Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 10:29:28 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: How to run an Anarchy  (Read 15860 times)
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
July 05, 2011, 12:28:34 AM
 #321

Sure would be cool if you had the slightest idea what libertarianism advocates.

Also, go out and learn what "incidental" and "essential" traits are.

Also, strong central banks are irrelevant, seeing as how just about every nation (including pseudo-nations like the "rebels" in Libya) has a central bank. Notice how I didn't say it was anything approaching perfect, it was just better than the alternatives.




That's just it though, I agree that it's better than the alternatives.  It's not more libertarian than the alternatives are though.  In fact, it's far far less libertarian than the alternatives.  That was my point.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
1481408968
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481408968

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481408968
Reply with quote  #2

1481408968
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481408968
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481408968

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481408968
Reply with quote  #2

1481408968
Report to moderator
1481408968
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481408968

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481408968
Reply with quote  #2

1481408968
Report to moderator
serchanto
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 85


View Profile WWW
July 05, 2011, 02:51:54 AM
 #322

If I had no conscience, and no strong retribution to fear, but had some power - i.e. lead an organized criminal group or possess weapons or whatever - I could and probably would use my power for blackmail, kidnapping, forcing people to pay protection money, and so on. All of these are very profitable (see e.g. Sicily - no offense to any Italians. Weak police, weak retribution, allows them to run all that profitable stuff I have described. In most cases they do not even need to be violent or "agressive", people fear them and that is enough.)

This describes a government monopoly on power:

"Organized group that possesses weapons or whatever" - check.  Examples - Army, Police, CIA, FBI, IRS, KGB, etc., etc., etc.
"Uses power for blackmail" - check.  Examples - Pay us taxes, follow our laws or face retribution.
"Kidnapping" - check.  Examples - Draft in some countries.  Many other analogies.
"Forcing people to pay protection money" - check.  Examples - Taxation (extortion).

The truth of the matter is that the world is populated by people looking out for their own interest.  This is normal and will always be the case, no matter what political system they live in.  In a society with strong central government the above mentioned "goodies" are centralized in one hands and those hands defend their ability to control (oppress) everyone vigorously.  In an anarchy (or a libertarian society) an individual can choose which gang to select for "protection".  To say that anarchy or libertarianism would solve all problems and cause everyone to "get along" is misleading, no society model can account for everything.  The difference is freedom of choice and individual liberty, ability to choose for yourself and not be forced by those who pretend to know what's best for everyone and feel in right to force everyone to believe the same.


LastBattle
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84



View Profile
July 05, 2011, 05:07:18 AM
 #323

Sure would be cool if you had the slightest idea what libertarianism advocates.

Also, go out and learn what "incidental" and "essential" traits are.

Also, strong central banks are irrelevant, seeing as how just about every nation (including pseudo-nations like the "rebels" in Libya) has a central bank. Notice how I didn't say it was anything approaching perfect, it was just better than the alternatives.




That's just it though, I agree that it's better than the alternatives.  It's not more libertarian than the alternatives are though.  In fact, it's far far less libertarian than the alternatives.  That was my point.

A strong central bank is something that everyone has. If you can find me a country with absolutely no central bank, please point me in its direction. Otherwise, that is a bit like saying "tigers and rabbits essentially the same because they are both found in cages"

You're standing on a flagstone running with blood, alone and so very lonely because you can't choose but you had to

I take tips to: 14sF7NNGJzXvoBcfbLR6N4Exy8umCAqdBd
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
July 05, 2011, 01:14:42 PM
 #324

Sure would be cool if you had the slightest idea what libertarianism advocates.

Also, go out and learn what "incidental" and "essential" traits are.

Also, strong central banks are irrelevant, seeing as how just about every nation (including pseudo-nations like the "rebels" in Libya) has a central bank. Notice how I didn't say it was anything approaching perfect, it was just better than the alternatives.




That's just it though, I agree that it's better than the alternatives.  It's not more libertarian than the alternatives are though.  In fact, it's far far less libertarian than the alternatives.  That was my point.

