European Union is robbing its citizens' bank accounts. 9.9% to be confiscated.

[qbits]

No the argument is that Germans should not have to pay the profits people made by putting their money into (indirectly) into high risk investments.

Cyprus Banks paid outrages interest rates compared to other European banks. Due to their high risk investments and all depositors provided from this.

Why should German Taxpayers pay this?

Nobody here in Germany says Cyprus should not be bailed out, everyone here knows that this is necessary and important.

But Germany can't just bailout everyone. You are aware that Germany doesn't have this money. We have to lend it ourself and pay interests on it.

It has to hurt the people who provided from this mess, too.

1. correct! if you deposited money into a bank that takes stupid risk like lending money to countries that cannot repay, than you should loose money, and not expect that someone will save you. ok, deposits below €100k should be exempt as they are deposited by large number of not so well off people. and indeed they are.

2. correct!

3. German or any other taxpayer should not pay for this!! correct again!

4. If nobody in Germany is saying Cyprus should not be bailed out than shame on you. Cyprus banks in trouble should not be bailed out, except perhaps by people of Cyprus.

5. People who created this mess are, and please I will elaborate, Germans! How? By developing Euro currency, forcing, one way or other, forcing others to adopt it, then controling money supply via ECB dominated by Germans, and ultimately allowing other nations to take on absurd levels of credit, again provided by German banks which have huge surpluses of money generated by German economy exporting products to other Euro EU countries.

I could go even further but this should suffice.

[1714982089]

1714982089

[1714982089]

1714982089

[1714982089]

1714982089

[deeplink]

The list of the guilty is so long I wouldn't even know where to start.

It starts and ends with the people that have voted for the current system and policies.

The innocent people are depositors in banks that were purportedly government insured

No, the insured part below 100K is actually untouched AFAIK

and ordinary people around the world whose governments are taking on massive debt and adopting greater and greater austerity measures just to pay for their past mistakes.

But the vast majority of these ordinary people have voted and by voting they legitimize and agree to play the game. They are not innocent. Maybe they misjudged the effects of the policies they voted for or they voted anyway for personal gain. I argue it doesn't matter. If you shoot someone, then say you didn't know a gun could kill a person, you are still responsible and guilty for his death.

In other words, the innocent people are also guilty because by voting they agree to accept the decisions their appointed leaders take for them.

The only real innocent are the unborn and the children that will have to bear the debt and suffer in the ruins their parents are going to leave them.

[zeroday]

Just keep in mind crowds of poor people who don't have any bank deposit, but only credits.
Most of them will become jobless as many companies will go bankrupt after losing their capitals over 100k.

[deeplink]

Just keep in mind crowds of poor people who don't have any bank deposit, but only credits.
Most of them will become jobless as many companies will go bankrupt after losing their capitals over 100k.

I was wondering about this yesterday. If a bank goes bankrupt, you would loose all (uninsured) savings, but you'd still be expected to repay the debts and mortgage you have with them?

[JoelKatz]

I was wondering about this yesterday. If a bank goes bankrupt, you would loose all (uninsured) savings, but you'd still be expected to repay the debts and mortgage you have with them?

Yes. Your payments would go to the banks creditors, including you. And if you went bankrupt, it would be the reverse -- the bank would still have to pay out your savings to your creditors yet they would lose out on any unsecured loans you had.

Oversimplifying, when something goes bankrupt, all of its assets go into a pool that is used to pay off its liabilities. Any remaining liabilities dissolve.

[zeroday]

If a bank goes bankrupt, you would loose all (uninsured) savings

Not correct.
Bankrupt bank always have assets to be divided between its clients and lenders upon liquidation.
The highest priority to get compensation usually have holders of current accounts (ones not generating interest) and they usually recover up to 100%, after them, with descending priority go savings accounts, then time deposits, then bonds, shareholders, etc.

But in the case of Cyprus, it is going to be in absolutely different way. They plan to steal every penny over 100k on rich accounts and then use it to pay compensation to "insured accounts" under 100k in communist style.

[JoelKatz]

In other words, the innocent people are also guilty because by voting they agree to accept the decisions their appointed leaders take for them.

I don't agree. I reject every version of this argument. Specifically, I reject:

1) If you don't vote, you have no right to complain if leaders do bad things. You had a chance and you gave it up.

2) If you vote and the leaders you choose win, you have no right to complain if they do bad things. You got what you asked for.

3) If you vote and the leaders you choose lose, you have no right to complain if those who won do bad things. You lost fair and square.

4) If you don't vote, you are responsible for what your government does. You could have acted to stop it and failed to act.

