Is it true that the Fed is privately owned

[myrkul]

Pure Capitalism has failed with the pre WWI power States dividing up all the Land in the world.

Um. That wasn't pure capitalism. That was (at best) State capitalism. But I feel we might be falling down the definition hole here. Pure capitalism is simply this: Private ownership of the means of production (land, money, machinery, etc), and competition of producers in a free market for profit. For a society to be called "pure capitalism" that principle must be applied to all industries, including defense and justice, two industries which the State traditionally monopolizes in the name of the public. Thus, in order for "pure capitalism" to exist, there must not be a State. And it is precisely this monopoly which caused the failure of the markets built around it.

Almost 70 years before WWI, Gustave de Molinari outlined the conditions which inevitably caused it:

Everywhere, when societies originate, we see the strongest, most warlike races seizing the exclusive government of the society. Everywhere we see these races seizing a monopoly on security within certain more or less extensive boundaries, depending on their number and strength.

 And, this monopoly being, by its very nature, extraordinarily profitable, everywhere we see the races invested with the monopoly on security devoting themselves to bitter struggles, in order to add to the extent of their market, the number of their forced consumers, and hence the amount of their gains.

War has been the necessary and inevitable consequence of the establishment of a monopoly on security.

[1715283214]

1715283214

[Adrian-x]

Adrian-X:  both are correct - Alpaca John solution is wrong; Myrkul: solution is correct but insufficient.   (Solution the property, given by God or the gods, or the big bang, [land air and water] is redefined in a new meme as something other than a commodity)

This is interesting. Now, which meme would you prefer replaces [B"Two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time, therefore, space, being scarce, must be allocated[/B], and the [C]fairest means of allocating space is that the first occupier has a better claim than all subsequent claimants[/C], and this claim can only be transferred voluntarily," ie, private property, homestead principle, and voluntary sale?

(A) And, given that the current understanding of voluntary trade is founded on that meme, how would you structure an economy based on your meme?

I am not sure how to do it effectively, but I believe there is a problem in your proposed solution and I believe a new and alternate and better solution is possible. 

I'd like to test your assumption (A) on which voluntary trade is founded, I believe we were trading stone tools well before we had developed the property meme. In fact access to the rocks weren't restricted i.e. the quarry was free for all, no individual lay clame to the property; the value came from doing the work, and the resulting benefits of the division of labour that perpetuated the practice of specialisation and trade.

(B) is a fact not a choice.
(C) your proposed solution is an existing meme and it has opposition in some schools of thought. On first glance it looks fair if space is not a finite resource, and individuals need X space.

How would you propose solving the problem if space was finite, and the occupiers of the space increased exponentially?

I dont have a good one, - culling is one, innovating to multiply the space is another. The optimal solution is probably a market driven solution, however, it creates a monopolistic relationship where the growing number of occupants are subject to supply and demand, there innovation finds a solution, but the first occupier, doesn't need to innovate as he has self proclaimed monopoly.  i.e. the first occupier took something that belonged to everyone and by taking it away from everyone made it his.

[Adrian-x]

Also, it was stated that lower mammals, insects, lizards, etc. know how to establish a balance naturally.  That isn't exactly true.  There is natural order to things including a food chain.  These animals are kept in check by natural predators.  If left unchecked they will cause an imbalance in the ecosystem and the correction will be severe. 

My referents was to mammals, insects, lizards, etc. of the same species, interacting not how they interact across species in the ecosystem. Eg. Young male lions will leave the pride before they are injured by the dominant male.  And a challenger to the dominant male primate, will back down before being injured.       

[Adrian-x]

Pure Capitalism has failed with the pre WWI power States dividing up all the Land in the world.

Um. That wasn't pure capitalism. That was (at best) State capitalism. But I feel we might be falling down the definition hole here. Pure capitalism is simply this: Private ownership of the means of production (land, money, machinery, etc), and competition of producers in a free market for profit. For a society to be called "pure capitalism" that principle must be applied to all industries, including defense and justice, two industries which the State traditionally monopolizes in the name of the public. Thus, in order for "pure capitalism" to exist, there must not be a State. And it is precisely this monopoly which caused the failure of the markets built around it.

Almost 70 years before WWI, Gustave de Molinari outlined the conditions which inevitably caused it:

I agree Adam Smith's Capitalism has never evolved linearly, but I think the path of colective evolution inevitably leads to the same place.

I see America as slightly different, in that it was a reaction from the collectivism (existing State structures) and in its self, a new structure founded on Individualism. It proved to be more resilient and efficient and effective than the existing colonial State structures at the time. (Ultimately evolving into the exact structure early pioneers originally sort to escape)

I think there are memes that drive the natural evolution of Collectivism and ultimately the State. I suppose that if we change the meme at the core we can evolve to a state of cooperative Individualism.

[myrkul]

How would you propose solving the problem if space was finite, and the occupiers of the space increased exponentially?

OK, here's how it works: You start with physical reality:

Two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time, and space (at least, usable space) is finite. Likewise, two people cannot make use of the same space (land) at the same time, and there's only so much land on any one planet.

Then, you move on to the logical conclusion from that physical reality:

Therefore, space, being scarce (finite), must be allocated.

Now, we move on to a statement of preference, based on that logical conclusion:

The fairest means of allocating space is that the first occupier has a better claim than all subsequent claimants, and this claim can only be transferred voluntarily.

As Stephan Kinsella points out in "Against Intellectual Property":

Only the first-occupier homesteading rule provides an objective, ethical, and non-arbitrary allocation of ownership in scarce resources.