A strong central bank is something that everyone has. If you can find me a country with absolutely no central bank, please point me in its direction. Otherwise, that is a bit like saying "tigers and rabbits essentially the same because they are both found in cages"

No.  Nearly everyone has a central bank.  Not everyone has a strong, PROACTIVE central bank like Hong Kong, Sweden, China, etc.  There's a huge difference between the central bank of Sudan that simply loans out money to other banks, and the central bank of Hong Kong that actively manipulates the economy and business markets.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
LastBattle
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84



View Profile
July 05, 2011, 04:22:17 PM
 #325

Sure would be cool if you had the slightest idea what libertarianism advocates.

Also, go out and learn what "incidental" and "essential" traits are.

Also, strong central banks are irrelevant, seeing as how just about every nation (including pseudo-nations like the "rebels" in Libya) has a central bank. Notice how I didn't say it was anything approaching perfect, it was just better than the alternatives.




That's just it though, I agree that it's better than the alternatives.  It's not more libertarian than the alternatives are though.  In fact, it's far far less libertarian than the alternatives.  That was my point.

A strong central bank is something that everyone has. If you can find me a country with absolutely no central bank, please point me in its direction. Otherwise, that is a bit like saying "tigers and rabbits essentially the same because they are both found in cages"

No.  Nearly everyone has a central bank.  Not everyone has a strong, PROACTIVE central bank like Hong Kong, Sweden, China, etc.  There's a huge difference between the central bank of Sudan that simply loans out money to other banks, and the central bank of Hong Kong that actively manipulates the economy and business markets.

With the exception that nearly everyone in a Western nation has one like that, notably the Bank of Japan but also the ECB and (despite what you were just saying) the Federal Reserve. Actually, the Fed is arguably more proactive, it is just far less open in its operation due to (A) not being a strictly governmental organization and (B) the fact that it would be far less effective in its actions if they were obvious.

Come to think of it, the Bank of Japan is just as, if not far more, manipulative than that of Hong Kong. Yet we all know where Japan ended up with that. Furthermore, Japan had actual resources that came along with it, an industrialized base, and several hundred million more people. The distinguishing factors would be Hong Kong's comparable lack of worker protections, most regulations, etc.

Again, superficial difference. The tiger is in a cage smaller than that of the hamster, therefore the tiger must be smaller than the hamster.

You're standing on a flagstone running with blood, alone and so very lonely because you can't choose but you had to

I take tips to: 14sF7NNGJzXvoBcfbLR6N4Exy8umCAqdBd
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
July 05, 2011, 05:50:42 PM
 #326

Sure would be cool if you had the slightest idea what libertarianism advocates.

Also, go out and learn what "incidental" and "essential" traits are.

Also, strong central banks are irrelevant, seeing as how just about every nation (including pseudo-nations like the "rebels" in Libya) has a central bank. Notice how I didn't say it was anything approaching perfect, it was just better than the alternatives.




That's just it though, I agree that it's better than the alternatives.  It's not more libertarian than the alternatives are though.  In fact, it's far far less libertarian than the alternatives.  That was my point.

A strong central bank is something that everyone has. If you can find me a country with absolutely no central bank, please point me in its direction. Otherwise, that is a bit like saying "tigers and rabbits essentially the same because they are both found in cages"

No.  Nearly everyone has a central bank.  Not everyone has a strong, PROACTIVE central bank like Hong Kong, Sweden, China, etc.  There's a huge difference between the central bank of Sudan that simply loans out money to other banks, and the central bank of Hong Kong that actively manipulates the economy and business markets.

With the exception that nearly everyone in a Western nation has one like that, notably the Bank of Japan but also the ECB and (despite what you were just saying) the Federal Reserve. Actually, the Fed is arguably more proactive, it is just far less open in its operation due to (A) not being a strictly governmental organization and (B) the fact that it would be far less effective in its actions if they were obvious.

Come to think of it, the Bank of Japan is just as, if not far more, manipulative than that of Hong Kong. Yet we all know where Japan ended up with that. Furthermore, Japan had actual resources that came along with it, an industrialized base, and several hundred million more people. The distinguishing factors would be Hong Kong's comparable lack of worker protections, most regulations, etc.

Again, superficial difference. The tiger is in a cage smaller than that of the hamster, therefore the tiger must be smaller than the hamster.


Well you know what they say, if you want it to be a duck and it has two legs, even though it walks, talks, and acts like a person... it's a duck.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
LastBattle
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84



View Profile
July 05, 2011, 06:34:53 PM
 #327

Sure would be cool if you had the slightest idea what libertarianism advocates.

Also, go out and learn what "incidental" and "essential" traits are.

