Bitcoin Forum

http://finance.yahoo.com/loans/article/113040/more-money-for-struggling-homeowners-smartmoney?mod=series-m-article-b

You can't make this shit up.

Well, they will be paid for by the taxpayers for the common good of society. /sarcasm

I don't really see the problem. If you lost your job and couldn't pay your mortgage, I'm sure you wouldn't be whining about this decision.

This is just taxpayer money tunneled to the banks.

Exactly. Without this, the banks would have to fight to get their money back, by proving that they own the home loan and have standing to foreclose. Now, all they have to do is sit back and collect the free taxpayer money.

Such is the nature of the state.

It's ridiculous government spending like this that nurtures my belief into the ultimate and absolute necessity of the bitcoin system.

Guess again.

Yes, because that makes perfect sense. If the state just wanted to tunnel money to the banks, they could offer a rent-free, or low-rent loan to people who need it. This way they would tunnel money to the banks, and would eventually get their money back.

I'm against the existence of the state. But while it is there, I don't mind it doing its job - protecting the people and providing a social security net. It's nice to know that if you're unlucky and everything goes to hell, you have a social security net to fall back upon. No one is just left to starve or freeze to death out in the cold because they couldn't repay their loans. I'd prefer it if this was left in the hands of the people instead of the state, but things do not always work the way you want them to.

Yeah, and in return, your neighbor helps you when you're in trouble. As I said, I don't see the problem.

Uh, so it's all fine and dandy to steal my money, then you can help me out when it's convenient?

FUCK YOU, PARASITE! There's no other way to say it. You have no respect for man! You only have respect when its convenient for your whims and desires!

Parasite, eh? The buzzword of objectivists, nothing more. I have respect for human rights. I respect the human right to food and shelter, the human right to live. Should the common man be punished for the failure of capitalism? No.

When you get sick suddenly, you will need the help from people. If your house burns down you will need help from other people.

If your local store is being robbed you will need help from other people.
Just by living in society, you are using the tax money and resources of other people.

You are only a non-parasite if you feed yourself off the land, consume self-produced electricity and protect your family with firearms and self-learned medical skills.

Otherwise, you exist only because the tax money of other people sustain your life and protect you from the power of the physically stronger and ruthless by spending other people's tax money on a military and police force.

The only thing stopping brutes from stealing your TV, cute puppy, bitcoin rigs & raping your wife is 'other people' who have agreed to pay money to help each other as a collective society when necessary.

There are also states where this isn't the case, with no real central government; Like Somalia.
If you aren't part of any of the strong local clans with powerful firearms and vehicles, your life will be crap and your possessions will be taken all the time. That's what happens when you let 'nature take it's course' among humans

So, you believe in the right of slavery -- the right to enslave others to feed, shelter and sustain others that are deemed worthy by the slaver. How humanitarian.

No. All these things can be derived by a fair exchange of value. Nobody has to sacrifice for these things. When I produce labor and exchange it for things I need, I am not taking from anybody.

These services that exist are only monopolies. They are not the sole and only benevolent benefactors.
 They give nothing selflessly. They derive inherent value either through money or pleasure.

I exist because I choose to sustain myself by my own labor. Again, it may change it's form by trade but it is still mine.

About Somalia: You can pay for protection at very competitive rates, although the UN and its cronies tend to disrupt this.

be happy you're in america. you don't want to know how much of our money in germany goes to some real parasites. you wouldn't want to pay $2.20/ltr gasoline, of which $0.95 is energy taxes and another $0.20 vat, either. you wouldn't want energy prices of about 35c/kWh. just be happy to be able to help your neighbors who actually pay taxes.

I'll help my neighbors by my own accord. I need no man to tell me who and how I should help with the fruits of my own labor. I am still being coerced which is not an acceptable compromise. I am either entitled to myself or a slave.

I do not.

Let me clarify; as I said earlier, I do NOT support the existence of the state. I believe it should be a choice to participate in a socialized society, but if you choose not to participate, you will not receive any of the benefits. This means two different societies are necessary: the socialized, and the non-socialized. That way, both can get what they want. Those who want to live by objectivistic ideals can do so. Those who want to live by socialist ideals can do so. In a society with no state, there would be no "slaver".