Now, I'm open to alternatives, if you can present a resource allocation strategy that is demonstrably fair, non-arbitrary, and prevents conflict over scarce resources such as land.

[Richy_T]

As Stephan Kinsella points out in "Against Intellectual Property":

Only the first-occupier homesteading rule provides an objective, ethical, and non-arbitrary allocation of ownership in scarce resources.

Two problems though. First, most of the land available was not acquired on a "first occupier" basis. Secondly, and this is a problem (arguably) with both systems is that land can be over-claimed causing those who must make use of the land bound into serfdom to those who "own" the land. A third potential conflict is with those who have no need or want to "own" land but only to make use of it on an occasional basis (nomads, cattle drivers etc).

As a libertarian, I have difficulty reconciling this. Personal property, no problem. But real property and "intellectual property" are much more thorny issues and it harms the discussion that people tend to knee-jerk their responses (even those whose arguments I usually otherwise admire). I think the system we have at the moment is probably "good enough" but in a purely intellectual consideration, I assert that it's "not easy" to answer.

[myrkul]

First, most of the land available was not acquired on a "first occupier" basis.

You're right, that is a problem.
Certainly none of the currently government-controlled lands were gained justly.
But is it a problem we can do anything about? In some cases, yes, in most cases, no. So the fairest thing we can do is to, in those cases where we cannot determine a rightful owner, simply call it a blank slate. Government lands go "up for grabs," and everything else is given to the current owner. By and large, everything in the private sector was acquired by voluntary trade, even if the original owner wasn't actually the original owner. What's done is done, and we can't change the past. All we can really do is move forward, and hope to build a fairer future.

Secondly, and this is a problem (arguably) with both systems is that land can be over-claimed causing those who must make use of the land bound into serfdom to those who "own" the land.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you mean the oft-repeated criticism of the absent landlord, that's not really the problem you make it out to be. You can buy land from a landlord.

A third potential conflict is with those who have no need or want to "own" land but only to make use of it on an occasional basis (nomads, cattle drivers etc).

That's less of a problem in modern society, but there's no reason that a nomadic tribe couldn't claim their entire range, and a first-occupier rule would cover that. Just because you're not in all the rooms of your house all the time doesn't mean the rooms you're not in are not part of your house.

[KSV]

yes it is

[Richy_T]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you mean the oft-repeated criticism of the absent landlord, that's not really the problem you make it out to be. You can buy land from a landlord.

You can. In the case that the landlord is willing to sell. If he can keep you subdued and funding his lavish lifestyle by not selling and requiring tribute from you for working "his" land, even, perhaps to the degree that it is hard to save to move elsewhere or if that is not an option for other reasons, then there is an issue. This was more of an actual problem in feudal times but there are aspects in the  current situation.

It comes down to a liberty thing really. If I come across land lying fallow and I could farm it to feed myself, by what logic is this disallowed? Because it is some corner of your 10,000 acre estate, portioned out by a king a millenia ago?

Part of the issue is that the population is not a static thing, people are born and die. It complicates allocation of limited natural resources. Particularly when those resources are not being limited by nature.

That's less of a problem in modern society, but there's no reason that a nomadic tribe couldn't claim their entire range, and a first-occupier rule would cover that. Just because you're not in all the rooms of your house all the time doesn't mean the rooms you're not in are not part of your house.

That wouldn't fly for more than a couple of days. Nomads can range for hundreds of miles and might not return to a place for years. (titular) Wars were fought in the US over such things. I'm not saying I have an answer though, I think there's just more subtlety needed than the "winner takes all" model and this is reflected in current laws to some degree (right of way etc)

[Adrian-x]

Here is an interesting read:
http://www.minds.com/blog/view/46206/who-owns-the-federal-reserve

[johnyj]

It doesn't matter if FED is privately owned or publicly owned, it's the way they create money problematic

In principle, anyone who is trustworthy and own some valuable things can create money. If you have lots of gold, you can issue money (backed by gold), if you have several house, you can also issue money (backed by assets). People can use those money to exchange things, because it has value, anyone can come to you to redeem gold or house, it is perfectly working

In such case, you can spend the money created by you but you must keep corresponding assets as mortgage. If you spend the underlying assets (gold or house), your money might worth nothing if someone come to you to redeem those assets

But the problem with central banks' money creation is: They don't have any asset back the money they created

For example, FED is creating 80 billion dollar a month to buy government bond and MBS, when they create those 80 billion dollar, these money are backed by nothing. But after they purchased government bond and MBS with these money, they have some corresponding items in the FED's balance sheet: The government bonds and MBS are FED's asset and those newly created money are FED's liability

This is quite absurd. Imagine that anyone doing this: He created money by copying and use those money to buy several hundred houses. And his balance sheet record those money as his liability and record those houses as his asset. Although he has good accounting discipline, but that still counterfeiting, in any kind of law in any country, this is illegal. Why it becomes legal when central banks are doing this?

Ok, even central banks get the permission to do this through some complicated political work, it still created some problem: Now everyone in society will become very dependant on their relationship with central banks. The closer you get to those big money printed out from central banks, the better you are. This will create a twisted structure of the society that most of the rich people are banking/financial related workers who actually contribute very little to the production of real goods/services

[marcus_of_augustus]

It doesn't matter if FED is privately owned or publicly owned, it's the way they create money problematic

The problem is the monopoly authority given to them to create money .... without competition, and backing of legal thuggery to coerce and compel sole use of their shit monetary product, the opportunities for racketeering are boundless, as witnessed.

[johnyj]

People are ignorant, as long as they get money, they don't care. If you have the right to print money, you could eventually bribe anyone (with printed money)