5) If you vote and the leaders you choose win, you are responsible for what they do. You put them in power.

You can vote in self-defense or for the lesser of two evils without becoming responsible for the evils elected leaders do.

[deeplink]

In other words, the innocent people are also guilty because by voting they agree to accept the decisions their appointed leaders take for them.

I don't agree. I reject every version of this argument. Specifically, I reject:

1) If you don't vote, you have no right to complain if leaders do bad things. You had a chance and you gave it up.

2) If you vote and the leaders you choose win, you have no right to complain if they do bad things. You got what you asked for.

3) If you vote and the leaders you choose lose, you have no right to complain if those who won do bad things. You lost fair and square.

4) If you don't vote, you are responsible for what your government does. You could have acted to stop it and failed to act.

5) If you vote and the leaders you choose win, you are responsible for what they do. You put them in power.

You can vote in self-defense or for the lesser of two evils without becoming responsible for the evils elected leaders do.

That is the philosophical difference of opinion between statism and anarchy again. I haven't yet seen many occasions where either side considered to change their opinion.

In my view you either:

1) Vote and agree to support the outcome of the election. Even if you voted for someone else. Those are the rules which are known to all participants in advance. You have no right to complain because by voting you have legitimized to be governed by whoever wins.

2) Do not vote and choose to accept to support the outcome of the election.

3) Do not vote due to moral objections. For example if you believe it is morally wrong to use force against people except in self-defense, you would act against your own ethics if you voted. Because by that act you legitimize that the government is allowed to use its monopoly on violence upon others that don't agree with your point of view.

[JoelKatz]

That is the philosophical difference of opinion between statism and anarchy again. I haven't yet seen many occasions where either side considered to change their opinion.

I agree, and I reject all of your statist views.

1) Vote and agree to support the outcome of the election. Even if you voted for someone else. Those are the rules which are known to all participants in advance. You have no right to complain because by voting you have legitimized to be governed by whoever wins.

Nonsense. If a criminal says "your money or your life", you can choose to give your money without losing your right to complain about that loss.

2) Do not vote and choose to accept to support the outcome of the election.

Nonsense. If someone asks you whether they should kill your family by shooting them or by setting your house on fire, you can choose not to answer without losing your right to complain about the choice and outcome.

3) Do not vote due to moral objections. For example if you believe it is morally wrong to use force against people except in self-defense, you would act against your own ethics if you voted. Because by that act you legitimize that the government is allowed to use its monopoly on violence upon others that don't agree with your point of view.

Nonsense. If a mob is choosing whether to cut off both your legs or just one of them, you can use any methods available to you to get just one leg cut off without in any way legitimizing the mob or the range of choices.

I utterly reject all three of your statist views. An individual may defend himself from the State's threatened evils however he thinks best without thereby becoming responsible for those evils.

[deeplink]

That is the philosophical difference of opinion between statism and anarchy again. I haven't yet seen many occasions where either side considered to change their opinion.

I agree, and I reject all of your statist views.

Wikipedia: Statism is the belief that a government should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree.

Please explain in what way the views I expressed are statist. I like to think that I live by the non-aggression principle and believe this is irreconcilable with the state.

1) Vote and agree to support the outcome of the election. Even if you voted for someone else. Those are the rules which are known to all participants in advance. You have no right to complain because by voting you have legitimized to be governed by whoever wins.

Nonsense. If a criminal says "your money or your life", you can choose to give your money without losing your right to complain about that loss.

Absolutely. But this analogy does not fit the case of the voter and the state. The voter and the state are the same. By voting you become the criminal because you give permission to the rulers to say "your money or your life" to others.

2) Do not vote and choose to accept to support the outcome of the election.

Nonsense. If someone asks you whether they should kill your family by shooting them or by setting your house on fire, you can choose not to answer without losing your right to complain about the choice and outcome.

Yes but that would be case 3 below: You have moral objections. What I meant here was that you choose not to vote but also accept and support whichever outcome.

3) Do not vote due to moral objections. For example if you believe it is morally wrong to use force against people except in self-defense, you would act against your own ethics if you voted. Because by that act you legitimize that the government is allowed to use its monopoly on violence upon others that don't agree with your point of view.

Nonsense. If a mob is choosing whether to cut off both your legs or just one of them, you can use any methods available to you to get just one leg cut off without in any way legitimizing the mob or the range of choices.

Yes you can use any method to defend yourself. But not a method that would hurt others outside of the mob. Because than you would be no better than the mob.

I utterly reject all three of your statist views. An individual may defend himself from the State's threatened evils however he thinks best without thereby becoming responsible for those evils.

