Split from Tennis section

by bogbrush Sun 16 Sep 2012, 10:37 am

hawkeye wrote:The myth of hard work. Pfft! Everyone can be a winner if they work hard. The reverse of this is that anyone who isn't a "winner" is a lazy layabout and deserves a kick. Politically this is very useful.

No, I think that's a position taken by the left to discredit arguments about responsibility.

My belief is that there are huge restrictive conditions - all created by the State - that prevent free access to markets. They include;

- the weird concept of land ownership (who was it bought from originally or wasn't it just stolen and therefore all land ownership is based on an originally criminal act). This massively restricts access to living space.
- licensing of work so people are legally prevented from offering their services.
- the debt based system of money, where all money is not a flexible medium of exchange but rather a state-backed unit rented out (for interest) by the bank system. Taxation, which must be submitted in this one unit, prevents people trading "off system" so imposes a fine on their labour.

Despite all this, people can still pull themselves through with the right combination of skill, effort and luck. That some don't doesn't mean they are all lazy wasters (most such described are actually disabled by the welfare system) but it doesn't mean some aren't.

by socal1976 Sun 16 Sep 2012, 6:11 pm

Your last post is extremely entertaining BB I don't really get all the specifics of what you are suggesting but as usual the things that you are clear about are chillinging and make no sense. So because the Normans stole the land from the saxons, saxons stole the land from Romans, who stole it from the original britons, who stole the land from someone then a guy buying a condo 1000 years later in London should be barred from property ownership. And then you talk about the based system of money and debat, are you suggesting a gold standard, another medium of exchange what exactly? I don't want to misrepresent what you are saying, so can you be more specific?

by **JuliusHMarx** Sun 16 Sep 2012, 9:14 pm

socal1976 wrote:Your last post is extremely entertaining BB I don't really get all the specifics of what you are suggesting but as usual the things that you are clear about are chillinging and make no sense. So because the Normans stole the land from the saxons, saxons stole the land from Romans, who stole it from the original britons, who stole the land from someone then a guy buying a condo 1000 years later in London should be barred from property ownership. And then you talk about the based system of money and debat, are you suggesting a gold standard, another medium of exchange what exactly? I don't want to misrepresent what you are saying, so can you be more specific?

I can move this to the General Discussion area, if you'd like. If not, then we'll have to stick to tennis.

by socal1976 Sun 16 Sep 2012, 9:19 pm

No this thread descended into discussions of morality, genetics, science and so forth which is a fine interlude. You choose again to focus on my post only did you miss the last two dozen posts I wasn't involved in. Do whatever you like I just found the last post to be weird and bizarre as usual and wanted clarification. If you want my opinion I think you are veering onto the path of over moderation and selective moderation but do whatever you like I won't lose any sleep over it.

by **JuliusHMarx** Sun 16 Sep 2012, 9:39 pm

socal1976 wrote:No this thread descended into discussions of morality, genetics, science and so forth which is a fine interlude. You choose again to focus on my post only did you miss the last two dozen posts I wasn't involved in. Do whatever you like I just found the last post to be weird and bizarre as usual and wanted clarification. If you want my opinion I think you are veering onto the path of over moderation and selective moderation but do whatever you like I won't lose any sleep over it.

Yes, I spent 3 hours focussing on your post, then I replied. Or I looked at the last 2 posts - yours and BB's - thought the digression from tennis and the OP was a bit too much and asked politely if I should move it to more suitable forum.

by bogbrush Sun 16 Sep 2012, 9:43 pm

socal1976 wrote:Your last post is extremely entertaining BB I don't really get all the specifics of what you are suggesting but as usual the things that you are clear about are chillinging and make no sense. So because the Normans stole the land from the saxons, saxons stole the land from Romans, who stole it from the original britons, who stole the land from someone then a guy buying a condo 1000 years later in London should be barred from property ownership. And then you talk about the based system of money and debat, are you suggesting a gold standard, another medium of exchange what exactly? I don't want to misrepresent what you are saying, so can you be more specific?

It's easy to understand and has nothing to to with nations.

1. If you can tell me how the original deed of ownership came into being that wasn't based on violence it'll help me understand where anyone's legal claim lies.

2. Do you know that almost all money is a fiction based on fractional reserve banking and has no basis except in a promise by a person to repay it? The sad thing is that the banking system that invents this "money" then charges real interest on it. Its a complete con, effectively a rental charge on the entire money system paid for by people's labour.

I advocate no single money system, none is needed without a State taking a share of everyone's labour. We should be free to create whatever means of exchange suit people trading.

