|
Why not make things simpler and just have an entry for each age?
|
|
|
|
Why not just impose a 30-day waiting period on currency transactions? People who need currency for 'legitimate' purposes will just need to plan ahead.  Seriously though, what's stopping forex speculators from just using trading services based in countries with no such laws? |
|
|
|
One would assume if using US dollars was illegal then holding them would be as well. That's at least the case in North Korea.
Funnily enough North Korea is reputed to be the source of some of the world's highest quality counterfeits of US currency: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdollar |
|
|
|
|
Trading volumes seem pretty low at the moment but it's good to see the price going back up. Seems like a great time to do some easy mining if you think the price will keep rising.
|
|
|
|
|
Predicting human behavior with certainty can be notoriously difficult.
It's been a fun debate but I'll move on for now. I do like some aspects of libertarianism from what I understand of it so far, notably an interest in commodity money, but as I say I have some strong reservations about the idea.
|
|
|
|
|
You seem to be arguing now that my hypothetical is unlikely, but you don't go so far as to say it's impossible. In any case I think it demonstrates that freedom of movement/self-determination can be severely limited if property rights are absolute.
|
|
|
|
|
But how does that help you if nobody in between will allow you passage?
|
|
|
|
|
They might and they might not, but it's quite possible that the few land owners would choose to harmonize their policies on any number of policy decisions as a cartel would. You might find that none of the surrounding fiefdoms that will allow you entry offer any better of a deal. Competitive practices are of course possible too but there are no guarantees that the 'old boys club' would choose to undercut each other if they can profit more by fixing prices.
|
|
|
|
|
Why assume open borders? If the surrounding properties are privately held then their respective owners are well within their rights to repel trespassers with physical barriers or force.
|
|
|
|
Maybe you missed it, but that IS my argument. The rich and powerful (the ones that have currently hijacked our governments and are in control, the ones that made the system that you so hate) already have all the money. Therefore, in Liberland, they will immediately be in control. It's not all that difficult a concept to understand. There are about a million problems with this argument, so I will provide a couple samples (some of which may or may not apply, depending on HOW the ancap society came into existence): -What money? The government issued monopoly money would be worthless, which could (in the case of, say, large banks) make them powerless. -Many of the rich and powerful (who have currently hijacked our governments and are in control, as you so eloquently put it) are rich and powerful because of government contracts, government subsidies, government regulations which insulate them from competition, government provided monopolies, etc. Which would not exist in an anarchist world, obviously. -If something caused the state to collapse in on itself, it is HIGHLY unlikely that it would come out of the blue with the government-backed corporations intact. Depending on how the state came to fall, they could have been weaned and very heavily weakened (democratic change, economic troubles resulting in collapse), been destroyed directly (violent revolution), etc. Having dealt with those specific rich and powerful, lets assume that this system has been in place for a long enough time that previously state backed enterprises are gone: -How would they company hiring an army make its money initially, though? Imperialism is an expensive venture, highly risky, and the rate of return would only be high against a target that likely was very powerful in its own right (say, another large company with its own large security force, not to mention any volunteer militias and private defense agencies nearby). -Assuming they succeeded, how would they keep up momentum? To return the initial investment for the invasion force, they would have to conquer very large amounts of land, which would piss off large amounts of people in a major way, not only the people occupied but also their relatives, people with knowledge of the invasion, etc. If they pissed off people in this way, ignoring large scale PDAs and militias for a second, they would be plagued by constant guerrilla activity, where a handful of guys with old guns would be on the same playing field as an army with high tech equipment (though Imperialist Co. would have to pay more for an army with high tech equipment, which would require more conquests to pay off the initial investment, which would leave them with even more enemies and with them right where they started), as Afghanistan and Iraq are demonstrating. -Why would people continue to do business with them after they began the attacks? Once they were acting like criminals (or whatever you want to call them), the negative publicity would be a huge hit on their initial industry, regardless of what it is. The only industry that could conceivably make a profit from all of this would be a PDA, but they would (A) have plenty of