I disagree. My views are not statist and as an anarchist I am kind of offended by that.

An individual may defend himself, but by voting he becomes the criminal called the state. And the state uses force against others to get what it wants.

[JoelKatz]

Wikipedia: Statism is the belief that a government should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree.

Please explain in what way the views I expressed are statist. I like to think that I live by the non-aggression principle and believe this is irreconcilable with the state.

Your views are Statist because they accept the validity of the state as representatives of the people when it comes to economic and social policy. For example:

Absolutely. But this analogy does not fit the case of the voter and the state. The voter and the state are the same. By voting you become the criminal because you give permission to the rulers to say "your money or your life" to others.

You see the relationship between the voter and the State as part to whole. This is a Statist view. The analogous NAP view would be that the relationship is between victim and aggressor.

You draw no distinction between voting to reduce the State and voting to increase the State. When the State comes to you and says "your money or your life", you see no difference between saying "please take my money and do not kill me" and "please kill as many people as possible". This is a Statist view.

A victim may use whatever means they think best to defeat an aggressor. They share culpability with the aggressor only if they act to increase the aggression used.

[Vladimir]

JoelKatz is of course correct 100% in this argument. And I can base this conclusion on a very simple reasoning, the basics of contract law.

A contract is only valid when both parties have entered it willingly and while fully informed of all the relevant information and facts. For example, A offers for sale a Rolex watch to B while A knows that it is a fake and B does not, even if all other requirements for the contract are met such as offer acceptance and consideration, even if A offered the Rolex and B accepted it and paid for it. And even if the contract has a clause like "if a party to the contract does not understand all the terms of the contract, the contract is valid anyway" it changes nothing. The moment it is found out that the Rolex is fake, the contract is off and in fact it is not not a contract it is fraud.

Deeplink, you are telling people: "it is your fault that you have bought this fake Rolex, nothing you can do  now about it, hahaha".

[deeplink]

Please explain in what way the views I expressed are statist. I like to think that I live by the non-aggression principle and believe this is irreconcilable with the state.

Your views are Statist because they accept the validity of the state as representatives of the people when it comes to economic and social policy. For example:

Absolutely. But this analogy does not fit the case of the voter and the state. The voter and the state are the same. By voting you become the criminal because you give permission to the rulers to say "your money or your life" to others.

You see the relationship between the voter and the State as part to whole. This is a Statist view. The analogous NAP view would be that the relationship is between victim and aggressor.

You draw no distinction between voting to reduce the State and voting to increase the State. When the State comes to you and says "your money or your life", you see no difference between saying "please take my money and do not kill me" and "please kill as many people as possible". This is a Statist view.

The fact that I see a certain relationship between the voter and the state does not make me a statist. I do not accept the validity of the state as representatives of the people. But the people that vote for it don't care whether I accept the state or not. They are still going to use its force against me and others who do not harm anyone but have different opinions.

I do see a distinction between voting to reduce and increase the state. However if someone is voting to reduce the state, like a libertarian, he is still legitimizing actions of the state.

A victim may use whatever means they think best to defeat an aggressor. They share culpability with the aggressor only if they act to increase the aggression used.

The victims become the aggressor they try to defeat. They just try to avert aggression away from themselves and point it towards others through the mechanism of the state. Most of the time they are increasing and in every case they are perpetuating the use of aggression and force.

JoelKatz is of course correct 100% in this argument. And I can base this conclusion on a very simple reasoning, the basics of contract law.

A contract is only valid when both parties have entered it willingly and while fully informed of all the relevant information and facts. For example, A offers for sale a Rolex watch to B while A knows that it is a fake and B does not, even if all other requirements for the contract are met such as offer acceptance and consideration, even if A offered the Rolex and B accepted it and paid for it. And even if the contract has a clause like "if a party to the contract does not understand all the terms of the contract, the contract is valid anyway" it changes nothing. The moment it found out that the Rolex is fake, the contract is off and in fact it is not not a contract it is fraud.

Deeplink, you are telling people: "it is your fault that you have bought this fake Rolex, nothing you can do  now about it, hahaha".

I guess that is kind of what I am saying. People voted for a broken system that uses force and coercion (the state) to get what they want. I'm saying that this outcome is to be expected if you use force and coercion.

BTW the writing has been on the wall for a very long time and the events that are now unfolding in Cyprus have been expected by many.

And yes, there is nothing that can be done about it now. People can only look for the real causes and fix them. But we know that is not going to happen.

