Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it
So next time you spout of saying “End the Fed” or any of that other impractical, anti-central banking nonsense, recall what happened when we ended the 2nd Bank…
I still fail to see how the blame falls on the Fed, even after reading your long explanation. Granted the Fed offered up credit for riskier investments, but there was no requirement to give mortgages to those people. The banks could gave easily refused, but they chose not to. The banks knew it was a poor investment, otherwise why would they have bothered to hide them in slices with inflated credit ratings? When you’re using tricks to hide poor choices from investors, that tells me it’s on you, even if someone else technically gave you the ability to do it.
It’s like if I were to buy a gun then use it to rob a store. The gun seller enabled me through his policies, and how was I to pass up a chance to gain all that money? The excuse doesn’t fly. No one strong armed me into doing it, regardless of the monetary incentive it was still my choice.
AIG and the like also deserve more blame than the Fed would. They thought the housing prices would never go down, which is an absurd prospect. But again, no one forced them make these terrible decisions, regardless of the monetary incentive. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.
The problem I see with what you’re saying is that it doesn’t address my point that the big banks created the Fed in order to get the credit they all wanted. The Fed is a product of the banks because the banks wanted to exploit the markets. The government allowed it, which it shouldn’t have.
Also, what it doesn’t address is the fact that if one bank doesn’t accept this credit when all the others do, it will be ruined in the markets. The credit expansion destroys competition unless every one of the big banks comply. Even if all but one of the banks refused the credit (which they wouldn’t, since they set up the system for themselves), the one bank that accepted to use the credit would dominate the markets. Their profits would enable them to monopolize banking in practicality.
These are mights, but I’m thinking of making a posts concerning Environmental Regulations, concerning the idea of Minarchy and our American Constitution, and the idea of how to phase out of Social Security given that the economy is almost completely moved to free-markets. Yes, these are obviously very subjective and I understand that me saying “phase out of Social Security” makes many cringe. It’s just a spit-ball idea.
I will also try to add a tag on my blog, along with the others, titled “Explanations”. This is where I will post all of my lengthy posts explaining economics or social issues or any “major” original post.
That was a banking vacuum. What else are you going to expect when a central bank is shut down suddenly?
Also, you can’t ignore the absolutely ridiculous corruption in central banking. Even as a socialist, you have to admit private banking is the “lesser of the two evils”.
It wasn’t shut down suddenly, there was warning. For christs sake, the charter said “This bank will cease to function on this date unless it is renewed by the government”
And as corrupt as central banking is, do you really think private banking is better? You think those coked up assholes in Moodys, AIG, Standard and Poors, Lehman Brothers and Bank of America are actually legit and less corrupt than the Federal Reserve?
The federal reserve injects liquidity into corrupt banks to keep them from bringing the whole country down. Corrupt.
Those banking institutions caused this crisis by playing with risky investments with their customers money, bribing each other for positive ratings and laundering money from drug cartels. Not so corrupt? This was a monument to corruption!!
Now I completely understand the worry of these banks and their corruptibility. And to come to peace with that, one must realize what enables them to destroy our economy: the assurance that they will be bailed out by the Fed and have inflation caused by the central bank help business. The fact that the Fed injects liquidity into the banks when they were irresponsible is nothing but a manifestation of that corruptness.
The fractional-reserve banking system of today is broken and will continue to destroy us. So why, you might ask, would it be any different with free-banking? Well, here’s the answer. In short, it’s pretty much stating the fact of the selfishness of banks will lead to them being responsible with money. They wouldn’t be able to destruct the markets because it’s obviously in their best interests for their banking chains to stay alive. The huge credit expansion would stop. Complete liability is a wonderful thing for the consumer.
This post has nothing really to do with political issues, but is mainly to point out just how ridiculous I think some of the bloggers here act. Before, in my blogging life, I’m sure I’ve stated that someone was a “fucking idiot” or something along those lines. To be quite honest, I can’t remember any times I have (save for when ryking was pulling much of the same stuff I see now, but only to an extreme degree).
I hate being the person that looks like they’re trying to come off as “so open minded” about everything (because I’m really not), but I think I have a great amount of respect for most political and, especially, economic schools of thought. I can’t even remember the last time I’ve said Keynesians are idiots or Communism is stupid. I don’t think they are. I have great respect for them and for their mentalities. I know that each and every school of thought has their reasons for believing what they do.