Of course, this is very idealistic and is not likely to happen in the near future. Therefore I am willing to accept the state, for now.

You're using very strong words, though. It is true that everyone is forced to participate, but everyone is still paid for their labor, and everyone benefits from a socialized society (although some more than others)

This is exactly what insurance companies could provide, rather than the government. Imagine a world where you could (voluntarily) bet that your boss will sack you :)

we don't get to choose, either. and we pay a lot more.

He's just too lazy to actually help people. He rather have somebody steal for him and take care of it.

Good for you. Insurance is not an option for everyone, like those under the poverty line. But only the rich should be allowed to live, right? Everyone else is just trash.
Even if you can afford insurance, a lot of people choose not to do so because they believe that catastrophic things never happen to them. But then it does. Should a person be deprived of their right to live just because they were naive?

And yes, yes I am.

No, I am not paid objectively nor fairly. I am paid by the desires of the few and not the actual people. I rather deal with my fellow man face-to-face.

In addition, I hope you enjoy watching all the producers in your socialized society move to the free state.

You have the right to sustain yourself. You do not have the right to live on the lives of others. In addition, in a efficient society based on fair exchange, the poor would be much better off. The people who actually want to see these people live will be able to more effectively accomplish their goals.

Sure you have a right to live, but you don't have any rights that impose obligations on others.

Illustration:
You sit on your ass all day and produce no goods or services that society needs or wants, but you have a right to food and shelter. Where does this food and shelter come from? You're hard working, productive peers are obliged to give it to you through the force of the government. You are a parasite.

How do you physically prevent a group of 50 people with assault rifles from stealing the fruits of your labor just because they're stronger than you?

All I'm saying is, I'll be first to admit I can't do shit against looters on my own even if I had guns. Doesn't have to be the apocalypse, just something like hurricane Katrina in New Orleans a few years ago.

The only thing keeping people from banding together and looting every home and village, is the fact there are heavily armed police officers within a 10 mile radius of my house. That's reality.

If you don't believe it, go to Congo or Somalia. The state barely exists there. Only the warlord with the most physical force gets to decide anything.
Poorest states in the world, most rapes and robberies, living hell on Earth.

Even producers enjoy security and integrity.

The "poverty line" would be allot higher if the government wasn't arbitrarily redistributing wealth, stifling economic growth.

Yes, that's why they will leave where they won't be subject to inefficient, one-size-fits-all security but a place that has an extensive selection in security companies that can actually fail if they fail to provide quality service.

So you say. But if a person is starving, what do you believe should be society's course of action? Just let him starve, and hope someone is charitable enough to voluntarily help him?

Does this include people who truly, honestly are trying as hard as they can to find a job, but are unable because there is simply not enough demand for labor? Does it include the sick and disabled, who are unable to work? Are they parasites, who should be left to die?

Somalia is still subject to state force. The fighting that only occurs is over people trying to establish a monopoly on force. It's a living hell because of its previous tyranny.

If a force of 50 people can easily be started up, I will be just as able to form my own force. Heck, my neighbors probably value my service to the community, so they will help me out with their arms. If not, I could hire another force. If I can't afford to hire them, I probably don't have anything valuable to protect.

Man, I need to work on getting behind on my mortgage then!  Can barely pay it every month, but since I manage to be responsible for keeping a roof over my head, I don't get any kind of help whatsoever...  Maybe if I just fruitlessly waste my money, or just quit my job, I can get behind on my mortgate and have the government start paying for everything for me.

The socialistic attitude in this country just makes me sick.

Yes. because people will come to help him. I will certainly feel obliged to help. Human empathy is a powerful instinct.

Also, there is always enough demand for labor unless there are artificial restrictions on labor.

wow, americans are some aggressive folk. you're only talking about violence :< there have been some philosophers who thought a lot about humanity already, i'd go reading their thoughts and stop discussing this for now.

You will? Does that not go against your objectivist ideals? You believe that the meaning of life is the pursuit of one's own happiness, yes? How would this action benefit you?

I derive value from people just being inherently human. They share my same struggles and perception. Preserving another man pays for itself in my perception. I can imagine most people having the same value.

The thing is there would be no violence. It would be at a stand-off. It wouldn't be profitable for the agressing party to steal my crap. Too much potential loss.