Also, strong central banks are irrelevant, seeing as how just about every nation (including pseudo-nations like the "rebels" in Libya) has a central bank. Notice how I didn't say it was anything approaching perfect, it was just better than the alternatives.




That's just it though, I agree that it's better than the alternatives.  It's not more libertarian than the alternatives are though.  In fact, it's far far less libertarian than the alternatives.  That was my point.

A strong central bank is something that everyone has. If you can find me a country with absolutely no central bank, please point me in its direction. Otherwise, that is a bit like saying "tigers and rabbits essentially the same because they are both found in cages"

No.  Nearly everyone has a central bank.  Not everyone has a strong, PROACTIVE central bank like Hong Kong, Sweden, China, etc.  There's a huge difference between the central bank of Sudan that simply loans out money to other banks, and the central bank of Hong Kong that actively manipulates the economy and business markets.

With the exception that nearly everyone in a Western nation has one like that, notably the Bank of Japan but also the ECB and (despite what you were just saying) the Federal Reserve. Actually, the Fed is arguably more proactive, it is just far less open in its operation due to (A) not being a strictly governmental organization and (B) the fact that it would be far less effective in its actions if they were obvious.

Come to think of it, the Bank of Japan is just as, if not far more, manipulative than that of Hong Kong. Yet we all know where Japan ended up with that. Furthermore, Japan had actual resources that came along with it, an industrialized base, and several hundred million more people. The distinguishing factors would be Hong Kong's comparable lack of worker protections, most regulations, etc.

Again, superficial difference. The tiger is in a cage smaller than that of the hamster, therefore the tiger must be smaller than the hamster.


Well you know what they say, if you want it to be a duck and it has two legs, even though it walks, talks, and acts like a person... it's a duck.

Being in a pond doesn't make it a duck, the essential attributes of ducks make it a duck.

You're standing on a flagstone running with blood, alone and so very lonely because you can't choose but you had to

I take tips to: 14sF7NNGJzXvoBcfbLR6N4Exy8umCAqdBd
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
July 06, 2011, 01:46:46 AM
 #328

Sure would be cool if you had the slightest idea what libertarianism advocates.

Also, go out and learn what "incidental" and "essential" traits are.

Also, strong central banks are irrelevant, seeing as how just about every nation (including pseudo-nations like the "rebels" in Libya) has a central bank. Notice how I didn't say it was anything approaching perfect, it was just better than the alternatives.




That's just it though, I agree that it's better than the alternatives.  It's not more libertarian than the alternatives are though.  In fact, it's far far less libertarian than the alternatives.  That was my point.

A strong central bank is something that everyone has. If you can find me a country with absolutely no central bank, please point me in its direction. Otherwise, that is a bit like saying "tigers and rabbits essentially the same because they are both found in cages"

No.  Nearly everyone has a central bank.  Not everyone has a strong, PROACTIVE central bank like Hong Kong, Sweden, China, etc.  There's a huge difference between the central bank of Sudan that simply loans out money to other banks, and the central bank of Hong Kong that actively manipulates the economy and business markets.

With the exception that nearly everyone in a Western nation has one like that, notably the Bank of Japan but also the ECB and (despite what you were just saying) the Federal Reserve. Actually, the Fed is arguably more proactive, it is just far less open in its operation due to (A) not being a strictly governmental organization and (B) the fact that it would be far less effective in its actions if they were obvious.

Come to think of it, the Bank of Japan is just as, if not far more, manipulative than that of Hong Kong. Yet we all know where Japan ended up with that. Furthermore, Japan had actual resources that came along with it, an industrialized base, and several hundred million more people. The distinguishing factors would be Hong Kong's comparable lack of worker protections, most regulations, etc.

Again, superficial difference. The tiger is in a cage smaller than that of the hamster, therefore the tiger must be smaller than the hamster.


Well you know what they say, if you want it to be a duck and it has two legs, even though it walks, talks, and acts like a person... it's a duck.

Being in a pond doesn't make it a duck, the essential attributes of ducks make it a duck.

Exactly my point.  You're pointing to something that has only a single attribute of a duck and you're calling it a duck because you want it to be a duck.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
July 06, 2011, 02:16:17 AM
 #329

Ducks are off topic.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
LastBattle
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84



View Profile
July 06, 2011, 02:22:51 AM
 #330

Sure would be cool if you had the slightest idea what libertarianism advocates.

