Bitcoin Forum

That was John. F. Kennedy. Even if Ron Paul or a president with integrity is elected, there is no hope. Any legislation or reform that would empower the individual against the corporate interest will not be made and only be stopped or altered to benefit the higher powers. I highly suggest if you want achieve any form of liberty not to put your faith in the system but rather getting some land and off-grid utilities running. Things are about to be bad and a lot of fear is going to be instilled in the people. Fear only leads to further tyranny.

Prepare. Protesting is useless.

Wow.  Is life in America really that bad?  Surely you are over-dramatising?

When I have to wait 6 months to get a resale certificate in the mail, you know things are bad. When officers have to find excessive and nuanced ways to fine citizens to keep the state running, you know things are bad. When you are admonished for using your property as you please, over-dramatization is not only justified but necessary.

Our government is fudging its unemployment numbers from 16% to 9%. It's creating trillions in bad money to fund projects that fail in a year. A massive decline is inevitable if we continue destroying savings and redistributing all the wealth (what's left of it) to crony corporations.

Things have been bad for forever but we delay it and just create more bad money. Now we are about to hit the big bust.

Kenedy did not tried to end the Fed (yes I know about his silver dollars).

But you are rigth that if elected Ron Paul has a lot of chances of being assessinated. I think he knows.

You're 17. Why on earth do you need a resale certificate?

Good thing for him that he has no hope of being elected then!  ;)

No. And Yes.

What do you think?  This is Atlas we're talking about, the know-it-all, but zero life experience 17 year old posting from his mom's basement about what leeches poor people are.

America definitely has it's bad points and is becoming less free by the minute, but it's not bad enough that I'm seeking out another country to move to.

What kennedy did was a huge threat to the federal reserve system.  Right after he was killed his money was taken right out of circulation.

People keeps repeating that, he keeps going up in the polls. ;)

Do you seriously believe that if you give mega-corporations free reign to do whatever the fuck they want they will somehow magically behave when even now, with the most negligable and tiny of regulations they routinely fuck large numbers of people over on a daily basis?

The libertarian position is that it doesn't matter what is done to large numbers of people by corporations.  All that counts is that people and companies are free.  The test is food safety.  Even if regulation is proved to save lives, a libertarian will say that its better a few people die than that freedom is compromised.

Mega-corporations are empowered by the government. They would be nothing without it. When they are given amnesty and exceptions to law, they become the powerful coercive beasts they are today.

There would be no corporations to reign in a free market. They actually hate markets without regulations because the rules only benefit them. The corporate tax code is the way it is for a reason.

Corporations are coercive on their own, and they don't need a government for help. They have this thing called 'capital' that they can wave around and get anyone to do you bidding.

Example: In a free market, some large business wants you dead. They hire an assassin, who kills you. Your parents pay a local investigative firm to find out who did it, but the business comes along and throws them some more money to have 'inconclusive' results.


The System Works!

There is absolutely nothing that prevents that from happening now. They can just throw money at government services and do the same thing.

The chance of this happening is actually reduced in a free market due to the fact that there would be competing agencies that would have incentive to find the conspiracy and hold the perpetrator accountable. In our current world there is only one force and it only holds itself to no one but itself and its bribers.

In addition, in a freer more distributed world, the populace would actually hold savings and capital that would overshadow many large companies. A large amount of capital is nothing in a world full of savings.

It's getting pretty bad.  Some places are worse than others.  In Illinois, a man is facing 75 years in jail for video and audio recording police officers.  It's called "eavesdropping".  I'm sure you will agree that that is ridiculous.  Where I live "eavesdropping" isn't illegal and this sort of charge would not be tolerated, but the trend is worsening. 

We're nowhere near as bad as France yet, and not even close to India, so i think it's a bit early to panic.

But is that some prosecutor trying to scare people, knowing full well the Court will slap him down, or is there a serious chance that the man will do jail time?


Trade surplus, short working week and higher lifespan than US; you may not like the politics but most countries would leap at a chance to be doing as well as France.  

But I hope you do know that you're still a democracy, right? I don't see tanks on the street and military shooting people. There is nothing stopping you and your fellow citizens going out and voting, or going on the streets if voting is not effective/fast enough, and changing the way your country is run.

If enough people in Illinois would simply stop paying taxes and non-violently block police activity (and any other relevant structures) guess how much time it will pass until things start changing? 1 year? 1 month? Try it.

Being from a country (Romania) where things are generally worse, I see every day people complaining and doing nothing, not even figuring out that things don't happen to them "just because", but it's their own fault. Just do something.