You mock something but don't seem to understand what you're mocking. Please go right ahead and show me the error in this.

Julius, sorry of its off topic but it was relevant to previously posts on the thread. There are some points here that 99% of people would understand if they thought about them, but which they don't get told. Might be informative?

by socal1976 Sun 16 Sep 2012, 10:06 pm

Well I disagree with you about the money system it is a crutch to the state to be able to print bills and force you to accept them as quote "legal tender", and then the central bank can manipulate the value of the money. This is not a negative one of the reasons spain, italy, and greece are in the problems they are in is that they can't manipulate their own currency like every other self respecting state does. Look at the states do you know where they got the money for the AIG bailout, all of it, did they get it from taxes or from drastic spending cuts? No they just printed it, I know it is a hard concept for fiscal conservatives and some people to understand but monetary policy is a vital tool of the modern state to help the economy along in slow times and slow things down in inflationary times. Again that is why every modern state practices it because while it can be abused like Germany in the 1920s or Zimbabwe today a weak currency isn't a bad thing for stimulating exports, tourism, and lessening the burden of crushing debts.

So what is your ideal solution on the monetary and real estate arguments? Do you not like paper money or the states ability to manipulate it? What other system of land use do you think is ideal if not deed ownership? I am not mocking it but it sounds very drastic and radical and would like to know what you are suggesting.

by socal1976 Sun 16 Sep 2012, 10:07 pm

Well I disagree with you about the money system it is a crutch to the state to be able to print bills and force you to accept them as quote "legal tender", and then the central bank can manipulate the value of the money. This is not a negative one of the reasons spain, italy, and greece are in the problems they are in is that they can't manipulate their own currency like every other self respecting state does. Look at the states do you know where they got the money for the AIG bailout, all of it, did they get it from taxes or from drastic spending cuts? No they just printed it, I know it is a hard concept for fiscal conservatives and some people to understand but monetary policy is a vital tool of the modern state to help the economy along in slow times and slow things down in inflationary times. Again that is why every modern state practices it because while it can be abused like Germany in the 1920s or Zimbabwe today a weak currency isn't a bad thing for stimulating exports, tourism, and lessening the burden of crushing debts.

So what is your ideal solution on the monetary and real estate arguments? Do you not like paper money or the states ability to manipulate it? What other system of land use do you think is ideal if not deed ownership? I am not mocking it but it sounds very drastic and radical and would like to know what you are suggesting.

by **JuliusHMarx** Sun 16 Sep 2012, 10:10 pm

bogbrush wrote:Julius, sorry of its off topic but it was relevant to previously posts on the thread.

It was relevent to HE's post I guess, but too far off the OP and too far into politics. I don't want to stop the debate, just move it somewhere where I don't have to moderate it!

by User 774433 Sun 16 Sep 2012, 10:23 pm

Bogbrush, how will your idea work if it is a recession?
How will the state fix itself.

by User 774433 Sun 16 Sep 2012, 10:28 pm

bogbrush wrote:The money system only exists because a State can't function without monopoly control of the means of exchange. That's why the bank system will always be bailed out, it's an arm of the State.
The solution is a free market in currency; simply use whatever you choose to either store value or issue promises. Gold if you want, or promises of returns of labour, or anything. It just means the State can't function, trade would happen better than ever.

On land thats more tricky as its fine if people own the improvement they add to the land (like a house) but not the land itself. They then have to reach agreement with others if they want exclusive use. The problem is it requires a level of rationality that people have not had to learn. You can't really evolve to this outcome but it's a logical condition that's not based on lies.

All this is why I regret the demise of America; the founders of the Constitution knew the dangers of Central Banking and it wasn't in existence until the early 20th century. Once they got a Central Bank everyone effectively starts working for the State.

by bogbrush Sun 16 Sep 2012, 10:29 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:Bogbrush, how will your idea work if it is a recession?
How will the state fix itself.

The State is the problem, not the solution. There would be no recession with free markets in currency because we wouldn't be tied into a monolithic money system that can crash. No booms either. People would always be able to offer goods & services irrespective of whats happening elsewhere because they'd not e tied into a single economy. Plus the money system wouldn't be based on fraud (fractional reserve banking).

The "price" is that you can't have a State.

by User 774433 Sun 16 Sep 2012, 10:31 pm

What about people who are disabled and can't work?

by bogbrush Sun 16 Sep 2012, 10:33 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:What about people who are disabled and can't work?