I’m a libertarian. My political ideology has been labeled as greedy and stupid and mindless among other things. I’ve been called a bigot and have been told that I hate poor people for my views on what is best for society in the aggregate.
Conservatives and libertarians have been barraging liberals and collectivists with insults, calling them people who just want to control us; sometimes they say they’re arrogant, always hypocritical, lazy, leechers, that they can’t read, and anything else you can think of. And these are all, of course, the extremely mild insults. I see straw-man after straw-man on folks such as Ron Paul, Naom Chomsky, and other icons of various political movements (those two come immediately to mind). It’s embarrassing.
If the people you attack so violently actually believe and think the stuff you say they believe, no one would believe it. There are geniuses who come up with these ideas, find formulas for it, and think of everything when reaching their conclusions. These people and others who agree with them are by no means stupid. Example: I guarantee that even though I am extremely opposed to Paul Krugman, he’d have an answer to every single one of any libertarian’s questions or arguments. Because he’s not an idiot. He’s extremely intelligent and very capable of learning whatever he wants to.
Here’s my question to everyone who participates in this name-calling-fest: Why? Honestly, how is it constructive? Who are you convincing? Yourself? Do you need to convince yourself by calling others who may disagree with you “scumbags” or “oppressors” or “retards”? Because if you do, I suggest reconsidering your views on our various structures in society.
How are you helping anyone by ad-hominems and insults? Do you think you’ll reach anyone by that? Because you won’t. You can reach them by either a) accepting the fact that you believe they are misinformed and be civil in trying and tell/convince them of your views, or b) accepting the fact that you won’t be able to form a coalition with them in those areas you disagree on, and instead just be friends. Why is all of this hatred necessary? Why not argue respectfully against the philosophy rather than horribly against the people?
None of what you’re all doing is necessary. It’s wasteful, both regarding your energy put into it/how much stress it gives you, and regarding a post. Because that’s what it really is: a waste of a post. No one cares about it anymore when you make yourself appear as an idealistic and not-accepting person (except for like-minded people). I carefully take in the arguments of my political “opponents”, think about them for a while, and either accept them or not. I’ve, over time, accepted that Socialism can work. I think it’s more efficient when done voluntarily, but a full-out Democratic Socialist society would work economically. However, it goes against my principle of opposing the initiation of force, which is primarily why I disagree with it.
The main idea here is that it’s a real shame to see so many intelligent people reduce themselves to acting as bad as the most childish politicians. And yes, I know, that’s technically namecalling. But I think what’s happening here behavior-wise is really just… bad. I can’t really find the correct words to describe my disdain for it. It shows we’re regressing, not progressing. Obviously, you have the right to say whatever you please to me or others, and obviously I’m not going to stop you. I haven’t even tried to stop anyone until this post, and this post is more informative rather than a voice telling specific people to cut it out. I don’t think many people who do what I’m talking about will even take this post seriously. And that’s fine. But my opinion is that it really needs to stop, because it’s such a waste.
Santorum: Wants a single-charter instead of a dual-charter, but desires keeping it around. He supports an Audit, but an obvious continuation of policies. All he mentioned was “it needs sound money” as any kind of reply. Seems pretty vague to me.
Cain: It should be audited, but should be “fixed” and not eliminated. Cain claims that decades ago the Fed did a very good job with its monetary policy.
Bachmann: Bachmann would remove Bernanke, but keep the Federal Reserve around. She agrees that in the Fed’s proposed actions, its wording is so broad, that it gives itself way too much power; she views Congress as the enabler.
Perry: Semi-defends his words talking about Bernanke’s “treason”. Perry, as all of the other candidates so far, supports the Fed existing, but thinks it needs reform. He, like the others, offers no solution whatsoever.
Romney: Just read everything above. Says it needs to be fixed but offers absolutely no “game-plan” about the Fed. Though he does say that the Fed needs more oversight.
By the way, Ron Paul was absolutely ignored for this question.
I am a Sergeant in the U.S. Army. I support Ron Paul and I support his foreign policy. I am sure you would not dare call me a Paultard to my face.
No, you would give me the same parroted line I hear 100 times a day, “Thank you for your service”. When I hear some flabby couch potato like you say that to me it makes me sick. Yes, I serve our country, but our wars do not.
