[Vampiro27]

Well, being communism is doomed to economic failure no matter how many times it, and similar economic ideas are tried…..maybe the spreading, and subsequent failure of these systems would have been able to transpire much quicker had all this intervention not taken place. Individuals would have been subjected to the full force of these isms, whether they be communism, facism, totalitarianism, socialism, etc. Maybe then, they would have appreciated liberty, freedom, property and take it upon themselves to fight for, preserve and protect those natural rights.

Look at all of these battles in the name of so called freedom, and the fights against communism that have taken place. After all these battles, are we more free throughout the world? Was the battle against communism all that effective? Why was there even a need to sacrifice the lives of many, to fight a system and it’s economic ideas that would have, and has failed on it’s own throughout history? Even since world war two, there have been 72 interventions from the US alone. Have we become freer because of those actions? The answer is no, as we wouldn’t see the erosion of our liberties take place, but would have seen them further flourish if the real goal were to defend freedom.

Be weary of those few individuals whom send us off to war in the name of freedom, while stripping away those very freedoms they swore an oath to support and defend here at home.

Numerous violations of an individuals rights have taken place. Whether it be the ever expanding government, patriot act, legislation within bills such as the Ndaa, stripping away the right to due process, private property and a myriad of other violations of freedom and liberty that take place in the open, and in secret.

[Vampiro27]

Might I also suggest going back even further. There is not much information on the Knights Templar, but from what is written, they engaged in what would be considered a full reserve manner. Their receipts were backed 100% by an individuals deposits and a system was in place to prevent forgery. The King wound up killing them and confiscating their earnings.

Though not in the US research John Law, and the disastrous economic policies that he followed and implemented. Law also helped disprove the Keynesian economists before they were Keynesian. So did Alexander Hamilton, and the assistant sec treas Duer along with the central bank (and of course many other policy makers and bankers).

As to the flaw’s of a banking system. One of fractional reserves, currency debauchery along with interest rate and market manipulation would be flawed and doomed to fail in it’s inception.

[Vampiro27]

You can try to explain to other individuals in a way i do. The individual is the sovereign, and individual rights do not come from or are bestowed upon individuals by the state or federal government. They belong naturally to the individual.

The constitution expressly protects individual rights. There is an illogical supposition by certain individuals that somehow the general welfare clause gives politicians a right to confiscate what others have and give it to another individual through force, coercion etc. This of course is nonsensical, as the oath the politician swears is to protect individual rights. If they were to rob one individual to give to another individual, or corporation they would be violating their oath of office, the constitution, and individual liberty. The money that is thrown at politicians bribing them “lobbying” to violate the rights of others is not the only problem. The other problem is politicians robbing money through involuntary taxation, and or debasing the currency which robs all individuals whom use it as their media of exchange, In the case of the US (as well as other countries) legal tender laws force an individual to accept a payment against their will.

So ask these individuals that espouse not only socialistic policies, but others as well. Is theft immoral and against the law? Their answer may very well be yes. If theft is immoral, and unlawful, then what makes it right for a politician to engage in such behavior on another individuals behalf? How would they like if an individual broke into their residence, robbed their property, threatened their family and told them they are to pay money every week, and if not, they will be beaten up, or thrown in jail? So if they do not wish this upon themselves, then how is it they can advocate a politician behave in a similar manner on their behalf?

This simple engagement sets the stage to engage the illogical policies individuals believe in, and may open up their eyes to what they and other individuals on other sides are actually advocating.

[Vampiro27]

Mr. Jacobs, you said “but so long as the State is going to be involved in monetary affairs, something like the gold standard is necessary to impose discipline on government spending”. Wouldn’t it be far more effective if individuals were free in monetary matters? A gold standard would not prevent the government from adopting a pseudo gold standard such as the Bretton Woods agreement. A far more effective measure would be to repeal all unconstitutional legal tender laws, thereby allowing individuals to be free in monetary matters. This also brings up other roadblocks to liberty, such as taxes being collected in dollars, which still could be inflated at the behest of the state. There too, changes would have to be made, to include the elimination of the income tax, and subsequently a government that is funded voluntarily. Though the latter are far off due to a liberty minded individual not having the pulpit of the presidency to promote and defend liberty, repealing legal tender laws is something that could possibly pass due to the nature of it’s unconstitutionality.

To the perfect economy website, I find this quote “Yet this very moment you have your finger on proof of singular solution” rather illogical due to the nature of the economy being dynamic as it is. For the author to label interest as causing a perpetual debt is I believe wrong.

He constantly misrepresents Ron Paul as well. Ron Paul has advocated for complete freedom in monetary matters, and a gold standard only as an option for government based upon the constitution, along with removing the coercive force of government and central banks in relation to money as well. The author also mentions that gold’s limited supply is a problem, when historically it has been an asset. It’s no wonder that gold has a 6,000 year history as a media of exchange.

Take this quote: “In the case of a $100,000 home with a hundred year lifespan, we would pay for the home/debt at the overall rate of $1,000 per year or $83.33 per month — a mere fraction of present costs.

Simply by re-financing all debt under mathematically perfected economy, we would immediately achieve full employment and *multiples* of our present “prosperity,” because so much *existent* cash could be devoted to commerce, versus its present dedication to servicing debt.”

This is nonsensical. So, not only is the individual unable to charge interest for the money loaned out, but they are now forced to accept a payment of only 1,000 dollars per year for 100 years. How a payment plan would achieve full employment and prosperity goes beyond logic. Also, contracts would be rendered null and void through force, therefore causing individuals to go bankrupt in the process, as other contractual obligations were based off of the lending agreement, which now could not be fulfilled, and myriad of economic problems would stem from this.

Where would this freed up money that “would immediately be available to sustain all the industry we are capable of” wind up? How would it be distributed? What about the new unemployed? How would they be compensated for the theft that took place against them? Why should the builder make a profit on building the home in the first place?

We have individual A whom works hard, and expends energy in order to earn money. This individual then saves money. Individual B doesn’t work nearly as hard as individual A, yet desires a loan in order to make a purchase. So what happened to the “but to the very economic justice of receiving for an equal measure of our own work, the equivalent work of others” So if individual A lends out 100,000 dollars, they only are allowed to receive in return 100,000 dollars. This therefore invalidates the equal measure of individual A’s work, as it was far greater than individual B’s efforts in acquiring the 100,000 dollars, and individual B need not expend much effort in order to receive the 100K. Individual A would be compensated for their efforts through interest on the earned $100,000. It is up to individual B to accept the terms, if not the transaction never takes place. This “mathematically perfected economic system just doesn’t add up.

[Author]

Posts