And, just to get this thread back on the rails, we're not talking about people who are poor and starving.

We're talking about people who 1) own houses and 2) whose mortgages are at least $50,000 in the red.

Look, your problem is that you think the state is the solution to the problem of the poor and sick. I reality, all measures the state takes to help them actually creates more poverty. You don't understand how a free capitalist society produces wealth and, ironically, advocate policies which destroy wealth with the goal of eliminating poverty.

No, this person should not be left to die, but forcing people to pay a bureaucracy to institute some incredibly inefficient welfare program to help them is a terrible solution. People in a free productive society will help these poor on their own, without state coercion.

What to you believe, that if not forced, no one will help the poor? or do you believe that there are people who will allocate some of their disposable income to the needy? If the former, that implies that no one actually gives a shit, in which case, who give a shit. if the latter, then there is no need for coercion. which is it? you can't have it both ways.

+1 This thread is done.

Why should we marginalize the productive members of society to help some individuals poor investment decision. Reallocating resources in this manner reduces the total wealth produced by society which results in more people unable to pay back their mortgages.

They can default, the bank takes a loss, they rent another place, problem solved.

This.

What are we teaching people by bailing them out of their own financial problems over and over again?  We're teaching them that they don't have to be responsible for the dumb financial decisions that they are making.  We're teaching them to take greater (read: stupider) risks, and live closer to the edge of their means even when they have a job, because the government will always be there to bail them out if they screw up.

People who cannot pay their loan should be foreclosed on, should be forced out of their home, and should try to find a place to rent instead.  They have no one to blame but themselves if they cannot keep a job and don't have enough savings built up to pay for expenses in the event of a job loss.

Heck, if I lost my job now, I'd be screwed.  I have zero savings, am borderline on being able to pay my bills every month, and I blame no one but myself.  I am working hard on bettering my financial position, and because of that, I expect to be rewarded.  Instead, it's the people who screw around with their money every month and grow a deeper and deeper pile of debt that are rewarded.

Have these people been desensitized?

Basically, yes.  I recommend Robert Kagan's essay "Of Paradise and Power" which explains how.

Thats exactly right. Banks control everything. Just look at greece.

This is very interesting. Both what the US is doing in the OP, and the discussion on state enforced slavery.

Atlas: your posts are about as subtle as a sledgehammer, but as vehement as they are, I can't help but agree. I very strongly feel my necessity to look after my fellow man, but I deeply feel that states produce least worst solutions, rather than most best solutions for any problem. It takes but a few voices to set in motion laws that affect everyone, which leads to a situation akin to piercing a full water balloon to stop leaks - as the water empties, more and more holes are made and the shittier everything becomes. I used to believe in state welfare, but now I realize it breeds nothing but apathy. People need help when they're down, and the best way to achieve that, is to not be such an arsehole to your neighbours. If your neighbours know "the state" will welfare people who fall over, the need to interject is lost, as is the need for relationships.

I believe the intentions were great when welfare first came about, but it was simply the least worst solution. This 50k bailout is just another money is worthless statement.

This makes steam come out of my ears. This is a stinking pile of fail. Who pays for it? Taxpayers, unless theymonetize the debt, in which case everyone who holds dollars or works for an hourly wage pays.  You can't get something for nothing and it doesn't even help homeowners. If you have negative equity, you are not an "owner" in any meaningful sense. This is another back door bank bail-out.  It props up home prices, which makes homes more expensive for buyers. It keeps the "owners" from moving to where the jobs are.

You don't see the problem because you ARE the problem- you and all the other ignorant, slow-witted knuckle-draggers populating this doomed country.

Didn't the ppl who lost the job pay taxes?  ::) Why they should pay taxes if the government does not help them when they need it?

ha ha the 50's ended a long time ago...

They shouldn't. Nobody should pay taxes. Anything worth paying for doesn't need to be funded involuntarily.

so everybody should build their own roads and hospitals?

Does everybody built their own supermarkets and homes?  ::)

Telecommunications are a parallel analogy to roads, and they work mostly fine privatised. Hospitals will be built if there's profit to be made.

Do you really mean to ask: do we let people who can't pay for healthcare die? Sometimes genius comes from poverty with a hand up - scholorships, for example, rely on this fact. Perhaps it is better to let them die for the sake of better genes and memes, or perhaps it discourages selfishness and greed. Maybe it's religion's fault...seeing as its kind of similar (absolute rule, submission, etc).