I do my best to keep my men alive while we carry out this sick policy of sticking our noses in other people’s business. When was the last time you had a friend die in your arms or looked for the leg that was just blown off of the man next to you? When was the last time you walked past dead children that were killed by U.S. weapons? I’m glad you can sleep at night, because many times I cannot. I have children myself you self righteous SOB. If someone killed my children you can bet I would do everything in my power to seek revenge.
You call me rabid and blind? I know what I am talking about. Why don’t you grab a gun and head to Iran if you want to fight them so much. Ron Paul is right. They are no threat to us. We need to mind our own business. They hate us not because we are rich and free, they hate us because we are in their countries.
It is people like you that are the biggest threat to this country, not Iran.
There are many of us, on both the Left and the Right (mostly the Libertarian Right), who have become somewhat uneasy regarding the legacy of 9/11. And today, while we remember the victims, and grant the surviving friends and family due solemnity, there seems to me no more appropriate time to voice this disconcerting ambivalence. For it is often in our darkest moments that we allow ourselves to forget the lessons of the past.
When 9/11 first happened, I think it’s fair to say that all of us were confused. What appeared at first to be a terrible accident to most of us was clearly an intentional attack once the second plane hit. And then of course, Flight 93 and the Pentagon. I think once everyone realized what was happening, everyone was scared shitless. Where would the next plane hit? How many were there? Should I run and hide in a bunker somewhere? Are we being friggin’ invaded?
Once enough time past, we realized that four was the final number. Four planes. One for each WTC tower, one at the Pentagon, and one that was intentionally grounded by its crew members before it could reach its desired destination. It was, in its own way, a small sigh of relief to know that this was the extent of the attack with some certainty.
Then of course, we watched the first tower collapse. A horrifying moment. In many ways, the towers themselves were a monument to the greatness of our civilization: engines of both private and public ingenuity in the center of American Capitalism. One brings to mind the designs of cathedral architects, who built high, daunting spires in an effort to bring humanity closer to the kingdom of God. Perhaps that intention still resides in the subconscious of those who build our highest skyscrapers, whatever their religious beliefs may actually be.
So much more the horror, then, when these Jacob’s Ladders were seen to fall and crumble, taking with them not only the lives of those still within, but spreading clouds of detritus throughout the immediate area, poisoning and choking every innocent bystander that did not have the good fortune or sense to flee the area in time.
And this is where the legitimate memorialization of 9/11 exists, in my mind: innocent people died. Whatever the cause, people who were just minding their own business, trying to live their lives as they saw fit, died. That is tragic, and within that tragedy there is cause for reflection and solemnity. Surely we can all agree that the massive expropriation of innocent life deserves to be recalled and memorialized. There is no skepticism or disconcert that can be applied to this aspect of the Legacy of 9/11. Those that lost family and friends have a right to grieve, and their grief should be expected.
If the legacy of 9/11 stopped here, it would never be suspect. It would be merely a show of respect for the survivors of victims; a national day of unity in which we pause to respectfully recall the pain that entered so many peoples’ lives in one terrible, brief window of time.
But this is not where the legacy of 9/11 stops. In fact, the grief of the survivors is perhaps the smallest, most straightforward part of the legacy of 9/11. It is everything else that happened afterwards that corrupted our national character, and continues to subtly invade many celebrations of the victims, even those that are well-intentioned and non-partisan.
9/11 was a national security breach of unprecedented character. Not only was it the most Americans who’d ever died in a violent act of political character, it was the first time we’d ever been successfully attacked on American soil since WWII. The Atlantic and Pacific seawalls no longer provided the implicit protection that we had always relied on. Americans could always count on the fact that, if anyone wanted to attack us, they’d have to cross an ocean, regardless of the direction they came from. And unlike Pearl Harbor 1941, Pearl Harbor 2001 would easily be prevented and foreseen with modern technology. And given that our neighbors to the North are amicable, and our neighbors to the South are reliant on us, our geographical position was superior in terms of national security. 9/11 punched a hole in that confidence.
Unfortunately, that hole was and is likely to be a permanent one.
The sense of national unity in the aftermath of 9/11 was probably not unlike what happened after Pearl Harbor was struck. The stories of suffering that emanated from Ground Zero proliferated quickly, and we all found ourselves wondering what there was that could be done. People volunteered for rescue and clean-up duty. People lined up to give blood. People gave money. Business owners offered their resources.
And for a brief moment, we forgot about political parties. We forgot about the things that divided us. The political polarization that has haunted relations between the Left and Right for so long dissipated, and for a short period, we stopped hating each other.
