^^ This
If a country is on the Gold Standard you can't just print money out of thin air like they do now. there wouldn't be enough Gold to go around. They had to get rid of it to pave the way for Banks to print money for nothing, loan it out, and get real assets back in return(wether it be real Dollars or confiscated assets via forclosures and other scams - See the Great Greek Island Giveaway).
Yes, this is why gold based currencies have historically been very stable. |
|
|
|
least put the United States back on the gold standard. lol know why we went off? know why no one is still on? even more libertarianesc countries? so you would confiscate gold again? you know we werent allowed to own gold back then. How much gold has ever been mined? are you sure you are for a gold standard or just against fiat currency? Because bankers like to print and loan more money than they actually have in reserve? |
|
|
|
Yes lets let the Banks do things the way they want. It's not like they caused the financial nightmare going on around the world.
Move along, nothing to see here...
They already do things they way they want. The problem is, no one is allowed to compete with them. So what are you saying? |
|
|
|
Pretty much. I turned it off part of the way through because it was irritating me. The premise I got from it was that the economic crises was caused by deregulation of the banks (they used Iceland as the beginning example). Deregulation of the banks, is of course, equivalent to free market policies, therefore, free markets and capitalism are bad and more government oversight is needed. I should probably finish the rest of it to be fair, but I don't really want to waste my time.
government sponsored oligarchies != the free market
Exactly what is it that causes the emotional reaction you are describing? The claim that the economic crisis was caused by deregulation (or not enough regulations) of the banks? Yes, the deregulation caused the problem. The solution is not more regulation, though, but rather abolishing the monopoly on money. Let banks run competing currencies, or least put the United States back on the gold standard. |
|
|
|
maybe they should just register paypalisascamdotcomisascam.com and be done with it.
lol |
|
|
|
Uh....I'm supposed to buy things for my wife?
yes, aprons, ironing board covers, that sort of thing. Huh. How odd. I didn't see that in the contract I signed. |
|
|
|
Video Cards  Do you think that will work? |
|
|
|
|
Uh....I'm supposed to buy things for my wife?
|
|
|
|
Noagendamarket, you are awesome. That is all.  |
|
|
|
and burned like witches.
Tsk... Some of us (I think the religious poll showed 3) might take offense at that.  Those three votes were my three accounts on this forum, and we're usually the ones burning the witches. |
|
|
|
I don't even know why you guys bother correcting this guy. The irony is earlier today I just wrote a post about how I constantly get straw-manned when I talk about Somalia. It gets really old and really irritating after a while.
If you hit every straw man with a Wikipedia article, either they shut up or actually learn what's going on. win/win. Hahaha. Good on you, then. Carry on. |
|
|
|
Actually, Bitcoin2cash, your pictures aren't even that accurate. The second one should show the telephone wires repaired and the house rebuilt. Somalia has improved a lot under anarchy, even though it remains poor on most levels of measurement. What these strawmanning trolls need to realize (yes, Josell, that's you) is that it takes time for countries to grow economically after many years of being raped by a dictatorship. Prosperity doesn't happen overnight. Furthermore the prosperity of Somalia is being hindered (at least in the South) by the government trying to hang onto power. The civil war that is happening in and around Mogadishu is happening because people don't want a government. For you "tl;dr" people scroll down to page 12 of the link to see the stats comparison. |
|
|
|
|
I don't even know why you guys bother correcting this guy. The irony is earlier today I just wrote a post about how I constantly get straw-manned when I talk about Somalia. It gets really old and really irritating after a while.
|
|
|
|
I think it's important to separate the issue in two:
1) How would a Libertarian society handle the case where something people benefited from individually in sum caused massive harm to everyone -- a case where each person individual benefits from "defecting" but where everyone would benefit if they could all "cooperate".
2) Is global warming a problem of this type?
I suggest you try to either work on one issue or the other but not both at the same time. When talking about how a Libertarian society would handle warming, assuming that man-made releases of CO2 have a significant risk of causing a global cataclysm. When talking about the actual scientific issues with AGW, forget about politics.
The one point I keep trying to make is this -- regardless of how well or badly a Libertarian society would address global warming (or similar problems like pollution), democracies have done at best a mediocre job and, more typically, a terrible job. The only thing that seems to address these problems effectively is prosperity and technology.
+1 |
|
|
|
|
Wow, that was easy. And I still have 172.4 Billion leftover.
|
|
|
|
So then, there is no "natural" right to life or property, i.e. you can lose your life or property to natural events outside of human control. But you have a "right" to life and property with respect to other human beings, because you have a right to not be murdered and not be stolen from. This assumes the given I stated a few posts earlier of considering general human survival as a good thing.
To clarify, the Right to Life is a right to not have that life taken by force. It is essentially a property right. You own your self. Like any property, you can give it away, or discard it, but if it is taken, you (or in this case, your estate) are owed restitution. The amount of restitution owed for taking a life is a hotly debated topic. I think that's what I said, sorry if it wasn't clear. Also in a previous post: I think that human life is bound up in the concept of property. As a human, if you cannot own property, starting with your own body, you cannot survive. When I say "own" I use it in the economic sense of having control of and the capability of using for your purposes. If I do not have control of my body and control of external resources (food, water, shelter) I cannot survive. Without private property humans cannot survive.
|
|
|
|
Except charity, applied to reality, is never enough to overcome a major disaster. In a multi-million person famine, the amount of food needed for those people to survive is well beyond what charity is capable of providing.
To be honest I think this is pure speculation. I don't think you can prove this objectively just as I cannot prove the opposite objectively. However, I would like to hear more explanation on why you think this is so. Certainly the current system isn't providing for people's needs as well as it could--people still die of famine and starvation all over the world. I happen to think that without the corruption and inefficiencies of government the situation would be better. Let's discuss. Let me accept your viewpoint about there being no natural right to life. What then makes a natural right to property?
Rights are a tricky issue and I'm not sure I have an entirely cogent viewpoint yet. If there is a God then it changes things as well as there might actually be "natural" or "God-given" rights. I'm trying to cautiously develop a theory of rights without assuming a God, basing it solely on interaction with other people. So then, there is no "natural" right to life or property, i.e. you can lose your life or property to natural events outside of human control. But you have a "right" to life and property with respect to other human beings, because you have a right to not be murdered and not be stolen from. This assumes the given I stated a few posts earlier of considering general human survival as a good thing. Does a starving person have less right to attempt to stay alive then a wealthy person does to stay wealthy at the expense of others? Are they equal?
This is a good question. To be consistent with what I've stated I have to say that a starving person has a right to stay alive as long as he doesn't steal or kill other people. However, I can see why most people might not consider it wrong for a starving person to steal some bread from a rich man (Les Miserables situation). It's the kind of situation where it is still morally wrong, but shame on the rich man for not being generous and helping out his fellow human being. I don't think it's the State's place to steal from people to redistribute wealth, even in the above situation, but rather people's individual responsibilities to provide for each other. Ultimately I hope to live (and help create) a world where situations like this seldom, if not ever, happen. I'm still thinking through all this so let me know if it makes sense or if I need to clarify. |
|
|
|
Oh Somalia, what a paradise!
 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