competition out to wipe them out and (B) wouldn't have many honest customers after the attacks (would you hire a company for protection that ran the risk of suddenly turning around and seizing your property?). A legitimate concern would be anarchist countries beside jealous countries with governments. A government, through taxation, monetary controls, etc would not want an alternative to them with a better deal right next door, so they would have a very good reason to throw everything at annexing the anarchists while they still held the advantage of manpower, etc. That would be an actual danger, though it would entirely depend on the circumstances and isn't any problem with the anarchist system itself, per se. Also, what prevents a corporation from doing this now? I don't mean just anywhere; the US could never be conquered that way; but what about a small, relatively poor country? JP Morgan could probably hire a large enough army to take over, say, Honduras. The problem is that that sort of thing isn't profitable nor is it considered to be acceptable by most people. That would not change if the government was gone. What about people/corporations who have large amounts of land already, and leverage that to acquire more over time by buying out the smaller players rather than by invasion? Couldn't a situation develop analagous to feudal Europe, where everyone not born into a select aristocratic class has virtually no chance of ever owning land? Libertarians seem to hate forcible redistribution of legitimately owned property which presumably rules out a peasant revolt, but on the other hand the feudal lord is more or less able to tax his subjects to his heart's content which also seems to be a libertarian no-no. |
|
|
|
|
I don't put much stock in religious views on supernatural phenomena, e.g. life after death, because it all seems like speculation and conjecture at best, cynical manipulation at worst. On the other hand, religious beliefs on morality and human nature often draw on the life experiences of many people over hundreds or thousands of years and can contain valuable insights on living a fulfilling and peaceful life. Writing it all off is just as naive as believing every word.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Aside from taxes and and certain types of debts that may not be strictly voluntary, how do legal tender laws impose anything on someone who hasn't willingly incurred a debt?
It destroys your right to contract and makes it useless to create a contract in a currency that is not the legal tender one. Imagine that you sign a contract with me: You do some task in exchange for me paying you 3oz of silver. Now you do the task, and when I comes to pay you, I tell you that Im not going to pay you with silver, but with fiat currency. You dont agree and you demand silver because the contract specifies it. Your only option now is to take me to court where the judge will force you to accept fiat currency to settle my debt with you. You see there is no point on setting the contract in something that is not legal tender since you are going to be forced to accept it anyways. This is a big incentive towards not using any other currency. Add that you can only pay taxes with fiat currency and you have a de facto monopolly. Valid points but additional clauses to a contract could assign a penalty to settling the debt in cash. Either way it's quite possible that, rather than getting paid in unwanted fiat, I might never get paid at all, even if I had the resources to take the matter to court. If all of a sudden you just disappear off the map and I have no way of locating you, the smartest thing for me to do may just be to eat the loss and try to be a better judge of character in my future dealings. It may not be fair but it's a reality whether or not we have the "safety net" of the court system. |
|
|
|
Both are the same thing. In the present system what gives fiat money its value is that they are the only means to pay taxes (collected by force or thread of) and legal tender laws (same).
In general fiat currency is defined as a currency imposed by force, usually by governments. In the present system the specific mechanism are the two noted above. Aside from taxes and and certain types of debts that may not be strictly voluntary, how do legal tender laws impose anything on someone who hasn't willingly incurred a debt? |
|
|
|
You can only be forced to do so if there is a record of the transaction taking place. You may be legally obligated to pay taxes after selling some gold to your buddy, but that doesn't necessarily mean the law is enforceable in that situation.
So you basically say people are not forced to use fiat, because they can violate their "legal obligations" ? I'm just drawing a distinction between being forced to do something and being potentially threatened with force. You could say that in 1933 all US citizens were "forced" to give up their gold, but in reality they did not all do so and the coins are still around to prove it. If you are a law abiding citizen and categorically refuse to pay capital gains taxes, you do have the option not to perform trades that would result in you owing such taxes. You can also sell firearms off-the-record to a 'buddy' or a shady character, even if a license or transfer fee is required by the ATF.