Yet that political unity cost us dearly in the ensuing aftermath, as our sense of America’s Exceptionalism gave rise to a sense of duty. And that duty demanded we answer two important questions. First: who did this? Second: how do we make sure it doesn’t happen again?
The answers to these questions comprised the proverbial gate of Hell through which the Dante entered the Inferno. America, with its hand held by a Congressional Virgil, strode confidently passed Cerebus, and began its descent into the mires of the Abyss.
First, who did this? Al Qaeda. 13 hijackers from Saudi-Arabia, it turns out. What do we do about it? We need to hold someone responsible. President Clinton’s work in Afghanistan gave us pre-existing knowledge of the fact that the Taliban was harboring terrorists, openly and willingly. So that would be our first stop. Even though Saudi Arabia also has tied to terrorism, we can’t attack them because we get too much oil from them; and at any rate, the then-President’s father had private business relations with the Saudi royal family. So that was out of the question. What was not out of the question was attacking a poor, backwards country run by religious fundamentalists which had driven back every foreign invader that has ever tried to conquer or subjugate it; first Alexander, then the British, then the Soviets. But none of that mattered. We are America, we were attacked, and SOMEONE must pay. The first question has been answered.
Second, what do we do to make sure this never happens again? First we observed the intelligence failures that led to gaps in knowledge which created an opening for the hijackers to carry out their operation. We responded to this with the USA-PATRIOT Act, whose letters don’t even stand for “United States of America,” which is perhaps the most fitting irony that its authors could have mustered.
The PATRIOT Act, perhaps more than any other response to 9/11, is a permanent symbol to how far afield we fell in responding to 9/11. The most corrupt piece of 9/11’s legacy. It was the imposition of a larger, robust, more powerful Security state. It gave law enforcement at all levels unprecedented power, the abuses of which my readers are already no doubt familiar with. Suffice to say, this single Act of legislation, which was passed with only a single dissenting vote, captures perfectly the words of Justice Brennan which I quoted at length recently:
[A]s adamant as my country has been about civil liberties during peacetime, it has a long history of failing to preserve civil liberties when it perceived its national security threatened. This series of failures is particularly frustrating in that it appears to result not from informed and rational decisions that protecting civil liberties would expose the United States to unacceptable security risks, but rather from the episodic nature of our security crises. After each perceived security crisis ended, the United States has remorsefully realized that the abrogation of civil liberties was unnecessary. But it has proven unable to prevent itself from repeating the error when the next crisis came along.
After the PATRIOT Act, we saw the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Then came the Military Commissions Act of 2006. In-between came the War in Iraq, which we were told was necessary for WMD. Then when WMD wasn’t found, we were told it was necessary to fight terror. Then when Saddam’s connections to terrorism were found to be tenuous, we were told it was to free the Iraqi people from a dictator. Ex Post Facto justifications, however, should never serve as a basis for sound policy.
And then we started torturing people. It became ok. We opened Black Site facilities all across the world, turned Guantanamo Bay into an “enhanced interrogation factory,” and when we didn’t want to torture people ourselves, we extradited them to other countries who we knew would. Waterboarding, an act which used to be solidly in the Torture category under the regimes of the Third Reich, the Inquisition, Stalinist Russia, and the Khmer Rouge, was now simply a form of “enhanced interrogation.” We were told that it wasn’t torture because we weren’t actually doing physical harm to them, despite the fact that American soldiers killed 26 people in the Philipinnes using what was then known as the “water cure.” We were told nobody died, until OPR memos came out in 2010 in which we discovered that yes, some detainees had actually died after being waterboarded.
Underwriting all of these unprecedented, inhumane expansions of American power was an undercurrent of Nationalism. A sensibility which can only be described as Jingoist swept across our nation. Nowhere was this more apparent than in the treatment of critics of the Iraq war. Many of us who came to oppose the war were equated with those who gave aid and comfort to terrorists. Simply by questioning the official story, we were not Jeffersonian patriots (misattributed as the infamous quote may be). We were in fact the exact opposite. Critics of the war were also accused of not supporting the Troops. That being opposed to their mission was antithetical to their well-being. In these “patriotic” exhortations, the words of Herman Goering rang with a frighteningly familiar echo:
Naturally the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
The language of Patriotism, of course, was a familiar trope within one of the nation’s two dominant political parties. And the use of 9/11 as a bludgeon to politically attack those who began to criticize our policy reactions to 9/11 was entirely predictable. There is nothing new under the sun, as they say. Or in this case, the ominous gap left by the absence of the Twin Towers in our national conscience.
