Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Corporatism/Capitalism shenanigans

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Corporatism/Capitalism shenanigans
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Rusty Shackleford

Joined: 08 May 2008

Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 10:06 pm Post subject: Re: ...

bacasper wrote:

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

I could care less about Ron Paul. There is more to life than what some low life politician thinks.

I know you are not American, so I'll forgive you this time, but NEVER, EVER put Ron Paul in with the vast majority of low life politicians again. Ron Paul stands for freedom and is a world apart from most others.

Haha, Ok. Maybe I should read his wiki page or something. I know literally nothing about him outside of his opposition to the Fed and a few Daily Show interviews.

Street Magic

Joined: 23 Sep 2009

Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 10:08 pm Post subject: Re: ...

bacasper wrote:

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

I could care less about Ron Paul. There is more to life than what some low life politician thinks.

What are your thoughts on this? :

Nowhere Man wrote:

2. In addition to helping Pat Buchanan in his failed presidential bid, Ron Paul opposes Roe v. Wade, supports school prayer, and doesn't accept the theory of evolution.

EDIT PS: How many American libertarians (or libertarians who know their American history) here believe the Articles of Confederation shouldn't have been ditched for the Constitution?

ontheway

Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...

Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:18 am Post subject: Re: ...

Fox wrote:

ontheway wrote:

Eventually we have to go to private currencies and private banking with strict statutes against theft and fraud (inflation, for example should be illegal).

Why do you suggest violent governmental coercion to prevent things like inflation with regards to your private currencies? If you want to use private currencies, then anything said currency users agreed to with regards to those currencies should be legal according to your philosophy. If you use currency company X's money, and they decide to print 10 million more monetary units and devalue your currency in the process, and you didn't sign a contract with them explicitly prohibiting them from doing that, you should have thought twice about dealing with them.

According to your philosophy, any currency company that devalued its money by printing more would go out of business as its customers flocked to another company's currency anyway, so why on Earth should there be a law to prevent it? Such a law sounds like Socialism to me, ontheway. Freedom is what matters, and that includes the currency companies being free to devalue their money as they please, so long as they didn't sign that right away in whatever contract they engage in with their customers. If you need laws independent of contractual agreements to regulate private currencies, then they've all ready failed in their purpose.

Laws against murder, assault, rape, robbery, theft, and fraud are necessary to protect the individual. Those who commit these acts violate the rights of their victims. Of course, it is possible for common law to establish such principles instead of statutory law. But, in the case of reform of a broken socialist system, it is necessary to take a statutory legal route that repeals the current failed socialist system and replaces it with a system based on the principles of liberty.

Fraud is an example of an act that violates individual liberty. If a company sells "leather" jackets and then is charged with fraud for selling plastic jackets labeled as "leather" they could not escape prosecution by somehow claiming in fine print not found on the jacket that by leather they mean plastic.

Likewise, you cannot sell empty plastic boxes and call them computers. That would be fraud, even if the boxes looked like computers. Actually, the fact that the boxes looked like computers, but were not, would be certain proof that it was an intentional act of fraud.

In both of these cases, we know what the definition of "leather" or a "computer" is. So, the fraud is clear.

In the case of money, there is an established definition of what money is. Any issuing company that inflated its "money" would be committing fraud by violating that definition. One of the essential functions of "money" is that it is a medium of exchange, that is, it circulates. There is no way for a contract to appear on each paper bill in circulation and the money must therefore adhere strictly to the definition of money, in order to be honest money. Inflating the supply of money reduces its value and violates the fundamental principle that money must be a store of value.

Issuing additional currency that is not backed in the same way and amount, but instead with less or no backing would defraud not only anyone who originally deposited their assets to aquire the currency, but every individual who took that currency in circulation. It would not be necessary, nor possible, to have every one of these people read or sign a contract. They can expect to rely on the stated value and backing that is printed on the currency.

There is no need for state involvement in setting the definition for what money is anymore than there is a need for state involvement to set a definiton for "leather" or a "computer."

Anyone who commits fraud against another individual violates that individual's rights and is a criminal. A business that inflates the money it has issued would be doing just that. Inflation is fraud. Is a violation of the rights of the individual.

It is the socialists of the world who have used the state to legalize the fraudulent use of inflation to rob the people and enrich the state and themselves.

It would be possible to issue a currency that, on its face, stated that it had no backing and was a fiat currency. With such a pure fiat currency, there could be no inflation. Since it is merely a piece of paper it has no value other than the paper itself. Each piece of paper is backed by itself and its ink. Printing additional pieces would mean that each had the same backing - that is, zero backing. Printing more and more, unlimited amounts, of this "currency" would not constitute inflation. It could not, however call itself "money." It would have to use another name. There are hundreds of companies that print such currency today. It is called "play money." There are few businesses, vendors, or workers that accept such currency in payment, however.

ontheway

Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...

Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:21 am Post subject: Re: ...

Street Magic wrote:

bacasper wrote:

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

I could care less about Ron Paul. There is more to life than what some low life politician thinks.

What are your thoughts on this? :

Nowhere Man wrote:

2. In addition to helping Pat Buchanan in his failed presidential bid, Ron Paul opposes Roe v. Wade, supports school prayer, and doesn't accept the theory of evolution.

EDIT PS: How many American libertarians (or libertarians who know their American history) here believe the Articles of Confederation shouldn't have been ditched for the Constitution?

Another good one:

Name the seven US Presidents that came before George Washington.

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:39 am Post subject: Re: ...

Street Magic wrote:

bacasper wrote:

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

I could care less about Ron Paul. There is more to life than what some low life politician thinks.

What are your thoughts on this? :

Nowhere Man wrote:

2. In addition to helping Pat Buchanan in his failed presidential bid, Ron Paul opposes Roe v. Wade, supports school prayer, and doesn't accept the theory of evolution.

I am in complete agreement with ontheway who wrote:

Pat Buchanan is conservative. This makes him better than many Republicans who are in the statist corner of the political map. So, many people in the libertarian corner would prefer him to Bush, for example. Bush is more of a Communistic socialist (the real meaning, not that useless Marx crap.)

Abortion is very complicated for a real libertarian. The pro-life and pro-choice positions tend to ignore the valid points on the other side. We must consider the right to life of the unborn child from the point where it becomes a human being, probably conception and at the same time the absolute right of a woman to control her body and not carry a baby she doesn't want.

This subject will need a thread of its own and will go on forever, so it's best not to continue on this thread.

Whatever Ron Paul's personal belief on evolution might be, he supports religion being separate from the state and privatization of education so that this issue would be moot. Evolution is proven scientific fact as far as I'm concerned, but when all religion and education is private, it is not a matter of governmental concern and it is no longer an issue.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:53 pm Post subject: Re: ...

ontheway wrote:

Issuing additional currency that is not backed in the same way and amount, but instead with less or no backing would defraud not only anyone who originally deposited their assets to aquire the currency, but every individual who took that currency in circulation.

No it wouldn't, unless there was a contractual agreement between the issuer and the users which stated they would not devalue their currency under any circumstances. If no such agreement exists, no fraud would be taking place, and it should certainly be allowable under law.

Based upon the principles you claim make private, non-regulated enterprise superior, any business that engaged in the sort of behavior you're describing here would fail due to their customers abandoning it for other currency issuers that didn't devalue their money. As soon as the government has to regulate private currency by actively preventing devaluation, the government may as well just be issuing the currency itself. If governmental regulation of the private currencies is needed, that's proof that private enterprise can't function as you claim it can.

ontheway wrote:

It would not be necessary, nor possible, to have every one of these people read or sign a contract. They can expect to rely on the stated value and backing that is printed on the currency.

You talk about what people can expect to rely on, but in your privatized utopia, people can't expect to rely on anything except written agreements. That's what personal responsibility is all about: making choices and living with them. If you join up with a currency company with no contract or agreement, then you're at their mercy, just like if you buy a refridgerator with no warranty, or a car as-is without checking it over first, or so forth.

It's governmental intervention that allows people to blindly rely upon those who they chose to do business with. Without that, for any business transaction to be reliable, a contract or agreement must exist. Having your currency devalued isn't comparable to rape, assault, or anything else; no one made you do business with that company, and competition should keep those companies honest according to you. If you don't like the way they handle their currency, jump ship and do business with someone else. Don't expect the government to hold your hand, and don't expect the government to ensure the value of currency if you and your company didn't agree that the value is fixed and unchanging.

As far as how such contracts would work, probably through user agreements rather than individual signed contracts. Nothing particularly difficult about that.

You're really speaking against your own principles on this money issue. Privatized currencies with government regulation? Governmental regulation is Socialism according to you, ontheway, and Socialism is always evil. Socialism always fails. Right?

hobakmorinam

Joined: 22 Dec 2008

Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:28 am Post subject:

Free markets would eliminate pollution? Really? That is probably the most asinine thing I have ever heard. You are saying that if all land was owned, companies would somehow not be allowed to pollute. How about this one... Pollution is a byproduct of production. It will always exist period. If all land was owned, a company would simply pay someone to pollute on their property. A mixed economy is ideal. That, in fact, is why almost every country has a mixed economy. The government needs to set some rules and guidelines to protect people. It's part of a system of checks and balances. End of thread.

Rusty Shackleford

Joined: 08 May 2008

Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 3:27 am Post subject:

hobakmorinam wrote:

Free markets would eliminate pollution? Really? That is probably the most asinine thing I have ever heard.