They'd have to rely on the help of others, which is what happens now except it's done by compulsion.

by User 774433 Sun 16 Sep 2012, 10:35 pm

bogbrush wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:What about people who are disabled and can't work?
They'd have to rely on the help of others, which is what happens now except it's done by compulsion.

So turn into beggars basically.
If they can't walk then how could they beg? If they couldn't afford a weelchair, how could they move?

It's a ridiculous, slightly chilling idea.

by bogbrush Sun 16 Sep 2012, 10:38 pm

socal1976 wrote:Well I disagree with you about the money system it is a crutch to the state to be able to print bills and force you to accept them as quote "legal tender", and then the central bank can manipulate the value of the money. This is not a negative one of the reasons spain, italy, and greece are in the problems they are in is that they can't manipulate their own currency like every other self respecting state does. Look at the states do you know where they got the money for the AIG bailout, all of it, did they get it from taxes or from drastic spending cuts? No they just printed it, I know it is a hard concept for fiscal conservatives and some people to understand but monetary policy is a vital tool of the modern state to help the economy along in slow times and slow things down in inflationary times. Again that is why every modern state practices it because while it can be abused like Germany in the 1920s or Zimbabwe today a weak currency isn't a bad thing for stimulating exports, tourism, and lessening the burden of crushing debts.

So what is your ideal solution on the monetary and real estate arguments? Do you not like paper money or the states ability to manipulate it? What other system of land use do you think is ideal if not deed ownership? I am not mocking it but it sounds very drastic and radical and would like to know what you are suggesting.

Why do you see it as a positive that AIG can be bailed out by diluting everyone else's wealth?

Do you really think Greeks would have trouble entertaining holidaymakers without a Banking system? Their Sun would still be bright, their water beautiful and the place attractive.

by User 774433 Sun 16 Sep 2012, 10:40 pm

BB, under your system, how would doctors get goods?
Would they exchange goods with their patients?

by bogbrush Sun 16 Sep 2012, 10:44 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:
bogbrush wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:What about people who are disabled and can't work?
They'd have to rely on the help of others, which is what happens now except it's done by compulsion.
So turn into beggars basically.
If they can't walk then how could they beg? If they couldn't afford a weelchair, how could they move?

It's a ridiculous, slightly chilling idea.

Let's look at the current situation;

Such a person is given money which was taken by compulsion from others, so they rely on the threat of violence. That's not ethical.
If you think the taxes paid for that purpose are voluntary then there'd be nothing to fear from freeing it from compulsion. As for actually begging, why would that be needed? Huge sums are raised by charities for exactly such purposes and it would be very surprising if it couldn't be done that way in an environment where a large proportion of people's wealth isn't fined by the State.

by User 774433 Sun 16 Sep 2012, 10:45 pm

If there was no money, then what exactly would charities raise?

by bogbrush Sun 16 Sep 2012, 10:47 pm

Dbl post

by bogbrush Sun 16 Sep 2012, 10:48 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:BB, under your system, how would doctors get goods?
Would they exchange goods with their patients?

How did they get them in the Wild West? People swapped them stuff of value in exchange for their services.

Same with teachers, it's just a service like any other.

To address this and your next question, money would still exist of course, it's just that it would be a real store of value not a fiat currency invented from thin air and hired out for interest.

by **JuliusHMarx** Sun 16 Sep 2012, 10:57 pm

How would you get from a 'State' to a 'no State' scenario? Who would decide on the change and the details of how it would take place?

by bogbrush Sun 16 Sep 2012, 11:05 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:How would you get from a 'State' to a 'no State' scenario? Who would decide on the change and the details of how it would take place?

No idea, I'm just saying that what we have now is based on a lie (fractional reserve banking) which enslaves everyone to pay for the money supply (something like 98% of all money is actually just debt), and that the State is enforced at, literally, the point of a gun (if you disagree try refusing to pay your taxes and holing up in your house - then check out what someone will be wearing when they come to take your kids and stuff away).

The reality is that an lightened system is a long way away, because people are kept irrational. That doesn't invalidate the logic though, simply underlines what a staggering hold on everyone's minds the State system has.

Incidentally, the concept of "who decides" is itself Statist.

by **JuliusHMarx** Sun 16 Sep 2012, 11:34 pm

Would the police, hospitals and judicary also be, what, privately owned/run companies?

by bogbrush Sun 16 Sep 2012, 11:50 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:Would the police, hospitals and judicary also be, what, privately owned/run companies?

