Honest Money Constitutional Amendment

[LoveIsTruth]

The only thing I advocate is Freedom and Justice. People must be free to transact in anything they wish as long as they do not violate the property of another.

When such freedom exists, gold, silver and other commodities usually rise to the top as preferred medium of exchange because commodity based monetary system is the most stable and the most honest monetary system known to man, and does not require aggressive violence of the state (or any other entity) to operate, which makes it just by definition. (Because justice is defined as the absence of aggressive violence, which is the same as non-violation of private property.)

What do you have against justice, i.e. private property?

[ithink]

The only thing I advocate is Freedom and Justice. People must be free to transact in anything they wish as long as they do not violate the property of another.

When such freedom exists, gold, silver and other commodities usually rise to the top as preferred medium of exchange because commodity based monetary system is the most stable and the most honest monetary system known to man, and does not require aggressive violence of the state (or any other entity) to operate, which makes it just by definition. (Because justice is defined as the absence of aggressive violence, which is the same as non-violation of private property.)

What do you have against justice, i.e. private property?

My daughter is in highland dance. One that they do is the sword dance. She executes it to perfection. Have you ever seen it? It's pretty cool. They dance around these dangerously "sharp" swords, at risk of getting cut, but if they do it right, they never do.

I just witnessed a pseudo sword dance, executed by yourself, to anything but perfection. I'd say your feet are lacerated to pieces. Are they not?

You are a gold bug, and you haven't answered my questions, and if you don't, I'm calling you out on your integrity as proof that you have no answers and your philosophy is flawed.

[LoveIsTruth]

Because you are asking the wrong questions based on flawed assumptions.

I, however, sidestepped the whole pile of manure, that is your theory of false "facts," and advocate liberty.

What do you have against liberty? What do you have against private property? What do you have against people being free to transact in whatever they choose?

Any answers to that?

Keep dancing. Maybe you should take some lessons from your daughter who is apparently much better at dancing than you are at logic.

Cheers.

[Ezra]

Establishment Pushing “Cashless Society” to Control Humanity

Hey goldbug: you never answered my question: why do you advocate now returning to the system that had to be pried out of the hands of the international bankers back in the 30's?

And how are you going to manage the exponential growth of debt by compound interest: or rather, how happy are you that no money will be able to be created ex nihlo, that is, by any interest whatsoever accumulating "dishonestly" on whatever money is loaned against your gold bug system?



And how are you going to make sure the hoarders of the gold (ie. i have no gold) don't hoard it just to drive it's value up?

I could go on and on, but hey, why stop now?

But I can't resist. How come Ron Paul (the Master Gold Bug) refused to be interviewed on camera for Still's documentary?

How come you trust your own logic over gods?
He created the constitution which says to have a gold silver standard.

Are you lds? If so lean not on you own understandings but on the lords.

If you not lds. Put your trust in him not the arm of flesh ie carol quigly

[LoveIsTruth]

Ezra, your argument from authority is very nice and correct, but insufficient. Ultimately, there has to be reason shown for WHY certain things are as they are, or we will never learn the truth as God knows it.

But thanks for your support on this one. See, here we agree too!

[ithink]

Because you are asking the wrong questions based on flawed assumptions.

I, however, sidestepped the whole pile of manure, that is your theory of false "facts," and advocate liberty.

What do you have against liberty? What do you have against private property? What do you have against people being free to transact in whatever they choose?

Any answers to that?

Keep dancing. Maybe you should take some lessons from your daughter who is apparently much better at dancing than you are at logic.

Cheers.

There is no theory here, unless you call simple math theory. I can answer any of your questions, why can you not answer mine? I can show how compound interest will eat you for breakfast, your system for lunch, crap it out, and eat it again for dinner.

You speak of liberty but it is rubbish. You have nothing but kitch and cliche.

I'll give you all the logic you want, and then some, but I suspect I'd be wasting my time. I could show you the sun at noon day, and you'd still say you were in darkness.