And this is what weighs on me every time our nation gathers to remember the victims of 9/11. My genuine sorrow for the emotional suffering of those who lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks is stained by the ugly patina of jingoism, overreaction, and trenchant authoritarianism that has come to define the post-9/11 policy world. The terrorists took a lot more than life and stock market gains when they hit those planes. They took a part of our national character. And we willingly gave it to them. That is what I grieve more than anything on the anniversary of 9/11. And I don’t know if we’ll ever get it back.
An excellent post. Letterstomycountry has always been one of my favorites, and reading his words here is my recommendation to all of my followers.
I understand many people despise the 9/11 anniversary. I understand that because the politicians have exploited it, it seems artificial. I understand wanting to make jokes about it. I’m fine with all of that.
But I think disrespecting its anniversary as a whole is pretty uncalled for. We were attacked. 3,000 of our people died. Yes, I know we’ve killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people in retaliation. We shouldn’t have. It’s horrid. Bush should be put on trial for war crimes. There should be memorials for our military’s crimes too. But again, we were attacked. So many families were torn apart by the event.
Remembering the atrocities people have seen and awful feelings people have felt is called for. It’s respectful. It’s comforting to many who didn’t get closure; it comforts people who couldn’t get their last call through to their loved ones, or to those who just wanted to see their kids again. It’s something that we as Americans should remember throughout our history. We should see it as an example of our atrocious foreign policy and we should see it as a crime committed against us.
So I’m asking this of my followers who really hate the idea of this remembrance because of the wrongdoings of our government and politicians: Please be more mindful of the people who might see your writings for at least this tenth anniversary (which has just started this minute). I can’t tell you what to do and what you can say, but, please, I’m asking for it.
I was generally disappointed with Ron Paul during the debate tonight...
Now, to be perfectly fair, he got very little questions. Every single candidate got at least 4 more questions than he did. And that’s awful on its own. But he didn’t really harp on his Libertarian ideals so much.
At some parts, true, he did. For instance, he talked about the TSA for a bit. But nothing really substantial to not make him seem run-of-the-mill to people who don’t know him. No talk about the Federal Reserve, no talk about Corporatism, he only tried to make a jab at our War on Drugs, and relatively no talk about his foreign policy.
I think that in this election, Paul needs to focus on his ideals of civil liberties, the Fed, and most importantly his foreign policy. His idea of non-interventionism will be almost half of what would win him this election. Granted, the few questions that were asked of him made it very difficult to talk about the drug war or foreign policy, but he could have done better than he did. Nothing really made him stand out.
Yes, I loved his talking about Austrian economics, like most of his supporters. But even that seemed too vague to convince any independents. I think most of the fault is on the moderators for not asking enough, but Paul was a let-down on his responses this time around when he usually handles the lack of questioning very well with excellent answers.
It was on the topic of immigration reform. All of the other candidates were talking about a fence and stricter border controls when Ron Paul mentioned that a fence works both ways. It may be meant to keep illegals out, but it really could also be used to keep us in.
I mean, right now, the government practically controls international transportation. Our freest means of leaving is by ground vehicle. With that kind of border control the other candidates proposed, in times of recession when many people want out, who is to stop the government from keeping us from leaving for various ridiculous reasons?
And don’t even say it’s not far fetched, what with all of these unconstitutional laws, like the Patriot Act, and police brutality. The government could very well hold those with capital in for its own benefit. Never thought of it. But it’s true. It could be a detriment to our civil liberty and right to leave whenever we want.
Credit and Full-Reserve Banking: Not Mutually Exclusive
The Austrian Business Cycle Theory focuses on the errors of the exponential expansion of credit caused by the fractional-reserve banking system, and therefor artificial low interest rates, created by central banks. Though, despite these flaws in the economy, many free-banking proponents still support banks practicing the fractional-reserve banking. I am among these proponents. However, when we say fractional-reserve, one must remember we mean that, while the banks can practice it, the reserves of the banks must be much higher than the current 10%. This raise in the reserves would be inevitable in free-banking, due to market forces.
But I see that some of these fractional-reserve system supporters support it not merely because a full-reserve system would offer too little credit, but because they believe that a full-reserve system offers no credit at all! This is a fallacy: one mainly proposed by Keynesians. There would be credit available in this system, and it’s pretty simply to explain how it develops.