Also, go out and learn what "incidental" and "essential" traits are.

Also, strong central banks are irrelevant, seeing as how just about every nation (including pseudo-nations like the "rebels" in Libya) has a central bank. Notice how I didn't say it was anything approaching perfect, it was just better than the alternatives.




That's just it though, I agree that it's better than the alternatives.  It's not more libertarian than the alternatives are though.  In fact, it's far far less libertarian than the alternatives.  That was my point.

A strong central bank is something that everyone has. If you can find me a country with absolutely no central bank, please point me in its direction. Otherwise, that is a bit like saying "tigers and rabbits essentially the same because they are both found in cages"

No.  Nearly everyone has a central bank.  Not everyone has a strong, PROACTIVE central bank like Hong Kong, Sweden, China, etc.  There's a huge difference between the central bank of Sudan that simply loans out money to other banks, and the central bank of Hong Kong that actively manipulates the economy and business markets.

With the exception that nearly everyone in a Western nation has one like that, notably the Bank of Japan but also the ECB and (despite what you were just saying) the Federal Reserve. Actually, the Fed is arguably more proactive, it is just far less open in its operation due to (A) not being a strictly governmental organization and (B) the fact that it would be far less effective in its actions if they were obvious.

Come to think of it, the Bank of Japan is just as, if not far more, manipulative than that of Hong Kong. Yet we all know where Japan ended up with that. Furthermore, Japan had actual resources that came along with it, an industrialized base, and several hundred million more people. The distinguishing factors would be Hong Kong's comparable lack of worker protections, most regulations, etc.

Again, superficial difference. The tiger is in a cage smaller than that of the hamster, therefore the tiger must be smaller than the hamster.


Well you know what they say, if you want it to be a duck and it has two legs, even though it walks, talks, and acts like a person... it's a duck.

Being in a pond doesn't make it a duck, the essential attributes of ducks make it a duck.

Exactly my point.  You're pointing to something that has only a single attribute of a duck and you're calling it a duck because you want it to be a duck.

Inversion. Hong Kong has one interventionist feature (a large central bank) and far more free market features. Japan, meanwhile, has the exact same interventionist feature (Again, a large central bank that is arguably far more interventionist then that of Hong Kong), as well as many more interventionist features. Hong Kong is still relatively prosperous as it has been for about fifty years, whereas Japan has been a recession for the past twenty years despite having far more resources than Hong Kong has. If this were a scientific study, "large central bank" would be the constant, whereas "regulations/taxation/etc" and "prosperity" would be the independent and dependent variables, respectively. QED.

Quote
Ducks are off topic.

Sorry. Got a bit carried away with the metaphor.

You're standing on a flagstone running with blood, alone and so very lonely because you can't choose but you had to

I take tips to: 14sF7NNGJzXvoBcfbLR6N4Exy8umCAqdBd
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
July 06, 2011, 02:30:33 AM
 #331


Sorry. Got a bit carried away with the metaphor.


Like I said, you'll make it whatever you want to make it because it suits your worldview.  Hong Kong can be Neverland, Narnia, Middle Earth, or whatever makes you happy.  The one thing it's not is libertarian.

Interesting side note about Japan, they have the lowest wealth disparity (most well-off poor people) in the world.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
July 06, 2011, 02:47:00 AM
 #332


Sorry. Got a bit carried away with the metaphor.


Like I said, you'll make it whatever you want to make it because it suits your worldview.  Hong Kong can be Neverland, Narnia, Middle Earth, or whatever makes you happy.  The one thing it's not is libertarian.


Hong Kong is far from an ideal libertarian state, the point is that it's closer overall than many other societies that it can be compared to, and is also more prosperous in almost every metric against those other examples.  However, corrolation is not causation, so this really doesn't prove anything.  It should give anyone trying to rationally compare nations a reason to pause.

Incidentally, Hong Kong actually is home to the only example of a modern and urban anarchist society that can rationally be argued to represent the ideology, and it was both entirely accidental and less than stellar, but it was still far better than the alternatives available to those who chose to live there.

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

Quote
Interesting side note about Japan, they have the lowest wealth disparity (most well-off poor people) in the world.