You are saying that if all land was owned, companies would somehow not be allowed to pollute. How about this one...

Pollution is a byproduct of production. It will always exist period.

If all land was owned, a company would simply pay someone to pollute on their property.

A mixed economy is ideal. That, in fact, is why almost every country has a mixed economy. The government needs to set some rules and guidelines to protect people. It's part of a system of checks and balances.

End of thread.

Wow.

You must be some kind of super genius.

Why didn't you put us out of misery three days ago, so we wouldn't have spent four pages yelling at each other. Rolling Eyes

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 7:13 am Post subject:

hobakmorinam wrote:

A mixed economy is ideal. That, in fact, is why almost every country has a mixed economy. The government needs to set some rules and guidelines to protect people. It's part of a system of checks and balances.

No one on this thread is arguing there should not be rules and guidelines. The libertarians just argue those rules and guidelines are strictly laws to protect property rights.

Quote:

If all land was owned, a company would simply pay someone to pollute on their property.

Yes, I don't think free markets would eliminate pollution but I could see where they would reduce pollution.

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 7:20 am Post subject:

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

hobakmorinam wrote:

Wow.

You must be some kind of super genius. Rolling Eyes

Really. I especially liked the part about all the economies being ideal right about now. Rolling Eyes

ontheway

Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...

Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:36 am Post subject: Re: ...

Fox wrote:

ontheway wrote:

It would not be necessary, nor possible, to have every one of these people read or sign a contract. They can expect to rely on the stated value and backing that is printed on the currency.

You must not have read what I wrote.

I never called for any regulation of those individuals or businesses who would issue money, just as I didn't call for regulation of the sellers of leather jackers or computers. We only need the free market to regulate them.

So you are correct that governmental regulation is socialism and socialism is always evil.

You are also correct in pointing out that those who defraud their customers will be driven out of business by the free market. This happens faster in a marketplace that has no government regulators. Government regulatory agencies reduce competition and protect lawbreakers.

However, you missed the point about criminal activity. Murder is a criminal activity as is robbery, theft, assault, rape and, as you seemed to miss - fraud.

Fraud occurs when you do not deliver what you promise: you promise a "leather" jacket but it is plastic. The market will drive the company out of business. But the victims of the fraud have the right to sue for damages and there could be criminal charges. Likewise, if you sell "computers" that are only empty boxes - that would be both criminal and civil fraud. Neither of these cases requires regulation - we don't regulate murder or robbery - it is illegal because it violates the rights of innocent individuals.

Likewise, in the case of money, inflation would be fraud because it violates the rights of every individual to receive honest money. But, you have to understand just what money is, by definition. "Plastic" is not "leather" by definition, so selling plastic as leather would be fraud. "An empty box" cannot be a computer by definition so selling an empty box as a computer would be fraud.

"Money" by definition cannot be inflated, it must have a fixed backing, and so issuing any paper "currency" that purports to be "money" means that it must have a fixed backing, so any inflation of that currency would be fraud.

This is a matter of fact: Fraud is a criminal act. Inflation of money is fraud.

Unbacked currency is called "Play Money" which should be printed clearly on its face - it is not money and does not purport to be money. Likewise, any paper "currency" that is printed but not backed by a fixed amount of assets would have to label itself as "Brand X Currency" or "Brand X Note" (whatever its name is) but not as "money." It could circulate, like play money circulates today, by printing on each bill that it is unbacked, or may be backed by any or no assets at the whim of the issuer.

Quote:

It would be possible to issue a currency that, on its face, stated that it had no backing and was a fiat currency. With such a pure fiat currency, there could be no inflation. Since it is merely a piece of paper it has no value other than the paper itself. Each piece of paper is backed by itself and its ink. Printing additional pieces would mean that each had the same backing - that is, zero backing. Printing more and more, unlimited amounts, of this "currency" would not constitute inflation. It could not, however call itself "money." It would have to use another name. There are hundreds of companies that print such currency today. It is called "play money." There are few businesses, vendors, or workers that accept such currency in payment, however.

Rusty Shackleford

Joined: 08 May 2008

Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 5:52 pm Post subject:

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/pursuit-of-happiness/rule-of-law-versus-legislative-orders/

This is a very good article, that succinctly outlines what many of us have said in this thread. It's a good read even if you don't agree with it.

Quote:

Laws, or rules that govern a free society, should have similar features. There should be a �rule of law.� The rule of law means laws are certain and known in advance. Laws envision no particular outcome except that of allowing people to peaceably pursue their own objectives. Finally, and most important, laws are equally applied to everyone, including government officials.