But if you promise to stay on topic and give up your cheap preacher / used car salesman rhetoric, I'd be happy to tip your canoe once and for all.

[ithink]

How come you trust your own logic over gods?
He created the constitution which says to have a gold silver standard.

Are you lds? If so lean not on you own understandings but on the lords.

If you not lds. Put your trust in him not the arm of flesh ie carol quigly

How do you know what God's logic is if it has not come through a man?

I mean, can you even trust yourself? Right in the middle of your own eye is a blind spot. What is hiding there? What are you missing?

Your constitution. Oh yeah, subjugated right from the start. You are not free, nor have you ever been because that fight never ends. That is the biggest problem with Mormons and Americans: they think the fight is over. LOL. No, it's not over: only the battlefield has changed, except it's only half full right now because you (sorry to say), and so many others, are so asleep, so self certified, and so self confident you didn't bother to show up in the right place, armed with the right information. You dismiss Quigley, but you haven't read him. You've judged that book by it's cover.

Do you have emotions? How do you know they have not been manipulated? How do you know you have not manipulated yourself?

The only correct answer is to acknowledge that you cannot be sure of anything, except a few small things.

Such as 1 + 1 = 2.

We all seem to agree on that. If not, put your computer in a box and send it back, because the principles that make it work are based on math, not on any religious theory. So what were you saying there about not trusting the arm of flesh?

Of course we all have to trust each other. We do it all the time.

But is that the message of Christianity -- that we trust nobody?

No, that is a perversion of what Christ taught.

Christ really wanted us to weed out the baddies. I mean, really weed them out.

A precious few are willing to do that.

And why not? Who doesn't like to be coddled at church on sunday, with apple pie for desert, and a big fancy flag to wave on the 4th of July.

So trust nobody if you wish, but FYI it's not just Quigley, there are others: dozens of them. But he was one of the first, and many of your "heroes" were inspired by him, so be careful whose grave you are trampling on there Ezra.

[LoveIsTruth]

Because you are asking the wrong questions based on flawed assumptions.

But if you promise to stay on topic and give up your cheap preacher / used car salesman rhetoric, I'd be happy to tip your canoe once and for all.

Topic? The topic that interests me and that you are welcome to try to disprove with all your logic is this:

• People must be free to transact in anything they please unmolested by the state or anyone else, because anything other than this would be a violation of their private property which is a violation of justice and liberty by definition.

That is my topic. Gold and silver are incidental to it. They are just another thing people must be free to transact in because it is their choice and their property. If you hate gold system, fine. If you think it is impractical, fine. (You are wrong, but its irrelevant). The only thing I want you to admit that they must be free to transact in it, or in anything else, unmolested by any aggressive violence (including and especially that of the state), because individuals own themselves and their own property, and thus are free to do with it what they will as long as they do not violate the property of another via fraud or force. That's it. This is the only topic I am interested in discussing.

Are you game?

[ithink]

Because you are asking the wrong questions based on flawed assumptions.

But if you promise to stay on topic and give up your cheap preacher / used car salesman rhetoric, I'd be happy to tip your canoe once and for all.

Topic? The topic that interests me and that you are welcome to try to disprove with all your logic is this:

• People must be free to transact in anything they please unmolested by the state or anyone else, because anything other than this would be a violation of their private property which is a violation of justice and liberty by definition.

That is my topic. Gold and silver are incidental to it. They are just another thing people must be free to transact in because it is their choice and their property. If you hate gold system, fine. If you think it is impractical, fine. (You are wrong, but its irrelevant). The only thing I want you to admit that they must be free to transact in it, or in anything else, unmolested by any aggressive violence (including and especially that of the state), because individuals own themselves and their own property, and thus are free to do with it what they will as long as they do not violate the property of another via fraud or force. That's it. This is the only topic I am interested in discussing.