The fact that Japan has teh lowest wealth disparity does not lead to the conclusion that they have the most well-off poor people in the world.  I demand support to this claim.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
July 06, 2011, 02:54:49 AM
 #333


The fact that Japan has teh lowest wealth disparity does not lead to the conclusion that they have the most well-off poor people in the world.  I demand support to this claim.


Bottom line, Hong Kong is not even remotely libertarian, therefore the comparison is worthless.  It's like saying a two year old would be the best driver in the world because a 40 year old drives better than a 90 year old, and 40 is closer to 2 than 90 is.  Roll Eyes


Here you go:

Average incomes are in the top bracket worldwide and they have the lowest wealth disparity in the world.  Obvious conclusion, they've got the most well-off poor people in the world.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
LastBattle
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84



View Profile
July 06, 2011, 03:07:09 AM
 #334

Quote
Bottom line, Hong Kong is not even remotely libertarian, therefore the comparison is worthless.  It's like saying a two year old would be the best driver in the world because a 40 year old drives better than a 90 year old, and 40 is closer to 2 than 90 is. 

Repeating nonsense does not make it become true.

You're standing on a flagstone running with blood, alone and so very lonely because you can't choose but you had to

I take tips to: 14sF7NNGJzXvoBcfbLR6N4Exy8umCAqdBd
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
July 06, 2011, 03:22:43 AM
 #335


Average incomes are in the top bracket worldwide and they have the lowest wealth disparity in the world.  Obvious conclusion, they've got the most well-off poor people in the world.

FAIL!

I did not contest the claim that the Japanse have the lowest wealth disparity in the world, I was demanding support for your conclusion.  It does not follow that low wealth disparity implies that the poor are magicly those most affected.  The "most well off people in the world" is a vague metric, and I was giving you the chance to support this claim.  I actually know already that it's false by almost any real metric available; but quality of life is a hard thing to measure.  The poor in Japan certainly have access to much more quality of life than the poor in Kenya, but absolute comparisons are rarely instructive.  Your probably thinking of the UN's MDG metrics.  http://unstats.un.org/unsd/mdg/default.aspx  These would imply that Japan has long been in a tight matchup with some states in Europe for the top spot, but that's based upon the percentage of total national wealth that the bottom 20% possess.  This metric alone actually means very little with regard to quality of life, because nations like North Korea are automaticly removed from the comparisions because the government owns everything, so there is a bias from the start.  Also, how do you compare the lifestyle of a poor japanese family in Kyoto to that of a poor American family in Spokane?  Which has access to quality health care?  Living space per household member?  Effective public transportation?  Consumer products?  Internet?  Most of these issues are about comparable between nations except living space per person.  By any measurement, Americans (of any class) have, on average, the most living space per person compared to any of their class peers anywhere in the world; while Japan sits at the other extreme among first world nations.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
July 06, 2011, 03:36:54 AM
 #336

To support my point, here is a report on American poverty in 2007.  This report is based upon census data, and the government's definition of poverty; which conviently is roughly households in the bottom 20% income bracket.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/08/How-Poor-Are-Americas-Poor-Examining-the-Plague-of-Poverty-in-America

From the article....

Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes.

The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning.
 
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 06, 2011, 03:49:13 AM
 #337

Now, here I will differ from some anarchists, in that I do not support the use of retaliatory force, either.

Anarchy in science means the choice exists in the law of conservation.

Science is without anarchy if you have no choice.

Some evolve and think that is the first choice.

The wise know the second choice is greater than other needs; possible origin.

Nice haiku, but... was there a point?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 06, 2011, 04:05:50 AM
 #338

Maybe just difference in age in how people react about anarchy, not like any new point was being made today.

The infinite does not allow any point of origin; how does anarchy agree? There is no disagreement in the medium of exchange over periodic occurrences.

You're still not making sense. The words are in English. The order is... Maybe I'm not high enough, or there's a serious language barrier.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 06, 2011, 04:25:03 AM
 #339

You're still not making sense.

People can pick cents up off the ground; mind readers know the magic of non-sense; coincidence of judgement; or, "you're" job?

Somewhere on your world people do not make sense; do nothing.

Yup. Not high enough. Welcome to the forum, friend.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 06, 2011, 05:13:48 AM
 #340

My meditation spot is over here. Another geolocation is over where this is read. This is down to Earth. That makes us higher. Should we talk about oil? Or, lets make it harder for our enemies.

You're a bot, aren't you?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!