From here on out, I will be speaking as if we have a full reserve system in place: In a full-reserve system, there are two types of deposits (similar to banking under the Federal Reserve system): demand deposits and time deposits. The demand deposits are simply a warehousing service of money for depositors. These deposits are in 100% reserves (naturally) and offer complete liquidity to the depositor as they retain the right to take their money when they want it. This warehousing service comes at an interest rate price; people desire to have their money safe, and this is where it would be stored. There is absolutely be a demand for this (contrary to Keynesian belief).
The time deposits, by contrast, are “investments” made by people to the bank so the bank can lend money out for a larger profit. The reason this is called a time deposit is because there is a set time that the depositor can withdraw their money. The bank takes it, lends it out (most likely with a payback-date), and gets the money back in time for the depositor. Now suppose there is no payback-date for the borrower (because the bank wanted to take the most out of the debtor’s interest payments): the bank could simply take money from somewhere else and pay it back to the depositor (perhaps from the interest payments of the demand-depositors, or any of the bank’s assets). To give incentive to people to put money in time-deposits, an interest payment to the depositor is be offered; this is cut from the overall interest payment paid by the borrower.
So as more and more people put money in time-deposits and the banks lend them out, even though all of the assets remain the same and the money supply remains constant, credit would still expand.
My problem with this system is that it simply creates too little credit in the aggregate. For instance, interest rates would fall closer to 0 as the supply of credit increases for borrowers. Banks, at some point down the road, would make the call to stop accepting time deposits, therefor halting credit expansion. And even if they didn’t stop accepting time deposits, one would make the argument that the mere time deposits wouldn’t generate enough credit! And I would agree. Entirely.
Banks can practice whatever they want by my books, but most banks would still only keep a fraction of their reserves in the interest of making money off of credit. In a full-reserve system, the economy would still see booms and busts but extremely mild ones. And that’s what I love so much about full-reserve systems: credit is still offered while having relatively no recessions.
Though, again, I would take the trade off for a bit of a bigger bust (but not nearly what we see today) in return for more credit and a more functional economy under a free-market fractional-reserve system.
In 1994, abortion-lobby champion Ted Kennedy passed the Free Access to Clinics Act (FACE), which imposes stricter limitations on peaceful protests of abortion clinics than any other peaceful protest.
This law, which strikes me as pretty darn unconstitutional, has never really been enforced. Tom McClusky at the Family Research Council says the decision to not enforce it was a “gentleman’s agreement”: “The story I normally got from Justice Department, Hill and real world lawyers on both sides of the aisle was that everyone understood the law was unconstitutional….”
But now, NPR reports, Obama is deciding to crack down on those protesting, conducting sidewalk counseling, or even praying for the mothers and their babies.
Obama apparently has no problems trampling on individual freedoms if it keeps the abortion mills churning at full speed.
Im pro-choice (pro-abortion even, I hate kids and the 405 is way to crowded) but everyone should take note and be concerned when the state restricts protests of any kind.
I classify myself as pro-abortion (because I don’t much like the terms pro-choice or pro-life) and support abortion clinics (obviously not taxpayer funding of them), but this startles me as well. It’s odd though, that no one takes any means to end these types of Unconstitutional law. I mean, it’s so very clearly stated in the Constitution that these things are illegal, but we have these insane laws that even initially get passed!
It sounds like your running out of excuses. soon you will be an anarchist!
Actually no! I just believe, and this would take an entire post to explain, that a Minarchy is not compatible with a Representative Republic. Our specific Constitution would need some changes and ratification in order for a Minarchy to work, and that would never happen.
Representative Republics are ultimately a failure. Ultimately.
Not bashing on our Constitution (because it is great and has upheld itself for centuries), nor am I saying our country is horrible, because it is not. But ultimately it leads to broken systems. We will never have one pure system that works. We’d either have an honest mixed-economy (which we never have had) which we know would be a ruin, or Crony Capitalism (Corporatism) or Crony Socialism, which are also failures.
I don’t think the founding fathers predicted the mess in their great Constitution; it is great, but there are major cracks in it.
Irony of the day: Remember that post between deconversionmovement and badp, that I reblogged? I kept talking about it, and it got into even more of a clusterfuck of people misunderstanding what Free Speech means. Anyway, that entire post has been deleted. I guess by the Mods, but it's gone--from everywhere. My blog, deconversionmovement's, badp's... I just found is semi-ironic that the Mods erased an entire thread about Free Speech...