Are you game?

Sure. Let's have at it.

Let's find out what we agree on. If you don't agree with any of this, just say so.

1. The people need to engage in commerce, and must be free to contract one with another as they please. We will leave out the illegalities for now because there will always be extortionists, blackmailers, etc. We will just assume that those folks will be dealt with no matter what the financial system is.

2. In order to keep the people free in commerce, It is the responsibility of the state to ensure that an unlimited public medium of exchange exists which is legal, lawful, fair, flexible, and which cannot be manipulated by bankers, businessmen, or politicians. There must be a way for people to convert their commodity, whatever that is, into this medium of exchange in a consistently easy and orderly fashion. People may start up their own private systems if they wish, but they must also be legal, lawful, and fair. Whether it is flexible or not, manipulated or not, is irrelevant to the private system, but the public system cannot be.

3. Public or private, it must be mathematically tenable.

4. There must be a way in perpetuity, for any citizen to launch a challenge to the public system at any time. If a flaw can be proved, those responsible for the flaw will be held accountable.

[Ezra]

I just wanted to get your panties in a bunch Ithink. Cuz i knew that comment would.
The lords people don't find offence in what others say. Their correct beliefs can't be challenged by anyone. Others may try and it's just laughable to those individuals who know correct principals. Truth is a universal principle.
The money system altogether is laughable. If we must trade money for something. What ever we trade with should have tangible worth. Paper with ink on it has no worth. In the case of the dollar it's only a imagined worth. My kids scribble ink on paper all the time. And it's not worth anything. Gold and silver have worth. They are precious metals. I would take gold and silver over imagined worth or make believe worth any day.
This is why. If the government fails or falls so does the paper currency. If they devalue the current currency and replace it 1 million dollars might be worth 1 of the new currency.
Gold and silver however would still hold there value. And so would food or other tangible goods.

[ithink]

I just wanted to get your panties in a bunch Ithink. Cuz i knew that comment would.
The lords people don't find offence in what others say. Their correct beliefs can't be challenged by anyone. Others may try and it's just laughable to those individuals who know correct principals. Truth is a universal principle.
The money system altogether is laughable. If we must trade money for something. What ever we trade with should have tangible worth. Paper with ink on it has no worth. In the case of the dollar it's only a imagined worth. My kids scribble ink on paper all the time. And it's not worth anything. Gold and silver have worth. They are precious metals. I would take gold and silver over imagined worth or make believe worth any day.
This is why. If the government fails or falls so does the paper currency. If they devalue the current currency and replace it 1 million dollars might be worth 1 of the new currency.
Gold and silver however would still hold there value. And so would food or other tangible goods.

I suppose my panties would be in an bunch if I wore any, but I don't.

If I can challenge the beliefs you have postulated, which you think are correct, and prove them wrong, does that mean you aren't the Lord's people anymore?

Laugh it up, but when will you address the question at hand?

I mean, if your God says 10 - 11 = 0, what do you think I'm going to say about your God? Yea, he's not God, he's just god.

You need to spend some time studying monetary theory. You have some of it right, but somewhere along the way someone has convinced you that money must have intrinsic value. That is the attitude the bad banksters of the 30's had. I have to ask why do you hold and promote the same beliefs as them? Do you believe God told you to?

Paper and ink is just evidence of a contract. Are contracts OK with you?

People enter into contract, but their contracts must have have a measurable value attached. Are you still OK with that? Good, because contracts are all paper money is evidence of, monetized, and the advantage paper money has is that you don't have to wait until a gold digger shows up before you can start engaging in something other than caveman commerce.

The pen is mightier than the sword, and much mightier than the shovel. You can and should be able to engage in commerce with nothing other than a pen and paper, because the baker, farmer, plumber, chiropractor, doctor, and dentist, all should have as good a word as the gold digger.