Quote:

Just about every law that Congress enacts violates all the requirements for the rule of law. How do we determine violations of the rule of law? It�s easy. See if the law applies to particular Americans as opposed to all Americans. See if the law exempts public officials from its application. See if the law is known in advance. See if the law takes action against a person who has taken no aggressive action against another. If you conduct such a test, you will conclude that it is difficult to find many acts of Congress that adhere to the principles of the rule of law.

Quote:

That Americans have become ruled by orders and special privileges helps explain all the lobbyists, money, and graft in Washington. We�ve moved away from a government with limited powers, as our Founders envisioned, to one with awesome powers. Therefore, it pays people to spend huge amounts of money to influence Congress in their favor. Privilege-granting is precisely what most Americans want, though they might disagree on who gets what privilege. Most Americans have no inkling of what the rule of law means. We think it means obedience to whatever laws Congress enacts and the president signs. That�s a tragedy.

Quote:

Twenty-five years ago, during a dinner conversation with Nobel laureate Friedrich A. Hayek, I asked if he could propose one law that would help restore, promote, and preserve liberty. Hayek answered that the law would read: Congress shall enact no law that does not apply equally to all Americans. Hayek�s suggestion would do untold wonders in fostering the liberties envisioned by our Founders. But I�m betting that most Americans would greet Hayek�s proposal with contempt after they realized it would mean Congress could not play favorites.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:07 pm Post subject: Re: ...

ontheway wrote:

You called for the illegalization of inflation.

ontheway wrote:

Eventually we have to go to private currencies and private banking with strict statutes against theft and fraud (inflation, for example should be illegal).

That is a regulation of businesses who would issue money. If we're going to have private currencies, whether or not those currencies will be devalued is up to the issuing companies and their agreements with their customers; government shouldn't intrude in any way except to enforce agreements.

ontheway wrote:

However, you missed the point about criminal activity. Murder is a criminal activity as is robbery, theft, assault, rape and, as you seemed to miss - fraud.

Fraud occurs when you do not deliver what you promise: you promise a "leather" jacket but it is plastic.

I agree completely. And so long as currency companies don't promise not to devalue their currency, they haven't engaged in fraud. If they did promise not to devalue it, then their offense falls under contract law. In short, there's no reason to institute your proposed anti-inflation regulations; if the principles you say are at work are at work, it will either be covered by contract law, or the agency will go out of business after they legally devalue their currency.

ontheway wrote:

Likewise, in the case of money, inflation would be fraud because it violates the rights of every individual to receive honest money.

No individual has the right to receive honest money in your proposed system, unless their currency user agreement grants them it. You're talking Socialism when you start talking about people having rights of this variety. In your "freedom is all that matters" society, anyone who accepts currency without a user agreement provision against devaluation has no rights and deserves no protections.

ontheway wrote:

This is a matter of fact: Fraud is a criminal act. Inflation of money is fraud.

Inflation of money is not fraud unless it breaks an agreement. If I give you 5 Fox dollars, but make no promise about their future value, I haven't engaged in fraud if I later devalue those dollars. You'd simply have been a fool to accept them, knowing that they may well be devalued later. That doesn't make it fraud, it makes it a bad deal.

If on the other hand I promise 5 Fox dollars will always be backed by an ounce of gold, and then later break that promise, I've engaged in fraud, but that can be handled by contract law.

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:20 pm Post subject: Re: ...

Quote:

Inflation of money is not fraud unless it breaks an agreement.

Quote:

...according to official Federal Reserve documentation, fall into four general areas:[6]

1. Conducting the nation's monetary policy by influencing monetary and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates
2. Supervising and regulating banking institutions to ensure the safety and soundness of the nation's banking and financial system, and protect the credit rights of consumers
3. Maintaining stability of the financial system and containing systemic risk that may arise in financial markets
4. Providing financial services to depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign official institutions, including playing a major role in operating the nation's payments system

...

Quote:

# To manage the nation's money supply through monetary policy to achieve the sometimes-conflicting goals of

* maximum employment
* stable prices, including prevention of either inflation or deflation[32]
* moderate long-term interest rates

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

Since the Fed has inflated away more than 87% of the USD, I'd say it broke an agreement. Though you and OTW are on another topic, kinda.

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:36 pm Post subject: Re: ...

mises wrote:

Since the Fed has inflated away more than 87% of the USD, I'd say it broke an agreement. Though you and OTW are on another topic, kinda.

It's 98% if you go by gold.

In 1913, $20 could by you an ounce. Today, it costs over $1,000.

As an aside, does anyone remember in Nixon's day when an ounce of gold bud tracked pretty closely the price of gold metal? For quite q while before deregualtion, they were both at $35, but soon after Nixon took us off the gold standard, they both pretty quickly went to $50. Just something curious I always remember.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 4 of 5

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe