Prosperity without rancor, recovery without peonage (Congress, wages, illegal, independence)

[jetgraphics]

Prosperity without rancor, recovery without peonage

Though it is pessimistic to assert that the U.S.A. is set to collapse, I can see no real alternative. The public debt is impossible to pay. Congress can't even pay the interest due. The taxpayers cannot suffer more burdens. The world economy is collapsing from usury and debt-credit and the money drought. The addiction to fossil fuels is holding us hostage. Trade is collapsing, which feeds back economic decline into each local economy. Warehouses are filled with unsold stock. As stocks are depleted, scarcity may exist until production is resumed - if ever.

A total collapse may be a blessing if the nation can throw off the mistakes and reconstitute under a more workable compact. Eradication of the public debt is crucial as is abandonment of national socialism.

What should the survivors be mindful of?

All law is the protection of property rights, all else is policy, and policy requires consent.

Or as stated in the Declaration of Independence, government has two jobs:
(a) secure rights, and
(b) govern those who consent.

It is not wise to tax producers for the benefit of consumers. Nor can you expect prosperity by chaining labor and production with complex rules and regulations. (Of course, those complex regulations were originally for the limited liability corporations, who had no one to hold culpable, in the event of civil or criminal acts.)

Government makes nothing but more government. Government gives nothing but that which was first taken from someone else. Restrict government authority and power to job #1 and #2 - secure rights and govern those who consent.

Reforms:

1. No usury should be protected by law.
2. Limited liability cannot be legalized.
3. Money creation is the right of those who are the producers.

Moral transactions involve two or more parties who exchange valuable goods or services, and are satisfied. Immoral transactions involve the loss by one or more parties for the benefit of the winner. Ergo, gambling is not 'entertainment' but merely a scheme to rob losers for the benefit of winners.

Money is a medium of exchange, an accounting symbol, and must be proportional to the marketplace filled with surplus usable goods and services. Anything taken from the marketplace to be used as a money token will invariably cause a mathematical paradox. (i.e. Gold and silver money is insufficient to meet needs of a growing world economy) Any money token that is independent of the marketplace will trigger inequity in trade.

Usury, the fee, in money, for the use (loan) of money, is mathematically impossible to pay in a finite money token system. It is also proscribed by all religions, and even ancient philosophers, like Aristotle, condemned usury as a scheme to rob. Despite this fact, millions and billions of people embrace this viper to their bosom - and are surprised when bitten!

In support of one's right to life, the primary tool is land. Upon land one finds his food, water, shelter, and all other necessities and luxuries. Even the sea rests upon land. Absolute ownership of land, and the right of the owner to exclude others, is the basis for civilization. Without land ownership, the farmer cannot reap his harvest, and the herdsman cannot claim his animals. The fruits of his labor would be taken by the strongest predatory person in his area.

Cooperation in defense of private property rights is the mechanism that converts weak individuals into awesome powerful nations. But one must be wary of attempts to use that powerful force in the pursuit of piracy, preying upon others.

Know the two forms of law:

1. The law of love is harmless activity in support of one's right to life; and
2. The law of the jungle is harmful activity in support of one's right to life.

Under the law of love, producers are good, predators are bad.
Under the law of the jungle, predators are good, prey are good to eat, and prey who fight back are bad.

Though it is important for justice to be tempered with mercy, tolerance of predators is unmerciful to their next victim.

Before petroleum's rise, there were boats and railroads.
After petroleum's demise, there will be boats and electric railroads.

The survivors will need to rebuild navigable waterways and rail networks to efficiently move goods and services at the lowest consumption of fuel and resources. The majority of American housing is woefully inadequate, inefficient, and wasteful of resources. Rebuilding homes to be energy efficient machines for good living is unavoidable.

Prosperity is not made by accumulating money tokens. Prosperity is the creation, trade, and transportation of useful goods and services, and the time to enjoy them. That is the best way for the most people to enjoy all the good things of life.

Voluntary charity is a blessing.
Compulsory charity is a curse.

The pursuit of happiness is no guarantee of finding happiness. But society needs to redefine admirable success from the spoiled, rich, bored and helpless consuming parasites to those who have prodigious talent, intelligence, creativity and generate surplus output.

Recapping:

[] Never burden productive people for the benefit of parasites
[] Never surrender one's birthright of sovereignty, freedom, and independence without full knowledge, and awareness of the consequences.

Since our situation is not unlike a host infested with parasites, the only question is : if we're the host, do we let the parasites "kill" us, or do we "worm" them so that we may recover?

[MovingForward]

Who are the "parasites"? Oh, you mean the wealthy, right? Those who have made millions and billions, while the average American's real wages have gone down? Those "parasites"?

I especially love this little number:

"It is not wise to tax producers for the benefit of consumers. Nor can you expect prosperity by chaining labor and production with complex rules and regulations. (Of course, those complex regulations were originally for the limited liability corporations, who had no one to hold culpable, in the event of civil or criminal acts.)"

It is TOTALLY "wise" to "tax producers." Who are, you might remember, "consumers" themselves.

And how, exactly, is labor being "chained"?

Sorry,pal. I know you--and others like you--are foaming at the mouth, just DYING for our nation to fail. Gotta' say, I think you're SOL.