I have a separate question for everyone that's kind of related to this thread: How important is the separation of wealth in a society? In a liberty world people's wealth will be separated by their skill, peers, opportunity and starting position, and there will always be a low of the low, and high of the high. A non liberty world tries to close that gap, with minimum wage, welfare, etc, but there is still abject poverty (people buying houses they can't afford). Therefore, the attempts must be ineffective. Most of the wealth is still held by the tiny few, and the rest at some point start worrying about losing their basic needs (food water shelter and security). Sometimes someone from the bottom creates a google or facebook and shoot to the top, but that's extremely rare, and results in lots of other people going down a rank or 10. Things are rejiggled, but that's about it.

I think what most of the human mass wants to know, is how will true liberty bring the poverty line as close to zero as possible, without the risk of them being culled.

*Sigh*

How can I put this.....

As mentioned, rewarding peoples poor financial decisions and tunneling money to the banks this way is just outright wrong, even more so when you consider that the millions on the street who are discriminated against for just not having made a poor financial decision in the first place.

This borders on the sublimely ridiculous.

Which brings us to the ideological arguments on this thread, in light of the above isn't it fair to say that regardless of where you stand, we have a mountain of a shitpile to move to even just begin fixing the problems of state and society that this OP is a prime example of.

Individualists and Socialists(both inaccurate stereotypes on the basis of how much an individual can customize their beliefs.) have a lot more in common sharing enemies and mutual challenges that must be met before they can even begin to build their common society.

At the moment, it is all of us getting screwed by the fiat statists that only seek to maintain our penury to the banks and the international established gamers. These people toy with the destiny of all humanity for the sake of their own power over everything.

Common enemies first people, there'll be time for arguments later.

You're 17 and live with your parents. You ARE a parasite. Come back when you actually pay taxes.

Heh. Hardly. It's a consensual relationship.

Public goods can be privately funded through assurance contracts. Really. Honest. I mean it. sincerely.

http://www.thepoint.com/ (http://www.thepoint.com/)

I don't own a home. I am saving. My money is being stolen from me through taxes, and the purchasing power of what I have left is being taken through money printing. If these stolen funds go toward the idiots who lent money to the uncreditworthy and to the idiots who borrowed money they couldn't pay back, then the result is that home prices are propped up to the point where I may never be able to afford a house! I am getting screwed THREE DIFFERENT WAYS!! 

Rewarding poor decisions is the surest way to get more of them. Punishing responsible behavior is the surest way to get less of it. 

Hope you don't rely on it cause it will be gone soon. Gone with the dollar and EUR.

Nobody is here to help you. All decisions on high levels are made to transfer wealth away from the 95% who cannot defend themselves. Are you among those who cannot defend themselves?

Yep.  That's the point.  Responsible Americans who work within the system and live within their means get screwed six ways to Sunday.  The only way to avoid this is to either escape with enough assets to watch it burn from the sidelines, or join in and participate in the looting.

If I am forced to speculate in risky currencies, I'll take my chances with Bitcoin.

That's ok but not with all of your money. Spread your wealth into btc, gold and real stuff like a car or a house (bought at reasonable prices not next to the next highway). Just don't hold $ and € anymore or you will again be the last one standing when the music stops.

Try selling your house if their are foreclosures in your neighborhood.  Housing prices are every homeowner's fucking problem.  Do you even own a house?

I fail to see how the price of some good going down is a problem.  Computers go down in price.  Everyone here owns a computer.  Is that a problem?

I have a box of old computer parts that originally cost almost $10,000.  Now they're about $50 in scrap.  Where's my bailout?

http://www.memorialhospital.org/library/general/stress-the-3.html#Heading62


You are at phase 2: Anger. Quickly skip ahead now. Accept that it is not fair.
 

It seems that only people trying to sell are affected by property value. How does your house being valued less that what it was when you bought it matter if you live there? I love foreclosures! Get great houses on the cheap and then sell them for insane amounts when there are no foreclosures in the area. Then the cycle repeats!
The true american dream! To shaft the other gut harder than you are getting shafted! NO LUBE!!!