Let's say I understand the law really well and am respected as fair and impartial. Then why wouldn't disputing parties come to me and, for a fee, set out their case for me to make a binding ruling? How's that worse than the current system, where the person sitting in judgement is an arm of the State who I had no say in consulting?

Same argument goes for the others. Hospitals were never a State invention, they were begun by people who wanted to help. Same as children's homes; take this for example

http://www.coram.org.uk/section/about

people invest the State with qualities that actually exist only in people. It's the same with religion, qualities of helping others, cooperating etc are innate to anyone whose mind hasn't been messed up, not the preserve of outside inventions. Trouble is they overlook the fact that all States are based on a threat of violence. it's a Hell of a basis for 'civilisation'.

The problem doing this tomorrow is the mess made of people's minds.

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon 17 Sep 2012, 12:32 am

So if my child is abducted I have to either hire the best police I can affford (if any) or rely on others to pay for the investigation, which will stop when the money runs out?
What if my dspute is with a criminal who refuses to go to court? I have to hire someone to kidnap him and bring him to court? What if he has several bodyguards? I have to hire even more people? What if he has £100,000 more than me - how can I afford to buy justice?

by socal1976 Mon 17 Sep 2012, 1:43 am

bogbrush wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:Bogbrush, how will your idea work if it is a recession?
How will the state fix itself.
The State is the problem, not the solution. There would be no recession with free markets in currency because we wouldn't be tied into a monolithic money system that can crash. No booms either. People would always be able to offer goods & services irrespective of whats happening elsewhere because they'd not e tied into a single economy. Plus the money system wouldn't be based on fraud (fractional reserve banking).

The "price" is that you can't have a State.

BB, you do realize that what you are saying is completely based on nothing but your own opinions and biases. The free market has been tried in the united states and in Europe. In fact in a true free market without paper money you get the worst recessions and great depressions then you can possibly imagine. John Maynard Keynes a noble prize winner basically more that 80 years ago proved everything you are talking about is pretty much completely wrong.

Here is the facts because I actually know a great deal about US history. Prior to Great Depression the united States of America had virtually NO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and the money system WAS THE GOLD STANDARD. Not yelling just want those two points to be clear. In the 1920s domestic government spending was less than 2 percent of GDP. In short 19th century America was the FREE MARKET NIRVANA.

Now what did this free market Nirvana look like? It was wracked with terrible economic recessions and depressions all of whom dwarf even the current great recession in their ferocity and massive loss of employement. The economy was a roller coaster ride of periods of robust double digit growth, then followed by often years of multipercentage economic contraction. The US was basically the Laisezzez faire state you describe in the 19th century and it was plagued by the most scizophrenic series of depressions really like clock work every 15 to 20 years. These were not RECESSIONS like the modern 2-5 percent GDP loss recessions we have experienced since the advent of keynesian economics. One such Recession the long recession was believed to last 2 decades. We are talking about Depressions really, and the 18th century panics were a series of massive depressions the last of which was known as THE GREAT Depression.

Your free market nirvana produced massive depression level collapses in the united states in 1816, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893, 1901, and finally in 1929. To be fair it produced very robust growth numbers in the good years, but the middle class couldn't handle it and that is why they overwhelming voted for Roosevelt's New Deal in the most massive electoral numbers in histor. And frankly the latest blow up in the US economy occurred after 8 years of republican presidents and 12 years of Republicans controlling the congress. The Bush presidency deregulated privatized whatever he was allowed to particularly in the area of finance and as a result the speculators did what they have always done and ran the economy into an unprecedented ditch that Roosevelt and keynes had kept us out of for 75 years.

by socal1976 Mon 17 Sep 2012, 1:49 am

I hate to say it BB but your ideas on the economy are even more radical and disastrous than your ideas on changing tennis. We had the free market in the states and 6 or 7 DEPRESSION level collapses the American Middle class tapped out. But you are correct the economy does grow very fast in the system you entailed during the good years. But it is the massive DEFLATIONARY tendencies of a gold standard combined with no government regulation and safety net that created terrifying Great Depression level panics like clockwork every 15 or 20 years. The Great Depression was called great because it wasn't the only one, it was a series of many created by the roller coaster ride of FREE MARKET 19th century. No Fannie Mae or OBama to blame those depressions on.

by bogbrush Mon 17 Sep 2012, 8:17 pm

You write like history is complete. All's that's happened is the currency is frigged to death to avoid facing up to imbalances. That's going to end very badly.