From  business and employment sense, not many would. A lot of countries and politicians are forgetting that we no longer live in a country-by-country world, but in a global world, and everyone has to compete against everyone else in the world, not against the other citizens in heir country. So any sort of protectionists laws that try to keep only your citizens employed, try to keep a wage level as some base amount, or try to prevent imports of goods from abroad, at this point only screw the people living in the country with those laws.
I do like their higher lifespan, my guess that's thanks to their universal healthcare and much better food, but I'm not sure how much longer the former will be able to last in Europe.

Healthcare won't go away.  France only spends 11.2% on healthcare.  The US spends 18% so its system is likely to fail first. Its the adoption of burgers that will kill the French :o

I strongly disagree with your view of the world (let alone your prejudiced view of France): competition is the root cause of all corruption and ultimately leads to war.

Competition must be replaced by compassion: it is way more effective in the long run and evrybody is a lot happier with it.

It takes a political stance to state it because politicians get elected on promises predicated on "competition".

Compassion is good. It may even be better than competition. I'll go out on a limb here though, and say they don't need to replace each other in particular. And if you're suggesting we force people to replace competition with compassion, you are neither competitive or compassionate, but violent and callous.

Suggestions are one thing, lawful enforcement is a whole other bag of worms, probably best left in the bag and consumed sparingly.

I will not be judgemental, not even conditionnally.
Lawful enforcement of a democratically adopted law (like social security and health care for everyone) is the norm in a democracy. And yes, regarding health care for instance, economic competition is a sure recipe for a social disaster that yields much worse results in the long run than simple compassion.
The dogma of the perfect markets with their invisible hand (competition) applied well for a long time (going back to Adam Smith and Ricardo) to an economy dominated by the production of physical goods.
It does not apply so well in an economy with a balanced mix of goods and services. And believe or not, I am a liberal (at this point you were probably going to call me a communist).
If compassion is too strong a word for a libertarian, he/she may try cooperation first..

Thing's aren't any worse in America, than any other industrialized country... We all have debt, we all shit, we all sleep. Anything else is over-dramatization at it's finest... Don't believe everything you read on the Internet... -_-

If all the countries paid off all their debts, few countries would actually collapse. The world is doing quite fine

Most countries would collapse since every note is owned by somebody else. Most currencies are backed by debt.

China and a few other sovereign countries may survive.

Things are the worst in America. We have the world reserve country and it's owned by private shareholders all across the world and it continues to be diluted.

No, no.  Everything is fine.  You will see.

The problem isn't when individuals or corporations are free to do whatever they want.

The problem is when the government gives them special privileges at the expense of others' rights.

And who controls what the govt does?

Even without corporate charters issued by the government, corporations would still exist. (That is, in the absence of government force to the contrary, investors would still voluntarily band together of their own accord in order to hire employees to manage their collective property, and to split the profits from the revenues derived.)

The only reason that corporations now control the government, is because you do not have fair representation; you do not have proper apportionment.

I will make this clear... (using extreme example)

Hypothetical situation 1:  There is 1 representative for every 1 thousand people.
Hypothetical situation 2:  There is 1 representative for every 1 trillion people.

As you can see, in situation (1), you have fair representation. (Democracy!)
But in situation (2), you do not have fair representation. (Dictator!!!)

(Notice that the only difference between "democracy" and "dictator" is the number of people being represented.)

In situation (1), a person cannot be elected to the House unless he actually lives in your neighborhood, operates a business nearby, attends your church, etc. No amount of TV commercials can change this. No outsider could ever win. Certainly no one would be in office for very long, unless he was available to meet with constituents, who would all actually meet with him and voice their concerns on a regular basis.

In situation (2), on the other hand, a person cannot be elected to the House unless he gets lots and lots of money from big corporations, and spends it on lots and lots of TV commercials. No "real person" could ever win. Certainly no one would be in office for very long, unless he was entirely bought-and-paid-for by large corporations, who would all actually meet with him and voice their concerns on a regular basis.

When the Constitution was written, the House had 1 representative for every 30,000 people.

Today, Congress is very different. There are 435 people ruling over FOUR HUNDRED MILLION. This is no different than 1 person reigning over 1 million. (In the old days they called that a "king.")

You see, "everybody has one vote" is a lie they sell you. What's actually important is how diluted that vote is.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consider also the SENATE. In the old days, each Senator was appointed by his respective state legislature. He had a strong incentive to represent the interests of that state legislature, for otherwise, they would remove him from office. This meant that the Senators were beholden to the States, just as the House was beholden to the People. (The Senators actually represented the States, in those days.) Therefore, a Senator actually had to deal with 50 or 100 actual state legislators and their concerns, or he was fired.