Hmm…. wow… Well, I guess Karp can’t handle free speech.
For everyone who is curious, Badp was making some racist comments (if I remember correctly) and deconversionmovement stepped in and word for word said “Free speech cannot be used in the manner in which you use it.” I nearly had a panic attack when they said that. But I guess the altercation of politics was deemed unacceptable by the Mods. They really need to grasp this idea that people like freedom of speech.
Now, it’s their website, they do what they want with it. But it’s really just awful that they want to curb that freedom from their willful users.
“Sorry, but I still don’t see what divorce and unwed motherhood have to do with gay marriage. It’s mostly straight people who are doing the divorcing and unwed mothering.”—John Stossel (via cosmicdragon)
I’m a libertarian because I’m white, male and I hate minorities and the poor.
I was a socialist but I started to realize that socialism was more about punishing the rich than creating more opportunities for the poor and working class. And I now hate poor people and minorities.
I hate niggers and poor people. I love corporations, and want everyone to starve. I love chaos and destruction. My dream is for the terrorists to win.
I want the means of production to be kept with the top 1%; I hate niggers and beaners and I hate sharing; every poor person is looking to leech off my money and it’s teh ImMorAl$. I think everyone that’s in poverty is just lazy and stupid. Oh! And I think any and all redistribution of wealth is Socialism and Communism.
This is an exact quote, so please excuse the “text type” and typos:
haha I slept right thru it and woke up and was like when is this hurricane happening and my moms like it happened last night
and I had this idea. that the government was creating this so called hurricane in the northeast because none of us are really prepared for it so we’d go and buy a ton of shit at the stores to fuel the economy.
She has zero clue about politics and had no idea that a Paul Krugman even existed on this planet. But it seems like she’s already caught on to his views of how the economy should work. That should just go to show you that even people who hate politics are weary of possible plots to get us to spend and are detecting the idiocy of creating disasters to boost the economy (like Krugman supports).
I just saw this picture pop up on my dash a few times. Mainly reblogged by, of course, anarchists and democratic socialists and communists, praising the image for the truth.
And I agree with the sentiment: Socialism and Communism have not been proven to “not work”. This is because the way the theories have been carried out in the past were not the true definition of Socialism or Communism. And whenever people say that, they get angry. Understandable.
Well, I made a meme of my own. Here it is:
Do you see the shocking similarities? The first statements are literally the same thing. Communists, you get frustrated at the allegation that your system doesn’t work by example of China or Russia? We get frustrated with this one. The history of Somalia is not the way to build a nation around our ideals. The way this has been carried out is not the way to view Libertarianism.
It’s literally the same thing.
Now, I know some of us Libertarians will always make the statement that you hate, and some of you Collectivists will make the statement that we hate. But I, personally, don’t make the statement; this is because the one about Somalia irks me. But the people I see reblogging the first meme talk about how Somalia is Libertopia all the time.
If you hate the ignorance of the first one, why do you project the ignorance of the second one? Learn to be consistent.
I just read an article on the Lookout about how some fat cat is building a libertarian “Fantasy Island.” This really sounds like a good idea, residing on an oilrig platform built by schmucks that don’t believe in strict building codes or government inspectors. Sorry If I sound a bit abrasive but I’ve met these people (Libertarians) and they’re mean spirited windbags.
Yeah, “strict building codes” for my private property. Falls under the “none of your fucking business” category.
I actually really love this idea. I hope that they can connect these societies together to form one sovereign libertarian state. This looks pretty big relatively, but there is definite room for growth. Anyone who tries to stop this project really has no reason to, and should be condemned for neo-conservative-esque actions.
In general though, even if this does form some great country, my main hope is that its success will set an example for already established Western and European states that capitalism can work, and that it’s simply been Corporatism and a mixed-economy that has brought us to our knees countless times and pushed the workers into poverty.
br0. i say fuck da libertarian shit and lets grab some bitches and a resource based economy
Serious response: I have no doubt that on a smaller scale community by community a resource based economy would work. And I definitely love promoting the idea of green energy and a way to make our environment better person by person. But I largely believe in capitalism and believe that with the appropriate amount of freedom (which is quite a bit more than we have now!) we can have both systems functioning here in America.