You seem to think paper money is the problem. But have you ever considered the forces that drive the production of paper money? I mean, if the ocean floods your beach tent because you didn't check the tide tables and you blame the ocean, you would be correct to say the ocean ruined your tent, but if you said the ocean was why, you would be wrong. The moon is why, but by the same token, the moon did not ruin your tent. So what force drove the tides? Pay attention, because that is what I am talking about. You keep blaming the sea (paper money), but you not only don't address the driving force behind it, you think you're so smart that it's time to laugh. You should publish your real name so I know who I am really laughing at, if I was that type of insufferable prig, but I'm not, so don't bother.

You talk about devaluation, sure, but what force had driven the devaluation? I have stated it several times, and in reality it isn't even threatening to you gold bugs, but you still refuse to acknowledge it.

You think you have it all wrapped up because your God told you so. Maybe, but my God spent the last few hours of his life physically attacking what you are now promoting. So who did you say your God was again?

You think you have it all locked up because your BoM talks about money, but who's laughing now when I ask you what was the basis of the money system that appears in Alma 11? Is it hard money? Or is it just plain boring old barley? And if barley -- why? Didn't they have paper and pen handy - or gold and silver? Or is it that barley was that common? Not only that, but is that chapter there not to tell you what to do, but what not to do -- or does it not matter?

[Ezra]

10-11 =0 that is correct
If 10 dollars =0 because they have been inflated so much and 11 dollars =0 because they have been inflated so much. Then yes God would say 10-11= 0
Were gold still has value.
God advised us to have a gold standard. Take it up with him. I'm just going with what God advised.
Question. If bankers were all for a gold standard why did they get together in secret on And come up with the plan for the federal reserve?

[LoveIsTruth]

Sure. Let's have at it.
Let's find out what we agree on. If you don't agree with any of this, just say so.

Excellent!

1. The people need to engage in commerce, and must be free to contract one with another as they please.

Agree.

We will leave out the illegalities for now because there will always be extortionists, blackmailers, etc. We will just assume that those folks will be dealt with no matter what the financial system is.

True. But some systems are easier to abuse than others. Just like it is easier to walk through an unlocked door, than through a locked one. Fiat monetary systems are the easiest to counterfeit. All you need to do is to get access to a computer and punch, say, 12 zeroes, and you magically become the “owner” of entire industries. All I am saying, it is infinitely easier to counterfeit one trillion dollars in 0’s and 1’s, than in thousands of tons of pure gold bullion. One is unlocked door, the other is locked. Both can be abused, but one is infinitely more susceptible to abuse than the other.

2. In order to keep the people free in commerce, It is the responsibility of the state to ensure that an unlimited public medium of exchange exists which is legal, lawful, fair, flexible,

Ok. There are a lot of assumptions built into this statement, and many of them are wrong. Let’s take them in order:

First, “in order to keep the people free in commerce” all you need to do is to forbid all forms of aggressive violence by everyone involved. That is freedom by the definition of the term.

Secondly, you need to define the word “state” before we can use it in a sentence and understand what is being meant. So please define the word “state.”
I am aware of at least two definitions. One of an unjust state. And another of a just state.
An unjust state is defined thus: State is an entity that claims a monopoly to ultimate decision making over a given territory and presumes the “right” to commit acts of legalized plunder via aggressive violence of public taxation of private property. Such state is unjust by definition, because it violates private property, and thus violates both justice and liberty (which justice and liberty, incidentally, can only be defined in terms of, and have no meaning without, the concept of private property). See more here.
A definition of a just state is thus: State is public property and its government.

Thirdly, in general, it is not “the responsibility of the state to ensure” the existence of a public medium of exchange, (Please define “public medium of exchange”), and much less it is the responsibility of the state to ensure that “unlimited public medium of exchange exists” because “unlimited” medium of exchange is by definition worthless. Remember supply and demand. If something is unlimited its price goes to ZERO, which is worthless by definition.