And this is without addressing the inherent criminality of a fractional reserve fiat currency; I mean, does it not matter if people are effectively enslaved to renting money so long as GDP is positive?

by User 774433 Mon 17 Sep 2012, 8:21 pm

BB ideologically your plan may be good, in a fair and ideal world, but realistically if there was not state there would be a reduction in responsibility for people, and everyone's standard of living would go down.

Now I'm not saying there are a few disadvantages to having a state, but they are outweighed by the benefits.

by bogbrush Mon 17 Sep 2012, 11:50 pm

I agree with the huge obstacles, it'll not happen in my time, but certainly one issue isn't the reduction in responsibility. The main obstacle is the impairment of rational thinking.

How can living standards be lower if we got rid of misdirected effort? If people only did stuff others are willing to pay for (unlike the State, which enforces stuff on us and makes us pay for it) wealth would rise.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 18 Sep 2012, 12:38 am

bogbrush wrote:The main obstacle is the impairment of rational thinking

That sounds vaguely conspiracy theorist - the only reason we can't see it is because we're not thinking rationally. Any counter-argument is based on irrational thinking and can therefore be discounted.

by bogbrush Tue 18 Sep 2012, 7:18 am

JuliusHMarx wrote:
bogbrush wrote:The main obstacle is the impairment of rational thinking

That sounds vaguely conspiracy theorist - the only reason we can't see it is because we're not thinking rationally. Any counter-argument is based on irrational thinking and can therefore be discounted.

No, not amongst the debaters. My bad wording.

by socal1976 Tue 18 Sep 2012, 8:06 am

bogbrush wrote:You write like history is complete. All's that's happened is the currency is frigged to death to avoid facing up to imbalances. That's going to end very badly.

And this is without addressing the inherent criminality of a fractional reserve fiat currency; I mean, does it not matter if people are effectively enslaved to renting money so long as GDP is positive?

do you feel enslaved BB? Does bill gates feel enslaved by his money? Please don't cheapen the term slavery which connotes kidnapping, pedarastry, r***, and breaking up families with the abstract concept of paper money. I don't feel enslaved by paper money or owning a deed to my home and I am sure the vast majority don't either?

Secondly, for a century and half America had no domestic government and no business regulations and the people tapped out and went for the welfare state despite the economic growth the US did experience they got tired of the massive rollercoaster ride feat and famine economy. Keynes reforms chased away the ghost of great depressions from America for 75 years. Until idiot bush and the even bigger anti-government republicans in congress started to dismantle all of Roosevelt's checks on private business, especially banks and lenders and the pandora of global depression was released again after the greatest period of deregulation and privitization of government functions since the new deal. That is no coincidence. Only a crazy man does the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. What you have outlined will lead to massive problems and of course government didn't create recessions and great depressions, in fact the the welfare state and regulation was created precisely because the laisezzez faire economy failed so often and so spectacularly when it did fail. Long before government had any significant involvement in the domestic economy.

by bogbrush Tue 18 Sep 2012, 7:11 pm

There are no anti-government politicians in Congress. That's like calling the Atheists in the Vatican. Bush is a massive Statist thug.

People today are

* not free to settle where they wish, because the land is carved up to people who never created it in the first place. How is it possible to buy something that nobody ever created without an original criminal act? And you know that purchasing stolen goods makes a contract void, don't you?
* compelled to carry out all their trade in the monopoly state backed currency.
* forced to pay taxes under a contract they never signed
* forced to use the monopoly currency and pay a rate of interest either directly or by inflation of the price of goods and services they consume.
* compelled to acquire state sanctioned licenses before being allowed to carry out trades regardless of the choice of their customers.
* permitted only to express opinions sanctioned by the State

There's more, and all under threat of imprisonment and violence.

Well, I don't know what your definition of serfdom is but I'd be interested to hear how it materially differs.

As for Gates, he's trapped in it as much as anyone, he's just won the jackpot. Hes a massive net beneficiary. So what?

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 18 Sep 2012, 8:37 pm

I am not of great intelligence and do not have great physical strength and so can only earn very little.

Without the State I would not be able to afford anyone to investigate my child's abduction, so I would just have to write him/her off

Without the State I would not be able to afford my heart transplant, so I'll die

Without the State I could not afford education for my child.

They only way to pay for these things is if someone gives me more money for doing nothing. Hence I and millions of others like me are relying on the kindness and charity of one group of strangers to outweigh the greed and selfishness of another group of strangers. My money (if I had any) would be on greed and selfishness to win out. Easily.

by bogbrush Tue 18 Sep 2012, 9:34 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:I am not of great intelligence and do not have great physical strength and so can only earn very little.