Joke response: Fuck da idea of CaPiTalI$m! Get mah bitches and we showw dem the good tiems of resource based efficient ekawnomies!
I realized that it’s not Ron Paul who doesn’t believe in the link between HIV and AIDS, it’s Rand Paul, his son. So bear that in mind. I would go edit my post but it’s already out there, so I’m hoping that anyone who reads my response will visit my blog and happen to see this.
Not a joke I'm just a really shy bitch my nigga. Keep up the good stuff.
Oh! Well, okay. Get over that shyness and contact me! I mean, from what I know about you, you seem like you’d be a very intellectually fulfilling person to debate.
You align yourself with a different political ideology and it’s one of your favorite blogs. Most tumbloggers can’t even think of bringing themselves to do that. I think that alone says a decent amount.
Feel free to message me and I’ll keep it private if you’d like!
I’m pretty much going to copy and paste everything from my Tumblr and put it there. The only different content will be the discussions and reblogs I have here versus there. Other than that, all the same original content. Just a heads up!
What was revealed in the audit was startling: $16,000,000,000,000.00 had been secretly given out to US banks and corporations and foreign banks everywhere from France to Scotland. From the period between December 2007 and June 2010, the Federal Reserve had secretly bailed out many of the world’s banks, corporations, and governments. The Federal Reserve likes to refer to these secret bailouts as an all-inclusive loan program, but virtually none of the money has been returned and it was loaned out at 0% interest.
Citigroup: $2.5 trillion ($2,500,000,000,000) Morgan Stanley: $2.04 trillion ($2,040,000,000,000) Merrill Lynch: $1.949 trillion ($1,949,000,000,000) Bank of America: $1.344 trillion ($1,344,000,000,000) Barclays PLC (United Kingdom): $868 billion ($868,000,000,000) Bear Sterns: $853 billion ($853,000,000,000) Goldman Sachs: $814 billion ($814,000,000,000) Royal Bank of Scotland (UK): $541 billion ($541,000,000,000) JP Morgan Chase: $391 billion ($391,000,000,000) Deutsche Bank (Germany): $354 billion ($354,000,000,000) UBS (Switzerland): $287 billion ($287,000,000,000) Credit Suisse (Switzerland): $262 billion ($262,000,000,000) Lehman Brothers: $183 billion ($183,000,000,000) Bank of Scotland (United Kingdom): $181 billion ($181,000,000,000) BNP Paribas (France): $175 billion ($175,000,000,000) and many many more including banks in Belgium of all places
And here we have the evil of the Fed exposed. Unelected men bailing out huge corporations to benefit them. Corporatism at its finest. Hopefully the audit (brought up by Ron Paul and Alan Grayson) will push the idea forward that the institution is doing us no good. People should inspect this more and find that both parties are looking to monetize debt by the Fed and stay in the pockets of businesses; this central bank is what is keeping our economy in ruins for consumers and booming for rich businessmen.
I’ve had 50 new followers since this post; this is for any of you who are new and didn’t know this. Spreading the message that the Fed is wrong through proof :D
After S&P announced the credit down rating, we saw the plunge of the three major stock indexes of the US. It has been declared the worst market plunge since the 2008 Financial Crisis, and it’s only been one day of trading.
S&P stated that the downgrade was due to a severe lack in spending cuts from the US. We must remember our spending habits have been basically the same in the past few decades, and that it’s that behavior which has drowned us in debt as well as the behavior that has removed us from the AAA credit rating. With no action from Washington to make more cuts, what’s likely to happen?
Well, watch the markets. They’re sure to plummet more for a new recession coming ahead. Then watch out for spending. With spending climbing and climbing, we’re heading for a new need for a debt ceiling increase in a few years time (keeping in consideration our budget deficit). Which means this whole situation will be a repeat, which could, again, lead to another downgrade.
Then we surely must bear in mind the actions of the Federal Reserve, which has brought us detrimental amounts of inflation that is perhaps only two or three quarters away. Surely this behavior will screw our currency as well as our spending and budgets, leading to more market downturns. Even around the world, other markets take dips. We are observing what is now the beginning of the end of our American empire and its habits.
Reblogging for the followers who Anon-bombed my inbox saying that I was an idiot because the markets recovered the following few days. Do you see what happened today? Dropped 430 points so far. I can’t wait to see August’s job report! This kind of mess is only really going to speed up the bust of the Student Loans bubble.