave, that's reasonable. But when that status of slavery is imposed, there are only two choices - comply or die. At that point, the words of Patrick Henry are appropriate. "Give me liberty or give me death!"
The slavers hate that.
A dead slave is useless - he stinks up the place. And the only thing they can do to a free man is kill him.
Is it a surprise that the Collective Revolutionaries need a bloodbath to enforce their domination of the people?
Eternal vigilance is the price for liberty. It's important to know that liberty flows from private ownership of land. For only upon one's own land, can one find lasting happiness.
The opponents of private property will raise arguments, ad infinitum, but all you need to ask these verbal combatants is: "If you are right, and no one can own private property, who will own you and yours?"
If they deny that they own themselves, their labor and the fruits of their labor, politely ask them to surrender them to you - for no law protects property not owned by the holder. If they object, then they're hypocrites, seeking to keep what is theirs, while plotting to take that which is yours.
The collectivists who don't want to surrender their property, while taking yours, are nothing less than pirates ashore.
Such pirates deserve our contempt and our eternal opposition.
This would have gone over well in the Middle Ages. What's the deal with "Collectivism"? Do you see that as the only alternative to feudalism? Do you dismiss mercantilism entirely? You don't mention the Industrial Revolution, does that mean you don't see it as a factor in land reform? I'm glad you're opposed to dead slaves. I don't like them either. I don't want to be insulting, but this sounds an awful lot like Ayn Rand. I mean this is all well and good, from the viewpoint of a White Russian. I don't see what it has to do with the 21st Century, unless you feel that this "might makes right" philosophy is complimented by thermonuclear weapons.
Jet,
I want to buy a house. Someone I know has a lot of money. He is willing to loan me the money to buy the house. But this guy I know, he is worried that for some reason I won't be able to pay him back. So, in exchange for the loan, he wants to be paid back a little extra--to cover his risk of me not paying him.
Jet,
I want to buy a house. Someone I know has a lot of money. He is willing to loan me the money to buy the house. But this guy I know, he is worried that for some reason I won't be able to pay him back. So, in exchange for the loan, he wants to be paid back a little extra--to cover his risk of me not paying him.
Is that usury?
A. Invest / loan money - then - receive principle AND interest.
That is usury.
B. Invest / loan money - then - receive principle AND something of value that is not money.
That is not usury.
Usury is impossible to pay in a finite money token system.
An example of impossible - the U.S.A. (and why we're about to experience a catastrophic economic adjustment)
M1 consists of
(1) currency outside the U.S. Treasury, Federal Reserve Banks, and the vaults of depository institutions;
(2) traveler's checks of nonbank issuers;
(3) demand deposits at commercial banks (excluding those amounts held by depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign banks and official institutions) less cash items in the process of collection and Federal Reserve float; and
(4) other checkable deposits (OCDs), consisting of negotiable order of withdrawal (NOW) and automatic transfer service (ATS) accounts at depository institutions, credit union share draft accounts, and demand deposits at thrift institutions. Seasonally adjusted M1 is constructed by summing currency, traveler's checks, demand deposits, and OCDs, each seasonally adjusted separately.
**** note : M1 includes accounting entries as part of the 'sum' of money. A demand deposit is NOT sitting in a bank vault, but immediately lent out, at usury - except when the bank needs it to satisfy a customer demanding "dollar bills".
The following should make you weep in frustration.
Percapita share = 829 billion dollars (current monies) / 300 million Americans
Roughly $2700 money tokens per person.
THAT is all we have circulating to account for a GDP of 13 trillions.
... A national debt of 10+ trillions
... Private debt est. at 27+ T
... outstanding social security obligations of 50+ T
Ahem....
What if the private debt was called 'due on demand'?
There is not enough money tokens to pay all the debt.
There is not enough money tokens to pay all the creditors.
There is not enough money tokens to pay all account holders.
If you have an account balance larger than $2700, your chances of getting full cash value is nil.
Of course, having a pile of Federal Reserve notes may make you "liquid", but FRNs have no par value, and are worthless.
Ex: 2007 fiscal year Federal Budget was 2.7 Trillion.
But there's only less than 1 trillion in circulation.
WHERE is the (new) money coming from ?
WHO has the "cash" to lend to the government?
Oh, right, you can't question the public debt because of the 14th amendment. Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, ..., shall not be questioned.
This would have gone over well in the Middle Ages. What's the deal with "Collectivism"? Do you see that as the only alternative to feudalism? Do you dismiss mercantilism entirely? You don't mention the Industrial Revolution, does that mean you don't see it as a factor in land reform? I'm glad you're opposed to dead slaves. I don't like them either. I don't want to be insulting, but this sounds an awful lot like Ayn Rand. I mean this is all well and good, from the viewpoint of a White Russian. I don't see what it has to do with the 21st Century, unless you feel that this "might makes right" philosophy is complimented by thermonuclear weapons.
Let me preface my reply with several legal definitions:
"PRIVATE PROPERTY - As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels."
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217
"OWNERSHIP - ... Ownership of property is either absolute or qualified. The ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the absolute dominion over it... The ownership is qualified when it is shared with one or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is deferred or limited, or when the use is restricted. "
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 1106
In American law, the people are sovereign. Sovereignty and property are inseparable. A king without a domain is merely a traveling prince. Ergo, Americans had the legally recognized right to absolutely own land (aka private property). Isn't that fantastic !
Since 1935, and the institution of "voluntary" national socialism (via Social Security Act), Americans have lost their birthright of sovereignty, freedom and independence that their ancestors fought and died for. Instead of absolute ownership of private property, they only have qualified ownership of estate (real and personal property). Isn't that terrible ... !
References in support:
"Government is not Sovereignty. Government is the machinery or
expedient for expressing the will of the sovereign power."
City of Bisbee v. Cochise County, 78 P. 2d 982, 986, 52 Ariz. 1
"People are supreme, not the state."
Waring v. the Mayor of Savannah, 60 GA at 93.
"The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative."
Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY)
"At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they are truly the sovereigns of the country."
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, 463
REPUBLICAN (form of) GOVERNMENT. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the
people,... directly,.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary
SOVEREIGNTY - ...By "Sovereignty", in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern.
Black's Law Dictionary Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1396.
"... the term 'citizen,' in the United States, is analogous to the term "subject" in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government. ... he who before was a "subject of the King" is now a citizen of the State."
State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144 (1838)
Many Americans are unaware that they "changed their government", by leaving the republican form for the socialist 'democratic' form.
SOCIALISM - A political and economic theory advocating collective ownership of the means of production and control of distribution. It is based upon the belief that all, while contributing to the good of the community, are equally entitled to the care and protection which the community can provide.
--- Webster's dictionary
What's wrong with socialism?
It's collective ownership.
What's wrong with collective ownership?
It's qualified ownership.
"OWNERSHIP - ... Ownership of property is either absolute or qualified. The ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the absolute dominion over it... The ownership is qualified when it is shared with one or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is deferred or limited, or when the use is restricted. " - - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 1106
What's wrong with qualified ownership?
It abolishes absolute ownership by individuals - aka private property.
"PRIVATE PROPERTY - As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels." - - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217
From the Communist manifesto:
"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
Amendment V, US Constitution 1789
... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
COMMUNISM - the ownership of property, or means of production, distribution and supply, by the whole of a classless society, with
wealth shared on the principle of 'to each according to his need', each yielding fully 'according to his ability'. Webster's Dictionary.
Both Socialism and Communism espouse collective ownership (qualified ownership), and seek to abolish private ownership.
And since the U.S. Constitution explicitly protects private property, socialism and communism are anathema to American law.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