Without the State I would not be able to afford anyone to investigate my child's abduction, so I would just have to write him/her off

Without the State I would not be able to afford my heart transplant, so I'll die

Without the State I could not afford education for my child.

They only way to pay for these things is if someone gives me more money for doing nothing. Hence I and millions of others like me are relying on the kindness and charity of one group of strangers to outweigh the greed and selfishness of another group of strangers. My money (if I had any) would be on greed and selfishness to win out. Easily.

Do you really believe you live in a World where only police stand in the way of children being abducted?

Regarding your heart, perhaps you could ask for help, or join an insurance policy? The alternative you seem to want is for other people to be forced to pay for you to have it. Is that right?

As for education, how do you think someone like Abrahan Lincoln got educated? Do you believe standards of literacy now are much to get excited about? To be honest, don't even get me started about the damage done to young people by the education system.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 18 Sep 2012, 9:49 pm

I mean after the abduction - I require a team of qualified people to conduct the investigation and search for several months. For free, as I can't afford to pay them

For my heart, I didn't have enough money to join an insurance policy and also buy food for my family - I don't get paid much for cleaning toilets.

I have no idea how Abraham Lincoln was educated as I never had an education myself - my widowed mother could not afford to send me to school and we could not find a benefactor.

by bogbrush Tue 18 Sep 2012, 10:05 pm

And you want to compel other people to pay for this investigation? Actually you won't have much of a problem, it is in everyone's interest that the perpetrator of your child's abduction is found. Just ask for help.

And you want to compel other people to pay for your heart?

Do you think there should be any limits on the calls you can make on other people to do stuff or you? If so, where are those limits set?

Lincoln got the same education as you then. This great orator, lawyer and leader of men was educated by itinerant teachers and received almost no formal education. In my own case school did not teach me to read or write, my Mum did that for me.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 18 Sep 2012, 10:22 pm

In other words people of low intelligence and ill health should not be able to get justice and be left to die unless someone is willing to pay for these things out of the goodness of their hearts?
My children, unlike Lincoln, are also of low intelligence - without any education they will get no job and die on the streets through no fault of their own. Unless someone helps us out of the goodness of their hearts.
I work very hard 12 hours a day cleaning toilets, but now I am near death and my children will have no-one to care for them. There is no State orphanage. Will you help me kind sir, before I die and my children end up in the workhouse or destitute on the street? I do not like to beg in the streets like this, kind sir, but there is no State to support me or my family.

by bogbrush Tue 18 Sep 2012, 10:38 pm

Well I would encourage you to take heart; you are free to take a plot of land and build on it any abode, no matter how humble or grand you may. This land is free for you to settle as it is a natural resource created by no man. Look how rich you are compared to the poor souls in modern Britain who have to take loans amounting to many times their annual income before tax massively reduces it, and work hard barely to pay the interest. Your land is free, and the house build cost low because so many people have houses that their price is trivial.

You can also grow food on common land to supplement your income. Think how much that saves you compared to others. In fact, compared to your opposite number in Britain who is also of such limited intellect and skill as to be abe only to clean toilets you are much better off; he depends on pitiful handouts, pays a huge proportion of those back in tax on everything he buys, and can't afford to reside anywhere.

If your children are close to being orphans I suggest you petition various charitable institutions for help; many of these still exist in the 21st century although there were many more long before a State ever started taking children into care (often against the will of parent or child). Dr Barnardo was not, contrary to what you may imagine, a local government Social Worker.

Finally, have no fear of the Workhouse. Those were only required once people were forced to slave to pay rentiers. We don't have them here. If however you need help then ask your friends. If the people around you choose not to help you then that is their choice. If, however, you don't like that solution are you suggesting it is ethical that you make demands on others backed by threat of violence?

by bogbrush Tue 18 Sep 2012, 10:49 pm

Or thing;

You seem to equate education and material security. There's no logic to that.

Why do no education = dying in the streets? Even in our modern society an education is unnecessary to earning a living. My Dad was a self-employed man who did well yet left school at around 12 & writes in capitals. Doesn't stop him being a clever guy who can do stuff.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 18 Sep 2012, 10:57 pm

I cannot take the plot of land I wish to take because it is an area of several hundred acres guarded by many men with guns. If they kill me, there will be no-one my friends can afford to pay who have more guns, to bring them to justice. There is no decent common land anymore, just land controlled by very rich people with armed militia. There is, of course, no State police to prevent this.
I will take the cave on offer, damp though it may be. If only I could afford the materials to build a door, but food must come first and the cartels have raised the prices so much. There is no State law to prevent this happening, alas.
Please advise on how to petition the charitable institutions, kind sir - I am sure you can spare me the time. They are very full at the moment on account of the Fever that killed so many mothers and fathers who could not afford the medicine.Some say the Fever was a deliberate attack to eradicate the underclass, but surely mankind is not that cruel - mankind has no history of such cruelness, surely?

by socal1976 Tue 18 Sep 2012, 11:04 pm

bogbrush wrote:There are no anti-government politicians in Congress. That's like calling the Atheists in the Vatican. Bush is a massive Statist thug.