Your parents are legally responsible for you until you turn 18. It's hardly a relationship they or you have control over - unless you emancipate yourself.

I think you're being intellectually dishonest in your use of the word "help", which implies a voluntary offer of assistance. My money being confiscated by government force to be redistributed to those deemed more needy is not an act of compassion, but tyranny. Lest you dismiss me as a would-be hypocrite were I the one in need, let me assure you that this not so.

I have been unemployed for many months after being downsized from a company that I was with for six years. I have not and will not apply for unemployment benefits because I don't believe that my misfortune entitles me to the fruit of others' labor. I am able to rely on myself because I made good financial decisions for myself, having zero debt, excellent credit, and a good amount of savings at the time that I lost my job. I also have friends and family that I could turn to for *voluntary* assistance if I needed to do so.

The welfare state will destroy individual initiative and make us slaves to the government.

This man needs a round of applause.  This is exactly what Americans SHOULD be.  Instead, the government has taught us that we don't need to be fiscally responsible.

Computers dropping in price would be a problem if you had to buy one now and spend 25 years paying it off.  Computers are a very special case completely uncomparable to housing.  15 years ago I bought a 1Gb hard drive for $320.  A 1000Gb drive costs around $60 today.  Try to get that sort of improvement in land size or house features in housing.  It's physically impossible.

Getting back to the general gist of the thread, most Australians are still in a massive state of denial when it comes to housing.  'It's different here', we tell ourselves.  The average price of housing in Sydney is over $500k.  Note that an Australian dollar is worth a lot more than the US$ (AU$1 = US$1.07, was AU$1 = US$0.60 3.5 years ago).  It's not uncommon for Australians to leverage up 7 to 1 income to house price ratio just to buy anything.  I myself recently purchased a small house on a 350m2 block for $300k.  And that was quite cheap.

We don't have non recourse loans here like some states in the USA, so the bank will keep chasing defaulting customers for money.  There is no 'jingle mail' here.  First home builders get a $15k bonus from the federal government, but at least half that is handed back to the state government in stamp duty.  That $15k comes from the pockets of other taxpayers to keep boosting house prices ever higher.

If China ever stops consuming minerals and other resources at its current pace, I recommend Americans grab a beer and a deck chair and watch the Australian housing market implode.  It'll be quite a show.

FY 2012 Federal Defense Budget Proposal $670.9 billion http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2012/FY2012_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf (http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2012/FY2012_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf)

P1 Number of complaints on bitcoin forum about said proposal: zero
P2 Number of complaints on bitcoin forum about welfare for homeowners (1/670th as much money): A lot

C Tunnel vision level of forum: http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQjsmktbEz7rYKQhskAVd15DvWLrZupKUhxa00s6uSfPoufqYv8 (http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQjsmktbEz7rYKQhskAVd15DvWLrZupKUhxa00s6uSfPoufqYv8)

/thread

Neither of the two parties offer "small government" in any real sense and military spending is evidence of that, but that doesn't mean that meddling in the housing market is not still unwise in ways that go beyond the (minor) direct effect on individual tax burdens.

So the government not meddling much at all in the largely deregulated housing and home loan market from 2000-2006 was a good thing?  Do you think deregulation of home loans, deregulation of mortgage backed securities, deregulation of collateralized debt obligations, and deregulation of credit default swaps are good things for the average American?  Do you work for Goldman Sachs by chance?

I would have to read up more on the American system to answer those questions (no I don't work for Goldman Sachs), but take my statement as referring to this particular instance of "meddling" probably being unwise.

Offering incentives for banks to back risky loans on sub-prime borrowers (i.e. Fannie May and Freddie Mac were created with the purpose of backing these risky loans) was what got us in the whole housing mess to begin with.

So yes, I agree - the less government involved in the housing sector, the better.

You fuckin' class enemy antipeople son-of-a-landlord capitalist roader. You walk into my dictatorship, we'll put you in the airplane position.

Who decides what is 'right' and 'fair' in your system? Who made up the 'laws' for your system? Did they got voted on? Imposed by a dictator? Can dark people own property in your dictatorship? Can women? You act like laissez-faire is some freakin' religion. Fuckin' Joseph Smith of capitalism. Eat a dick, bitch. 

The people. Directly.

No ineffective democracy. No sleazy politicians.

