Is it true that the Fed is privately owned

[myrkul]

Hmm, if you put it like that I guess I do hold some communist views. I do think capital should be privately owned though, so I'm far from a communist. I think a balance of power is probably best.

Capital property: liberal (individual ownership)
Property of land: social (public ownership)
Intellectual property: anarchy (information should be free)

I have bad news for you. Land is "capital property."

1. Ok. Lets for a second pretend I think this is a good and realistic idea. How are we gonna decide who gets to have the North Sea. I'd like to have it? Can I just claim it? I call North Sea! Just like that?

Have you ever fished the north sea?
First appropriation requires use. Can't just "call" it.

2. So apparently it's more profitable to cut that shit down, right? Apparently cutting it down will make you more money than leaving it in tact! Why else would anyone want to bribe a politician? They're not gonna bribe him to do something that will lose them money? It's clearly more profitable for any individual to cut down the rainforrest, while it is potentially devastating for humanity. Be honest for a second: how is this NOT a tradegy of the commons?

Oh, I agree with you that it is. But if you owned a large portion of a rainforest, would you sell it cheaply, or get as much as you could for it? And if your neighbors did the same, would it still be profitable to cut it all down?

3. Ok lets "hypothetically" presume for a second that it is indeed the burning of fossil fuels that ruins the environment. Would that mean it qualifies as a tragedy of the commons, and thus requires regulation?

The answer to the tragedy of the commons is not regulations. The answer to the tragedy of the commons is to internalize the externalities. By private ownership.

Yes, but anybody can choose to not use bitcoin, or make another cryptocurrency. Plus, nobody just claimed bitcoin. People put actual time and effort in making them. That's the difference.

Do you think homesteading is as simple as saying "that's mine," or drawing a line on a map? No, that's how governments claim land. A homesteader works his land, or at the very least marks it out somehow. To say nothing of actually getting there, which can be a lot of work, as well.

Let me explain. If land is owned by nobody, anyone can come and take it at any time. I could justifiably force you off your land. I'd say that's "strife." If land is owned by "everybody" and some organization is going to come around and collect rent, they'll have to force me to pay, because I won't want to. That also qualifies as "strife." On the other hand, if someone wants to buy my land, they need only offer me enough money to convince me to sell it. Voluntarily. Peacefully.

You must see what is wrong with that first sentence yourself. For the rest: the peace you speak of is like the peace slave-owners liked to have. There might not be any fighting but there's not exactly freedom either.

So, you own your mother? And your sister? "Your" can be used to establish relationship without implying ownership. If land is not owned by anyone, that is to say your rightful claim to be there is not recognized by society, when I come in and kick you out, you have no recourse. That sucks pretty hardcore. And I don't see how my having land makes you a slave.

There are absolutely arguments to be held against democracy, but I don't think these are it.

Well, any other result means that the majority has enforced their will on the minority. That's just might makes right. So when you say "WE THE PEOPLE," what you actually mean is "WE THE STRONGEST."

WE THE MAJORITY would be a better way to put it, yeah. But I also think that a true democracy can only function if the rights of the minority are protected, much like the constitution seeks to do.

How are the rights of the minority respected by majority rule? If you want the rights of the minority to be respected, you must have a proportionally representative system. Like capitalism.

I don't think imposing yours on others provides any more freedom or peace than them imposing theirs on yours.

I'm not imposing my views on anyone. Merely resisting their attempts to impose theirs on me.

Right. But if I don't believe land can't be anybodies private property, you'll probably still violently get rid of me if I step on the land you call 'yours'.

Well, that depends. If you're just visiting, there's no need to be rude to visitors. If you decide you'd like to live there rent free, though, you'll find that rather tough with my boot up your ass.

[Alpaca John]

I have bad news for you. Land is "capital property."

It's not actually. And I don't think it should be regarded or treated as such. That's the whole point of this discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factors_of_production

I could go on to discuss all of the other stuff you said but I don't really feel like this conversation is going anywhere right now. The fact that you consider(ed) land to be capital is actually pretty much exactly what i think is where you any I have a difference of opinion, and since I don't think either of us is gonna convince the other we should probably just leave it at that.

[myrkul]

I don't think either of us is gonna convince the other we should probably just leave it at that.