[ovcatto]

You know that's a whole lot of words that in the end don't mean a single cogent thing.

"Eradication of the public debt is crucial as is abandonment of national socialism."

What the hell is that suppose to mean. Public debt is similar to fascism?

Nor can you expect prosperity by chaining labor and production with complex rules and regulations. (Of course, those complex regulations were originally for the limited liability corporations, who had no one to hold culpable, in the event of civil or criminal acts.)

What like OSHA? The NLRA? What specific "complex rules and regulations" are you referring to? The parenthetical is just utter nonsense.

"Anything taken from the marketplace to be used as a money token will invariably cause a mathematical paradox."

Flowery phrasing and polysyllabic words is no substitute for a coherent argument. Mathematical paradox? This reminds me of the sophist rantings of prison inmates who just throw words into a sentence in the hopes that their mere appearance will give some weight to an ungrounded argument.

I'd go on, but who wants to waste that much time?

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by MovingForward

[1] Who are the "parasites"? Oh, you mean the wealthy, right? Those who have made millions and billions, while the average American's real wages have gone down? Those "parasites"?

I especially love this little number:

"It is not wise to tax producers for the benefit of consumers. Nor can you expect prosperity by chaining labor and production with complex rules and regulations. (Of course, those complex regulations were originally for the limited liability corporations, who had no one to hold culpable, in the event of civil or criminal acts.)"

[2] It is TOTALLY "wise" to "tax producers." Who are, you might remember, "consumers" themselves.

[3] And how, exactly, is labor being "chained"?

[1] A parasite is someone who collects a paycheck but does nothing useful. As in bureaucrat. Or as in usurer. Or a predator who preys on productive people. The list is quite long. A wealthy person is not necessarily a parasite. If his wealth was the remuneration for his productive labor that generated useful goods and services, he's not a parasite.

[2] No, it is not wise to tax producers and subsidize consumers. Consider that constitutional excise taxes are paid by consumers, not producers. Before the income tax (1913) and socialist taxes (1935), American producers and laborers were thriving. Since national socialism, American producers are under attack, expatriating, and outsourcing. American laborers are being driven deeper into peonage. No, you can't tax producers for the benefit of consumers and expect to prosper.

[3] Chains as in socialist chains. To illustrate the socialist burden, consider why so many American employers hire illegals. It's not just for 'cheap' labor. Many pay MORE than what they pay to legal workers. But since they avoid the socialist overhead, their costs are lower.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

"Eradication of the public debt is crucial as is abandonment of national socialism."

[1] What the hell is that suppose to mean. Public debt is similar to fascism?

Nor can you expect prosperity by chaining labor and production with complex rules and regulations. (Of course, those complex regulations were originally for the limited liability corporations, who had no one to hold culpable, in the event of civil or criminal acts.)

[2] What like OSHA? The NLRA? What specific "complex rules and regulations" are you referring to? The parenthetical is just utter nonsense.

"Anything taken from the marketplace to be used as a money token will invariably cause a mathematical paradox."

[3] Flowery phrasing and polysyllabic words is no substitute for a coherent argument. Mathematical paradox?

[1] The public debt is unquestionable, pursuant to the 14th amendment. Since it is based on usury, which is mathematically impossible to pay, it is necessary to eradicate it. National socialism (via Social Security Act of 1935) is also anathema to American law.

[2] Yes - all the regulatory bureaucracies need to be eradicated / repealed / dismantled. All you really need is to eradicate limited liability from corporations, and the plain old law is sufficient to rein in abuses.

[3] The mathematical paradox is simple set theory. You can not take a subset of a set, and define it as equivalent to the whole set.

In other words, making "GOLD", a subset of the marketplace (all goods and services for sale), into a money token that can buy all that is in the marketplace, is mathematically impossible.

For example, let Gold be 1/100 of the marketplace.
So GOLD money (1/100) can buy all of the remaining items in the market (99/100).
However, 1/100 of the Gold money should be able to buy ALL the gold in the market place (which is 1/100 of the market).

0.01 Gold is not equal to all Gold.

[MovingForward]

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

[1] A parasite is someone who collects a paycheck but does nothing useful. As in bureaucrat. Or as in usurer. Or a predator who preys on productive people. The list is quite long. A wealthy person is not necessarily a parasite. If his wealth was the remuneration for his productive labor that generated useful goods and services, he's not a parasite.

[2] No, it is not wise to tax producers and subsidize consumers. Consider that constitutional excise taxes are paid by consumers, not producers. Before the income tax (1913) and socialist taxes (1935), American producers and laborers were thriving. Since national socialism, American producers are under attack, expatriating, and outsourcing. American laborers are being driven deeper into peonage. No, you can't tax producers for the benefit of consumers and expect to prosper.

[3] Chains as in socialist chains. To illustrate the socialist burden, consider why so many American employers hire illegals. It's not just for 'cheap' labor. Many pay MORE than what they pay to legal workers. But since they avoid the socialist overhead, their costs are lower.

Wrong and self-serving. On almost all counts.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by MovingForward

Wrong and self-serving. On almost all counts.

No evidence presented to support your rebuttal. Try again.