Just the people and their desires.

This really can't be quoted often enough:

"To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble."
-Paul Krugman, 2002

Having an 'economy' that just trades assets around in a circle until the banks take away the punch bowl leaving millions of people that are just trying to make a living as the bag-holders in a ponzi they didn't know they were playing is a heck of an economy.

Thanks Alan Greenspan!

umm what?  Isn't that what Democracy is?

No, democracy is mob rule (50% +1) that decides what objectives bureaucracies can fumble over, usually through the veil of a representative politician that is bought out by corporate interests.

A free society let's people keep their tax money and decide directly what organizations and causes they want to support. Since they actually have a selection of services they can choose from, failing ones can actually truly fail since support can be denied as opposed to a state program that is left to the whims of whatever elected parasite.

Can you provide an example where this has ever worked in the history of the world?

USA, pre 1913. You know, industrial revolution and all that.

Didn't that, like, happen everywhere in the 'western' world?

quickly followed by the Great Depression

Because JP Morgan spreaded toxic gossip about the banks. It was an inside job.

+1

Here is my take on the purpose and role of Government:
Hopefully it clarifies any confusion in this thread

Men, Women, Agent(s), Person(s), and Life collectively or individually have synonymous equivalent meaning herein. De facto entrusted crucially dependent Life admits safe guardianship or conveyance thereto.
1.   All men are equal in Rights.
  1.1.   All men are intrinsically free, whose expression when manifest, admits autonomy.
  1.2.   Rights exist because man exists (consequent to Life).
  1.3.   Rights are inalienable and inherent, hence discovered not created.
  1.4.   Man commits autonomous choices apart from all other men.
2.   Rights are defined as the Liberty to control, secure and defend one’s Property and Life.
3.   Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything not in violation of other’s Rights.
4.   Rights Violations are unprovoked physical aggressions (UPAs) initiated by man against another, or Breaches of Contract (BOCs), resulting in an incontrovertible diminishment in one’s Rights.
  4.1.   UPAs are non-consenting acts which cause an Object (Property or Life) to undergo a transferred or transformed change to the Object’s original energy state or condition.
  4.2.   Energy transfer to/from an Object or energy transformation of the Object occurs by means of three ways, namely: thermodynamic work, heat transfer, or mass transfer.
  4.3.   Contracts are compulsory promissory agreements involving Property or Life (and specific performances or forbearances therewith) between mutually consenting men.
  4.4.   Misrepresentation of Contract obligations or BOCs resulting in misappropriation of Property or Life, or expenditures related thereto, is subject to Rights Violations.
5.   Property can be anything comprised of physical material matter (PMM).
6.   Property is the exclusive non-simultaneous possession or dominion of discrete PMM.
  6.1.   Unconstrained/non-delimited/uncontrolled PMM (UPMM), UPMM effusions or energy transmissions, are not Property; they are ownerless nonexclusive UPMM or Emissions thereof, until physically made to become otherwise.
  6.2.   A Property’s inertial reference frame, dimensions, Emissions/Emitters, usage and genesis thereof, define and constitute its Property Scope Ambit (PSA).
  6.3.   PSAs that initiate tangible material perturbations which intersect or preclude another’s preexisting or antecedent PSAs may be subject to Rights Violations.
 6.4.   Preexisting antecedent unconstrained Emitters cannot proscribe the receipt of similar, both in magnitude and direction, intersecting Emissions Flux.
  6.5.   Property cannot transform into something extracorporeal, extrinsic or compulsory due to the manipulation or interpretation of its PMM composition.
  6.6.   Absent Contract and Force, Property or Life of one man shall not control, compel or impede Property or Life of another.
  6.7.   Unintentional personal ingress vouchsafes unimpeded passage and egress.
7.   Force is the means –proportionate to the aggression– to obstruct, inhibit or extirpate the Rights of any man who interferes with or imminently threatens the Rights of other men.
  7.1.   Force can only be applied to resolve Rights Violations and is consequently just.
  7.2.   Man, or an Agent to man, must ascertain that a Rights Violation has occurred.
  7.3.   Man is severally liable and accountable for solely his Rights Violations a posteriori.
8.   Justice, viz., lawfulness effectuates disjunctive Rights between men.
9.   That which is neither just nor lawful is Violence and imperils the Rights of man.
10.   Violence causes inequality (unequal in Rights of man) and is forbidden.


Suggestions welcome  ;)

They shuld have done this before bailing out the banks.  it bails out the banks and the home owners at the same time, for the same price.

This is egregious. I sold my apartment at a small loss anticipating the crash in the market, and have been paying a handsome monthly rent ever since. In theory i'm now subsidizing the guy who bought my dream home. Fuck that!

Just a comment to all the anti-socialist European haters. I lived several years in a high tax welfare state with a balanced annual budget, that today has only 11% debt/gdp, very little crime, free education, health care, long maternity leave, educated society with a working honest democracy and press, and other niceties Americans can only dream about. Yes, we all paid for that. I was still paying off my American student loans while taxed to pay for someone else's education. And it was worth it. America has a sick system. The US has low taxes but prints money to compensate. It's amazing to me the country hasn't collapsed already.

Bails out home owners at the expense of home buyers and future tax payers. You can't make an economic calculation without looking at both sides of the equation.

The American system is broken because it is NOT a free market system. Your anecdotal evidence proves nothing. Perhaps the socialist utopia you claim to have lived in would have been even more heavenly with more economic freedom. perhaps the U.S. would be even more screwed up if it was more socialist. Perhaps not, but your claim is meaningless.  Compare apples to apples: East Germany to West Germany. North Korea to South Korea. Texas to California.

Socialism has perverse incentives: when you are required to give according to you ability and take according to your need, it's in your personal interest to be seen to have the greatest need and the least ability.

Socialism also suffers from the economic calculation problem. Market prices are needed to allocate scarce resources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem) otherwise, there is no efficient way to determine what should go where.

I'm not saying its the right thing to do, I'd have preferred they let the banks go under, but if they are gonna bail out, might as well bail out as many people as possible, especcially if it doesn't raise the rpice of the bailout.

I agree, however the caveat is that bailing our more people creates more moral hazard.

Perhaps my reference to anti-socialist Europe haters implied that the northern European country I referred to was in fact socialist. You'd be hard pressed to find a socialist country by your definition anywhere in Europe.

In fact the Scandinavian countries are among the most free production markets in the world. Low corporate taxes, few barriers to entry and trade, just as easy to fire as to hire. The point I meant to make is that the citizens are highly taxed to pay for their high level of social services, rather than an inflation of the money supply.

Inflation due to money printing is just another tax, so If I am understanding you correctly, you are merely making a claim that one form of tax is more efficient than another form of tax while making no claim as to whether  said services should be provided by the state.  Taxes transfer wealth involuntarily, which is to say they are all a form of legally-sanctioned theft. In the long run, it is in society's best interest for theft to be an INEFFICIENT as possible, which would make it easier to eliminate.  If the relevant issue is (as it should be) the moste efficient way to provide Essesential Services, then it should be obvious that a monopoly would not be and is not optimal. The State is a monopoly. This fact means that very poor incentives exist for the State to provide maximum value. 

Monetary inflation is an efficient but very specific type of tax, namely a tax on long term savings, not immediate consumption.

I believe that common health services (such as inoculation against contagious diseases) can be most efficiently provided and most beneficial under a monopoly. I prefer to live in a society where a minimal level of education can be expected - particularly if I rely on my peers to vote wisely. It is my experience that crime is minimal (or at least less apparent) in countries with greater welfare/taxes. I am not sure what law would mean without a regional monopoly. These are services for which I happily pay a monopoly: health, education, law. For when others benefit from these services, I benefit two-fold.

You're getting the cause and effect mixed up. Most countries have as much socialism as they can afford.

What cause/effect -- That a country first prioritizes services and then attempts to afford them with taxes? You may be right. It may be impossible to find an example country that does not waste money in economically irrational but populist adventures (Singapore?). But my assertion is that some countries attempt to pay for both their rational and populist services (N. Europe) while others such as the United States pass the bill on to the future/collapse.

I agree that borrow-and-spend is not preferable to tax-and-spend, but is that really the only two choices? The State has no moral right to steal from us OR promise to steal from us at a future date. It matters not
what the State intends to do with the stolen loot. If someone robs me and uses the money to buy me a cheeseburger, it's still robbery.