But today, things are very different. The Senator is elected by direct election of the people. For example in California, there are THIRTY MILLION PEOPLE but only 2 Senators. But those Senators do not represent those people, since it is physically impossible for anyone to represent thirty million people. Instead, those Senators represent the large corporations who pay for TV commercials that get them elected. As for the voters, the Senators really only care about a certain vague notion of whether the voters are "angry", and this they only care about once every 6 years. They certainly do not represent those voters, nor do they represent the interests of their State government (which has no say in their election.)

So you see, the States WERE represented in the Senate, but no longer. And the People WERE represented in the House, but no longer. Those times have passed / are passing.

This is not a problem of corporations, which are a simple fact of natural law. Rather, this is a problem of an uneducated populace being unwilling or unable to demand their right to fair representation. Once you fix that, then suddenly all problems of "corporations" or "campaign finance" or "district gerrymandering" are revealed as false issues, and disappear. Those issues are actually used as a red herring in order to distract the population and keep them occupied in the two-party system. Don't fall for it.

Also, see:   www.apportionment.us

Corporations can only become an illicit power center (as well as a bogeyman) in cases where your vote has been diluted away. The same is true of unions, and even government agencies. This is why you move through life with that vague feeling of pressure to either become part of the investor class and under SEC and FDIC regulation, or the corporate class regulated by your manager who is regulated by the FTC, or to join a union, regulated by the Department of Labor, or work for a government agency, or to end up in the prison system or living off of the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development. You certainly don't feel as if the system is pushing you towards "running your own ship", now do you?

All of the problems that conservatives normally associate with unions are not a result of the unions themselves (i.e. the workers' natural rights of association and collective bargaining.) Rather, they are problems caused by state and federal laws which favor unions at the expense of our rights.

Similarly, the problems that liberals associate with corporations are not a result of the corporations themselves (i.e. the investors' and employees' natural rights of association, property, voluntary exchange and the right to contract.) Rather, they are problems caused by state and federal laws which favor corporations at the expense of our rights.

It's always the same: Unfair advantages (granted via government force) to the corporations/unions/banks/whatever, bundled with increased government power to regulate those same corporations/banks/unions/etc--always at the expense of individuals and small businesses--with the ill-gotten gains being distributed disproportionately to those who are well-connected. Growing more and more towards fascism on the right, and socialism on the left.

The cause is also always the same: lack of fair representation stemming from ignorance about our rights under Magna Carta, under the Enlightenment, under Natural Law, under the Declaration of Independence, and the Judeo-Christian ethic. This same ignorance also destroys our right to a fair jury trial via juries who judge the law itself (and not merely the facts of the case.) For if jurors are ignorant of this right, it becomes of no effect.

sure, they certainly wouldn't, but the point made was about their freedom.

If corporation freedom means they influence the government to increase their own freedom, isn't that exactly the problem?

Certain people are in control (who ultimately control the corporations) that help themselves. There's nothing amazingly insightful about this. Blaming government is blaming the gun (partly the problem), and the larger problem are the people not standing up to it.

they can assasinate a president, but they can't assasinate bitcoin

This theory has worked out very well in terms of criminalizing recreational drug use. A properly functioning democracy requires an educated and well-represented population. A bait and switch has occurred, as explained very well by fellowtraveler. For example, the US is a constitutional republic in theory. In practice both the means of accurately interpreting the constitution and ensuring proper representation have been co-opted, leading to corporatism.

bitcoin will not magically save the world on its own

This is unrelated to the topic, but how did the OP post as an "Anonymous" Guest?

Because they are Legion  :)

The user was Atlas and he requested deletion of his account if i recall that right.

I'm pretty sure he was permabanned with a vengeance :/

Really?  I thought he was a mod here?  What happened - I love a bit of drama :O

Google "Executive order 11110" and make your own mind.

He was posting some stuff, mods didn't like it, so they put him on a temporary ban, he created alts to circumvent the ban, the mods really didn't like that, so they banned him harder, then he tried to bribe mods by offering them money to make them unban him, and the mods REALLY didn't like that and got him totally banned.

I have to ask since the threads he started were usually thought provoking and he at least debated in a civil manner.  What on earth could he have posted that got him banned from this site?

I honestly don't remember, but I think it was a minor infraction, like posting off topic in a wrong section, and that infraction escalated as he tried to avoid the ban. Yeah, I kinda miss him too, but on the other hand my productivity has gone back up since he left.