[rpietila]

If a bank goes bankrupt, you would loose all (uninsured) savings

Not correct.
Bankrupt bank always have assets to be divided between its clients and lenders upon liquidation.
The highest priority to get compensation usually have holders of current accounts (ones not generating interest) and they usually recover up to 100%, after them, with descending priority go savings accounts, then time deposits, then bonds, shareholders, etc.

But in the case of Cyprus, it is going to be in absolutely different way. They plan to steal every penny over 100k on rich accounts and then use it to pay compensation to "insured accounts" under 100k in communist style.

In Iceland the government did make a difference between itself and the banks, saying: "the banks fucked up, we didn't and won't insure anything, the people lost money, so we help them sue the bankers, we don't socialize the losses".

In Cyprus, allegedly: "the banks fucked up, we insured some of the deposits, we don't want to make good on our obligation (to insure all losses up to $100k), so we twist the rules to make sure the other depositors pay as much as possible, and taxpayers as little as possible".

Of course this is wrong. If you guarantee my loan to a third person, you cannot demand my other lawful creditors to take the hit before you cover the losses on the part you guaranteed. At least here in Finland. I can understand why your government wants it this way, though. I even believe it is fair as a principle, but wrong because it breaks the agreement that was in force at the time.

To think of it further, you can even say it is right. After all, government has an obligation, so they are "taxing" people who have money in the banks. They call it tax, right. Of course taxpayers pay, in one way or another. Hint: in most countries, only about 10-20% of people actually are taxpayers. Others either work for gov, or earn so little that they get more from the state in return.

The bottom line is, Cyprus is small, and if the government accumulates "enough" debt, the entrepreneurs move away as they don't want to pay the interest via taxes. Otoh, if the government hits them hard one time, they will move away in disgust. So no matter what happens, the same people will not trust the government any more.

Finland was a net creditor in the 1980s. Then the politicians wanted us to integrate to the western financial system. Of course there has been some progress during the 25 years (as well as the previous 25 years 1963-1988 also saw some progress which would have happened regardless of the welfare socialist tendencies) but the net result is that gov now owes 86 billion, which is more than 100,000 eur per taxpayer. I would rather take financial liberty. And I will, there is no chance in this world that I would pay the taxes on my global businesses to Finland. My limit is 10% of realized profits. If some country wants it, I can consider. If not, I will not realize the profits in any country.

[deeplink]

Hint: in most countries, only about 10-20% of people actually are taxpayers. Others either work for gov, or earn so little that they get more from the state in return.

So what is happening in most countries is that in effect 80-90% of the people through the mechanism of the state can take as much money from the other 10-20% and spend it on whatever they want. Just call it democracy and it is legitimate and fair and all.

I would rather take financial liberty. And I will, there is no chance in this world that I would pay the taxes on my global businesses to Finland. My limit is 10% of realized profits. If some country wants it, I can consider. If not, I will not realize the profits in any country.

Of course people that still earn money and build society are increasingly waking up and wonder why they should still bother contributing to the greedy, uninformed, ineffective and unthankful collective.

[mobodick]

Wikipedia: Statism is the belief that a government should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree.

Please explain in what way the views I expressed are statist. I like to think that I live by the non-aggression principle and believe this is irreconcilable with the state.

Your views are Statist because they accept the validity of the state as representatives of the people when it comes to economic and social policy. For example:

Absolutely. But this analogy does not fit the case of the voter and the state. The voter and the state are the same. By voting you become the criminal because you give permission to the rulers to say "your money or your life" to others.

You see the relationship between the voter and the State as part to whole. This is a Statist view. The analogous NAP view would be that the relationship is between victim and aggressor.

You draw no distinction between voting to reduce the State and voting to increase the State. When the State comes to you and says "your money or your life", you see no difference between saying "please take my money and do not kill me" and "please kill as many people as possible". This is a Statist view.

A victim may use whatever means they think best to defeat an aggressor. They share culpability with the aggressor only if they act to increase the aggression used.

Arguing extremes seems a fruitless path to walk when defining relations.
I have tried to explain a few times on this forum that any system inside our universe needs to have both static-like and dynamic-like components to be able to interact with the environment and not have it's structure dilluted.
When you take either the static or dynamic component to its extreme the system will stop functioning.
It is all about the right balance in a given situation.
Taken to the extreme the statist view becomes too static and the anarchist view too chaotic.

Thinking in singular extremes is a poor way to define systems.