People today are

* not free to settle where they wish, because the land is carved up to people who never created it in the first place. How is it possible to buy something that nobody ever created without an original criminal act? And you know that purchasing stolen goods makes a contract void, don't you?
* compelled to carry out all their trade in the monopoly state backed currency.
* forced to pay taxes under a contract they never signed
* forced to use the monopoly currency and pay a rate of interest either directly or by inflation of the price of goods and services they consume.
* compelled to acquire state sanctioned licenses before being allowed to carry out trades regardless of the choice of their customers.
* permitted only to express opinions sanctioned by the State

There's more, and all under threat of imprisonment and violence.

Well, I don't know what your definition of serfdom is but I'd be interested to hear how it materially differs.

As for Gates, he's trapped in it as much as anyone, he's just won the jackpot. Hes a massive net beneficiary. So what?

Yes there are plenty of antigovernment members of congress see the teaporty movement. In the last few years they have privatized the utilities with a massive spike in cost to the consumer, pushed for privitazation of public education, banning the department of education, getting government involvment out of dozens of areas of public health, consumer protection, and environmental policy. If you have listened to any of the far right southern republicans in the last 3 decades they at the very least are highly ambivalent and hostile to the role of government in the economy and in society.

The facts are the facts BB, we had your no government intervention state in the USA for a century and half and 2/3rds of the American people in successive elections voted for direct government involvement to save them from the Free market that you talk up so glowingly. 7 count them depression level events in a little over a century BB. That is the true face of the free market you espouse. Not to mention the massive levels of pollution, child labor, and terrifyingly unsafe worker conditions that existed in the period. These things aside despite your initial bogus conclusion that without government involvement there would be no recessions is completely and totally wrong and you just made it up, or whoever told you that made it up. In fact the modern welfare state came out of a desire to protect the middle class from the most terrifying swings of the free market.

by bogbrush Tue 18 Sep 2012, 11:07 pm

Are you suggesting that in the State environment men with guns don't control your life?

And I'm certain you're not suggesting that biological warfare is something private individuals do and States prevent? I mean, that would fly in the face of all experience.

Seriously, do you honestly see States as pure instruments of protection?

by bogbrush Tue 18 Sep 2012, 11:14 pm

Looks like its failing then, socal. Only war is going to pull the US through now.

Any comment on the difference between serfdom and the examples of modern life I cited?

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 18 Sep 2012, 11:52 pm

bogbrush wrote:Are you suggesting that in the State environment men with guns don't control your life?

And I'm certain you're not suggesting that biological warfare is something private individuals do and States prevent? I mean, that would fly in the face of all experience.

Seriously, do you honestly see States as pure instruments of protection?

I'm saying that in a no-State environment men with guns would control things to a far greater extent.

Also, complete nutters, on the whole, are private individuals rather than heads of state (with a few notable exceptions, and as heads of State can do more damage) and the State tends to keep those nutters at bay.

I admire your desire for Utopia, but it relies on 2 crucial ideas
1. Your economic ideas
2. Mankind to be, on balance, more benevolent than greedy

Given that even now after a century of economic theory, no-one knows why the economy is shrinking and yet unemployment is falling, I have no trust in ANY economic theories
And I don't believe that, left without a State, people would be more benevolent than greedy - I think greed and selfishness would run rampant and society would run out of control. The State imposes a necessary control and taxes a necessary compassion/contribution to society that most people would otherwise do their very best to avoid.

by socal1976 Wed 19 Sep 2012, 4:24 am

JuliusHMarx wrote:
bogbrush wrote:Are you suggesting that in the State environment men with guns don't control your life?

And I'm certain you're not suggesting that biological warfare is something private individuals do and States prevent? I mean, that would fly in the face of all experience.

Seriously, do you honestly see States as pure instruments of protection?

I'm saying that in a no-State environment men with guns would control things to a far greater extent.