You're probably right, there. I'd just tell you that land is simply a type of fixed capital, you would say that's just the buildings and other improvements on the land, I'd say those improvements wouldn't be very much without the land they're on, you'd say that the land is still separate from the actual fixed capital, I would point to all the other types of capital that include land in their definition, such as "natural capital," and eventually we would just throw up our hands and call the other one an idiot.

So let's skip all of that. If you define capital as "the material property needed to produce something," then land is included. If you define capital as "the already-produced durable goods that are used in production of goods or services." then yes, land is excluded. Obviously I prefer the broader first definition, you the more narrow second one.

But even using your definition, the three factors of trade, "land, labor and capital" must all be privately owned for free trade to occur.

[Stampbit]

3) If you think of the New World in Historical terms, the world that materialised out of the monarchies and dynasties of Europe and Asia, then America and Australia are classic examples of the New World.  The reins of powered are very much rooted in the central banks of the world.  We are living in the New World now it isn't a conspiracy, the next world order "the conspiracy theories hype" won't be calling it the new world order, it'll have a new name. We are in the New World now, and it has an Order to it that isn't working to the benefit of the people, and can't be changed through democratic processes, so no need to call it conspiracy, it is fact.  

Not to feed into conspiracies but it is not (new world) order but rather new (world order). A change in the way the world is run.

The point is the same. It's not a conspiracy, it's just plain facts. The world is being run by an international oligarchy.

I know what you mean.

You mean this, right?

No - thats an implementation detail.  As is the ECB and the Fed.

Right, an implementation detail of international central planning. In other words, the world is being run by an international oligarchy.

Not run by them but seriously influenced.  If millionaires formed a political party, they would have the overwhelming majority of Congress, the Judiciary and the Presidency.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/06/if-the-millionaires-party-ever-gets-its-act-together-watch-out/ They haven't but you can't expect those institutions to act hard against millionaires can you?

Likewise you can't expect much action billionaires disapprove of.  

And you wonder why I'm an anarchist?

Anarchism wouldn't' make any difference.  The rich and powerful will still have the men with guns. 

Does anyone else want to know how far these nested boxes will go?

There are more of us than there is of them

Nah i think it will reach a point where it collapses in on itself and sucks my screen into the next dimension.

[kjj]

This debate is silly, as well as off topic.

There is no such thing as allodial title in the modern world.  All property is community consensus, but one with the rules (mostly) already spelled out.

[bonker]

This debate is silly, as well as off topic.

There is no such thing as allodial title in the modern world.  All property is community consensus, but one with the rules (mostly) already spelled out.

This thread isn't even debate. Its naive, childish nonsense that belongs in a high school debating club.

[Alpaca John]

This debate is silly, as well as off topic.

There is no such thing as allodial title in the modern world.  All property is community consensus, but one with the rules (mostly) already spelled out.

Ah, thanks for injecting some sense into this high school debate. I was unaware.

(Doesn't necessarily make it silly to question the modern community consensus though, does it?)

[nightminer]

So just in case some comes here looking for a real answer, here's my take on it:

First, a segment from this article:

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/federal-reserve-bank-ownership/

From the actual Federal Reserve Board

Federal Reserve Board: As the nation’s central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the U.S. Congress. It is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute

That's all fine and dandy.

The next big question is: why, when the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress must congress pass a law to audit the Fed?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/25/us-usa-fed-audit-idUSBRE86O1IX20120725

Again I quote:

Fed officials have long fought the audit bill, arguing it would compromise their independence.

Wait, what!?  Compromise their independence?    They control the damn money supply of a country?! On which planet in which universe is not auditing them a good thing?

2 years ago, before I knew about bitcoin, my blood used to boil when I read things like this. Finally the people spoke. I cannot begin to express my gratitude to Satoshi. Thank you!

I'll leave you with:

A bitcoin a day keeps the Fed at bay

[townf]

3) If you think of the New World in Historical terms, the world that materialised out of the monarchies and dynasties of Europe and Asia, then America and Australia are classic examples of the New World.  The reins of powered are very much rooted in the central banks of the world.  We are living in the New World now it isn't a conspiracy, the next world order "the conspiracy theories hype" won't be calling it the new world order, it'll have a new name. We are in the New World now, and it has an Order to it that isn't working to the benefit of the people, and can't be changed through democratic processes, so no need to call it conspiracy, it is fact.  

Not to feed into conspiracies but it is not (new world) order but rather new (world order). A change in the way the world is run.

The point is the same. It's not a conspiracy, it's just plain facts. The world is being run by an international oligarchy.

I know what you mean.

You mean this, right?

No - thats an implementation detail.  As is the ECB and the Fed.

Right, an implementation detail of international central planning. In other words, the world is being run by an international oligarchy.

Not run by them but seriously influenced.  If millionaires formed a political party, they would have the overwhelming majority of Congress, the Judiciary and the Presidency.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/06/if-the-millionaires-party-ever-gets-its-act-together-watch-out/ They haven't but you can't expect those institutions to act hard against millionaires can you?

Likewise you can't expect much action billionaires disapprove of.  

And you wonder why I'm an anarchist?

Anarchism wouldn't' make any difference.  The rich and powerful will still have the men with guns. 

Does anyone else want to know how far these nested boxes will go?

There are more of us than there is of them

Nah i think it will reach a point where it collapses in on itself and sucks my screen into the next dimension.

Just chipping in...

[Alpaca John]

To those of you who are still of the impression that the Fed is not privately owned, and that government is the problem, I urge you to watch the documentary The Secret of Oz: http://youtu.be/swkq2E8mswI

Before you dismiss me as some leftist statist or whatever, the documentary is made and narrated by Bill Still, a libertarian: http://still2012.com/

Please watch.

[myrkul]

To those of you who are still of the impression that the Fed is not privately owned, and that government is the problem, I urge you to watch the documentary The Secret of Oz: http://youtu.be/swkq2E8mswI

Before you dismiss me as some leftist statist or whatever, the documentary is made and narrated by Bill Still, a libertarian: http://still2012.com/

Please watch.

What about those of us of the impression that the Fed is "privately" owned, and that the government is the problem?

Monopoly is the problem, the market is the solution.

[Alpaca John]

To those of you who are still of the impression that the Fed is not privately owned, and that government is the problem, I urge you to watch the documentary The Secret of Oz: http://youtu.be/swkq2E8mswI

Before you dismiss me as some leftist statist or whatever, the documentary is made and narrated by Bill Still, a libertarian: http://still2012.com/

Please watch.

What about those of us of the impression that the Fed is "privately" owned, and that the government is the problem?

Monopoly is the problem, the market is the solution.

Sorry, that was a dumb typo. I'll fix that. (The Fed is privately owned indeed, is what I meant to say.)

Edit: Fuck never mind it was not a typo at all.

To those who think monopolies won't exist on a free market, I'd say: I think you are very wrong.

[myrkul]

To those who think monopolies won't exist on a free market, I'd say: I think you are very wrong.

Define a monopoly for me.

[Alpaca John]

To those who think monopolies won't exist on a free market, I'd say: I think you are very wrong.

Define a monopoly for me.

No, that is way offtopic. I'm willing to have the conversation, but not in this thread. You can make a new thread if you want? I'll be back in five.

Regardless, I'd suggest you watch the documentary. I think you'll like it. http://youtu.be/swkq2E8mswI

[myrkul]

To those who think monopolies won't exist on a free market, I'd say: I think you are very wrong.

Define a monopoly for me.

No, that is way offtopic. I'm willing to have the conversation, but not in this thread. You can make a new thread if you want? I'll be back in five.

No, this is completely on-topic. I contend that the solution to all the problems presented by the Fed is to eliminate it's monopoly on the creation of money, and open that duty to the free market.

Your counterclaim is that monopolies would still exist on the free market, with the implication that they would be just as bad as the Fed. In order for me to show this claim to be fallacious, I need you to clearly delineate what you mean when you say "monopoly."

[Adrian-x]

I would like to excuse myself for leaving the conversation earlier, and falling to respond, things seemed to be going a little feral.
As for monopolies lets all agree to use this definition (don't edit it) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

I have clarified my thinking somewhat, after reading a great article that introduced another problem. The underlying point was why we need Free-market anarchism, and the argument the author was debunking was Free-market anarchism evolves into the Statism we have now and will end up at the same place again. (even countering the argument we still have a Free-market anarchism between states and the evolution process is still refining) I think he did a s#!^job, but I totally agree Free-market anarchism is the most efficient and effective solution and should be the apex of market evolution, but why isn't it, and how did we wind up so wrong?

While I did agree we needed Free-market anarchism.  Should we have Free-market anarchism we could technically never have a monopoly, without some form of intervention (collectively agreed force or a perverted meme).

So I don't agree government is the problem, I think the problem is the individual and there is the source of the problem. Our society has evolved with Memes that have been in play and instilled over many generations even since prehistoric times.  It is these destructive memes held by individuals that have allows Free-market anarchism to fail, humanity and technology would have evolved so much faster had we not become deluded by them. The natural evolution from roaming tribes to war lords to Feudalism to "Democratic" and Fascist governments is the expected evolution from people who have these memes. 

Free-market anarchism is in my view just the human extension of the laws of Nature and universal physics. So monopolies are in whatever forms they appear just a natural evolution of some deep rooted meme, and they will continue to be a problem until our individual memes are corrected. 

[myrkul]

Actually, the "government as legitimate monopoly on force" meme is only as old as Machiavelli.
https://mises.org/document/1092/Myth-of-National-Defense-The-Essays-on-the-Theory-and-History-of-Security-Production

Now, as to monopolies, I think the definition provided (A monopoly exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity) is a good one. The article further points out: "Monopolies can be established by a government, form naturally, or form by integration." I'd say the latter two are just versions of the same thing: Market forces make it more efficient for one company to provide that commodity. In a free market, the former one would not be possible. So we're just left with "natural" monopolies to worry about.

Given the particular commodity that we're talking about (money), a natural monopoly is possible, but not something to worry about. For the only way that a provider of money, in the free market, can become the sole provider of money, is to provide the best, most stable, most reliable money. The moment it stops doing that, it opens itself up for competition, and that competition will be fierce.

[Alpaca John]

I'm not sure what we are talking about here. Monopoly's on money, or monopoly's in general?

In a free market, I think monopoly's in general will almost certainly develop over things that are scarce. (Car's, food, computers, etc.) This is not a good thing, because it centralizes power.
Since you can use anything as money though (hence it is not necessarily scarce) I agree with you (Myrkul) on the money part.

Adrian-x: Yeah you could say that some meme's are a problem. However, there is absolutely no way to be sure that your meme is better than any other meme, since that thought itself would be (part of) the meme. Therefore, you should not able to force memes on anyone nor remove them. Neither do I really think you could be able to do so; a totalitarian society would be the closest thing to accomplishing such a thing. I'd say that shitty meme's are just something we need to deal with as best as we can.

[myrkul]

I'm not sure what we are talking about here. Monopoly's on money, or monopoly's in general?

Well, to stay strictly on-topic, we should limit the discussion to monopolies on money. Specifically, the service of providing the commodity that is used as money in a marketplace.

In a free market, I think monopoly's in general will almost certainly develop over things that are scarce. (Car's, food, computers, etc.) This is not a good thing, because it centralizes power.

This is patently and provably false. The computer market is one of the least regulated on the planet. Cars have only safety and emissions regulations to contend with (and many companies voluntarily exceed those regulations). Food, similarly, has only health and safety regulations, and a few labeling requirements. You chose the worst possible examples for natural monopolies, since all of those industries show robust competition, in a largely unregulated (free) market.

Since you can use anything as money though (hence it is not necessarily scarce) I agree with you (Myrkul) on the money part.

Well, at least you can see some sense.

[Alpaca John]

In a free market, I think monopoly's in general will almost certainly develop over things that are scarce. (Car's, food, computers, etc.) This is not a good thing, because it centralizes power.

This is patently and provably false. The computer market is one of the least regulated on the planet. Cars have only safety and emissions regulations to contend with (and many companies voluntarily exceed those regulations). Food, similarly, has only health and safety regulations, and a few labeling requirements. You chose the worst possible examples for natural monopolies, since all of those industries show robust competition, in a largely unregulated (free) market.

Actually I was not talking about natural monopoly's. I was talking about monopoly's from integration - why did you choose to let that one out?

Plus, I'm pretty sure that all of these markets are regulated, since monopoly's are illegal in the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law

Also, it is illegal to kill your opponent, so that's another regulation. Sounds silly? The drug market is truly unregulated. The free market turns out not to work very well there. Violence works.