You might grow pot at home, sell it to some friends and not tell anyone about it because it's 'harmless'.
You are still taking a risk of imprisonment every time no matter how small you perceive the risk to be.
No argument there. Life is full of risk though. |
|
|
|
As with all in-development technology, this is decidedly cool, but we'll see what the real world practical applications actually end up being. It might cost $10,000 / gram, and see no actual use, or it might not scale, or who knows. The raw materials are not crazily expensive anyway, cobalt is the most expensive thing in there (~$40/lb currently) but there's not too much of it. Nickel and tin are in the $10-12 range and manganese is dirt cheap in comparison. |
|
|
|
If you profit on a stock sale you are forced to pay US dollars as tax.
Canadian dollars in my case, but ok. If you profit on a gold bar sale you are forced to pay US dollars as tax.
You can only be forced to do so if there is a record of the transaction taking place. You may be legally obligated to pay taxes after selling some gold to your buddy, but that doesn't necessarily mean the law is enforceable in that situation. |
|
|
|
|
What gives a fiat currency its initial value is the legal and social infrastructure surrounding its use, including but not limited to taxes. Legal tender laws generally don't directly force you to actually use legal tender except in the case of a debt. If you offer to pay off a dollar denominated debt in something other that "legal tender", that party can successfully argue in court that you refused to pay. In some countries including mine, even small denominations of the national currency are not considered legal tender in larger amounts. You can opt to accept them but you don't legally have to.
I don't have a car, but if I did I would undoubtedly be incurring more dollar denominated debts at least temporarily, at minimum some recurring insurance cost which becomes mandatory for me to pay. Essentially this amounts to a private tax. If I was a good/lucky enough driver I could go decades without an accident and I would still have to pay towards others' claims and the company's operating costs and profits. Insurance companies could opt to accept something other than money (or credit) as payment but there seems to be nothing compelling them to do so at the moment.
Alternatively I could use gov't monopoly public transport, and pay fares that increase faster than inflation in spite of considerable subsidies because the union is constantly striking for more money and doesn't have to worry about competition from people who might do the job a lot cheaper. Or I could walk or bike for free aside from food and general wear and tear, but I'd better look out when using or crossing public roads because someone who kills me with a car through their own fault could quite easily get off with no legal penalty. Even in a small car I'm still at a safety disadvantage because essentially "might makes right" for heavier vehicles when law enforcement is not physically present.
In a real sense there is nothing forcing me to get a car, but anyone who drives their own vehicle in a country where insurance is mandatory incurs debts that pretty much have to be paid in legal tender or credit, unless they break the law and drive without insurance. To fuel the car, if you know somewhere you can buy gas with silver or something then great, but I know of no such place near me. Unless you arrange something before filling up at a gas station, you incur a debt that must be paid with legal tender.
Aside from transportation, it's certainly quite possible to eat without incurring any debts or making any form of payment to anyone. On the other hand, arranging shelter without owing rent or property taxes to anyone is likely to make life quite difficult for anyone who doesn't have some benefactor covering those costs, unless they are free to build somewhere on public land without anyone bothering them.
In some ways using the "coin of the realm" is optional, but in practice most people would find life quite difficult if they exercised their option to avoid using it whenever possible. Taxes are supposedly unavoidable but they can only really be enforced when you are documented to have earned or spent money, or if you own something subject to an ownership tax such as real estate. Owning as little as possible is one way around that but for many people the option is unappealing.
|
|
|
|
try to do that with the US Dollar - defect to another country during or after a war and have your US dollars be worth anything.. yeah, you could save up a bunch of gold, but how would you carry it all? if you could carry it all, how confident would you feel that you would not be robbed along the way?
You would need an awful lot of money to buy more gold than you could carry. Alternately you could go with high value bills like the 500 Euro. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