[deeplink]

Arguing extremes seems a fruitless path to walk when defining relations.
I have tried to explain a few times on this forum that any system inside our universe needs to have both static-like and dynamic-like components to be able to interact with the environment and not have it's structure dilluted.
When you take either the static or dynamic component to its extreme the system will stop functioning.
It is all about the right balance in a given situation.
Taken to the extreme the statist view becomes too static and the anarchist view too chaotic.

Thinking in singular extremes is a poor way to define systems.

Basic morals are not negotiable.

Murder unless in self-defence is wrong, no matter how you look at it.

It is not extreme to argue that it is wrong to use violence to get what you want against others who do not harm you in any way. That is even taught by statists in the education of children. But when they become adults it is suddenly okay to bully and force others.

My point is, that I think it is just not possible to build an honest society when we don't agree on the basic principles of ethics.

[Grouver (BtcBalance)]

@zeroday

You know now what people are doing at Cyprus now that the banks are open again?
Huge waiting lines of course, but are the most of them you talk to speaking about getting there money out of those banks?
Even if its just 300 per day, everyday? Let us know whats really going on there and what the people are planning to do.

[mobodick]

Wikipedia: Statism is the belief that a government should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree.

Please explain in what way the views I expressed are statist. I like to think that I live by the non-aggression principle and believe this is irreconcilable with the state.

Your views are Statist because they accept the validity of the state as representatives of the people when it comes to economic and social policy. For example:

Absolutely. But this analogy does not fit the case of the voter and the state. The voter and the state are the same. By voting you become the criminal because you give permission to the rulers to say "your money or your life" to others.

You see the relationship between the voter and the State as part to whole. This is a Statist view. The analogous NAP view would be that the relationship is between victim and aggressor.

You draw no distinction between voting to reduce the State and voting to increase the State. When the State comes to you and says "your money or your life", you see no difference between saying "please take my money and do not kill me" and "please kill as many people as possible". This is a Statist view.

A victim may use whatever means they think best to defeat an aggressor. They share culpability with the aggressor only if they act to increase the aggression used.

Arguing extremes seems a fruitless path to walk when defining relations.
I have tried to explain a few times on this forum that any system inside our universe needs to have both static-like and dynamic-like components to be able to interact with the environment and not have it's structure dilluted.
When you take either the static or dynamic component to its extreme the system will stop functioning.
It is all about the right balance in a given situation.
Taken to the extreme the statist view becomes too static and the anarchist view too chaotic.

Thinking in singular extremes is a poor way to define systems.

Basic morals are not negotiable.

Murder is wrong, no matter how you look at it.

It is not extreme to argue that it is wrong to use violence to get what you want against others who do not harm you in any way. That is even taught by statists in the education of children. But when they become adults it is suddenly okay to bully and force others.

The truth is that these morals are a human notion and not written in stone.
What you think of as morally justified is not well defined and will be different from person to person.
Of course things like murder are obvious, but what if a serial killer is murdered?
Morals too have their static and dynamic parts.
And both statist and anarchist children will need to learn how to both play nice and stand their ground to be able to survive as a species.

But what i was actually talking about is the way JoelKatz argues for some extreme position by taking the consequenses of the opposite to the extreme. This extreme is not a natural balance and in fact does not represent reality in any way.
Society is a dynamical emergent system. It cannot exist without structure and it cannot exist without degrees of freedom.
Both chaos and order are required so this type of reasoning seems counterproductive.
These 'principles of non-agression' are only possible because some bigger structure assures a basic security for JoelKatz.
Were he to live in a true anarchy he would find out that agression is the defacto standard of securing resources in nature.
By securing resources you secure the survival of the individual, then the social group and finaly the whole species.
Securing resources, by any means necessary,  is the only way an individual, group or species can survive.
Sometimes this can be done most efficiently by cooperation. But other times the only way to ensure your own survival and even the survival of our species is to use agression.
I think it is naive of JoelKatz to think his ideal of non-agression is a viable strategy outside of (by now) global control structures.
It would fall apart the very instant humans lose the cohesive forces of the bigger structures.

[mobodick]

Arguing extremes seems a fruitless path to walk when defining relations.
I have tried to explain a few times on this forum that any system inside our universe needs to have both static-like and dynamic-like components to be able to interact with the environment and not have it's structure dilluted.
When you take either the static or dynamic component to its extreme the system will stop functioning.
It is all about the right balance in a given situation.
Taken to the extreme the statist view becomes too static and the anarchist view too chaotic.

Thinking in singular extremes is a poor way to define systems.

Basic morals are not negotiable.

Murder unless in self-defence is wrong, no matter how you look at it.

So, how would you classify a mother that killed a person that she perceived as threatning the life of her baby?
What are the basic morals that apply here?