Precisely, the coercive power of the state has always existed whether it was a monarch or democratically elected government. Without a state there still would be firearms and greed and those with guns without a government to answer to would be even more dangerous. At least with recourse to a government in a civilized state you have laws, courts, lawyers, a constitution, a vote, a right to petition your government, pre-published laws that let you arrange your affairs and rely on the system. All these things sound self evident and normal state of nature but they aren't without men with guns sitting behind the curtain. There are far more benefits to having a democratic and functioning state then any other prescription that has been come up with.

by socal1976 Wed 19 Sep 2012, 4:33 am

bogbrush wrote:Looks like its failing then, socal. Only war is going to pull the US through now.

Any comment on the difference between serfdom and the examples of modern life I cited?

Only comment is that serfdom is nothing like the current modern economy. There are certain functions that only an organized Authority can do. Certain functions are best suited to local charities, to individuals, or to corporations. Certain functions are best done by a central state. I don't trust businesses to self police my food supply, water supply, drugs, or air. I don't trust them to regulate nuclear reactors. I don't trust them to run prisons or police forces either or to have private armies. In general there are many functions in the world that require the back up of coercive action not always force that only sovereign state can or should accomplish.

As usual your pronoucements on the demise of the US is highly premature. The economy isn't great but it is a lot more stable and better than what we saw 4 or 5 years ago. The biggest mistake the US made was to push for the removal of tariff's and trade restrictions to allow our corporations to go to china and ship their goods tariff free back to America. In my mind this is the single dumbest instance of deregulation in history. The US the biggest market should use that leverage to only allow a more balanced and fair trade relationship but unfortunately too many American companies like the profits of producing in china and selling the product for dollars or euros. If this along with our healthcare debacle are not addressed within the next 20 years the US economy will be in serious trouble. But in the near term some progress has been made in some of these areas and people are starting to see that despite what the free trade pro-business people in Congress are saying that free trade has been the biggest disaster in American industrial history.

by bogbrush Wed 19 Sep 2012, 7:21 am

JuliusHMarx wrote:
bogbrush wrote:Are you suggesting that in the State environment men with guns don't control your life?

And I'm certain you're not suggesting that biological warfare is something private individuals do and States prevent? I mean, that would fly in the face of all experience.

Seriously, do you honestly see States as pure instruments of protection?

I'm saying that in a no-State environment men with guns would control things to a far greater extent.

Also, complete nutters, on the whole, are private individuals rather than heads of state (with a few notable exceptions, and as heads of State can do more damage) and the State tends to keep those nutters at bay.

I admire your desire for Utopia, but it relies on 2 crucial ideas
1. Your economic ideas
2. Mankind to be, on balance, more benevolent than greedy

Given that even now after a century of economic theory, no-one knows why the economy is shrinking and yet unemployment is falling, I have no trust in ANY economic theories
And I don't believe that, left without a State, people would be more benevolent than greedy - I think greed and selfishness would run rampant and society would run out of control. The State imposes a necessary control and taxes a necessary compassion/contribution to society that most people would otherwise do their very best to avoid.

This is the heart of the issue.

I do not believe that, right now, humans can operate without keepers. 99.9% have been domesticated and would react hopelessly to freedom, but that doesn't make such a destination wrong. So far no form of government has provided anything other than short term stability - that's why history is mostly composed of wars, collapses, revolutions etc. it's wrong to pass favourable judgement on the State model based on anything other than long term scales.
The US IS, socal, failing and judging 2012 versus 2008 is missing the point; it's a failing State increasingly dependent on

* the rest of the World using its debased currency
* military might
* an ever growing State consuming more and more resources, accelerating the collapse

So many of the things you talk about - men with guns etc- are how the State operates. You may feel ok with the 'bars' but I suggest that's got a lot to do with how you've been educated (the education system was devised by industrialists because at the inception of mass production techniques workers were found to be independent minded and unsuitable. The US system is based on the Indian system which was geared toward the caste system. It takes the State, though, to enforce it ). There's a brilliant book written by an award winning teacher from the US (award winning at teaching, not writing, who retired because he could no longer liver with the limitations his profession deliberately placed onto young minds. I'll try to locate it).

Finally, law. We can have law without a Government because although people can be greedy and petty, the vast majority recognise the advantage of cooperation and mutual assurance. In a developed society we would have less tendency to aggressive greed because the system would not based everything on possession of land (a crazy concept really, one forcing people into desperate positions). Right now greed and aggression are more or less compulsory, nd the systems created to combat it only inflame it.

If I could do one thing right now I'd start at the beginning: reform land ownership & use rights, and make education fully optional.

by Sponsored content