Fourthly, what are these magic words “legal” and “lawful”? Am I not free to transact in eggshells if I choose and find a willing buyer? Your assumption here is wrong, because you presume that a medium of exchange is not “legal” and not “lawful” unless it is approved by the state. A state (using my definition above) has exactly ZERO of just say regarding the use of private property. Why? Because the state does not own private property. It does not own you, nor your property, therefore it has ZERO right to prescribe to you as to what you do with your own, as long as you do not violate the property of another.

Lastly, a medium of exchange is a measurement of value, therefore it is never desirable for it to be “flexible” any more than it is desirable for a yard or a pound to be flexible, unless of course your goal is to defraud and rob people. The more inflexible a medium of exchange is in determining its value, the better.

and which cannot be manipulated by bankers, businessmen, or politicians.

Agreed. As mentioned before, commodity based monetary system is MUCH harder to manipulate than computer 0’s and 1’s that are created at will by a politically motivated bureaucrat at a push of a button. Case in point: the fed created one trillion dollars out of thin air at a push of a button, to bail out its politically connected friends. This would have been impossible if they had to deliver one trillion dollars in pure gold bullion. This is why banksters hate 100% gold standard, because it restricts their ability to legally counterfeit. This is why the world is awash in fiat currencies now, because the banksters gained control practically over all the governments on earth.

There must be a way for people to convert their commodity, whatever that is, into this medium of exchange in a consistently easy and orderly fashion.

Again, you are making an incorrect assumption. Gold and silver, denominated by weight and purity are a universal medium of exchange that existed for thousands of years. It can exist independent of aggressive violence of coercion of governments. The gold coins of ancient Rome are as voluble today as in the day they were minted. But the paper dollar of the US, for instance, has already lost over 97% of its purchasing power since 1913 when the Fed came into existence and started debasing it via legalized and monopolized counterfeiting.
So a proper commodity, like gold or silver, is itself a medium of exchange and does not need to be converted into any other, provided the government does not tax such exchanges. It is through taxation of gold and silver transactions that the current government prevents gold and silver from being used as a universal medium of exchange. Remove this aggressive violence of the state, and free market overwhelmingly chooses gold and silver as medium of exchange because of their specific properties which make them uniquely suitable for the purpose.

People may start up their own private systems if they wish, but they must also be legal, lawful,

Is it not legal and lawful for me to do with mine own what I will as long as I do not violate the property of another?

and fair.

Definition of “fair” is no fraud and no aggressive violence.

Whether it is flexible or not, manipulated or not, is irrelevant to the private system, but the public system cannot be.

I assure you, that if a private system is “flexible” it will be rejected as a fraud by a free market. Would you like to get paid in “flexible” dollars, whose value and purchasing power can be stolen at a push of a button by a bureaucrat or bankster who counterfeits another trillion? If the value of the medium of exchange is flexible, people get robbed of the value of their labor. It is fraud. Would you like to get paid in a “flexible” number of eggs? “Flexible” pounds of cheese? “Flexible” gallons of fuel? I don’t think so. It is a fraud.

3. Public or private, it must be mathematically tenable.

Yes.

4. There must be a way in perpetuity, for any citizen to launch a challenge to the public system at any time.

Yes. It is called free competition in currencies. Free market “challenges” all kinds of goods and services on a continual and perpetual basis. If your currency is “flexible,” it will be rejected as a fraud that it is, in a free market.

If a flaw can be proved, those responsible for the flaw will be held accountable.

Yes. In a free market they will go bankrupt, and will be forced to restore what they have stolen.

[ithink]

10-11 =0 that is correct
If 10 dollars =0 because they have been inflated so much and 11 dollars =0 because they have been inflated so much. Then yes God would say 10-11= 0
Were gold still has value.
God advised us to have a gold standard. Take it up with him. I'm just going with what God advised.
Question. If bankers were all for a gold standard why did they get together in secret on And come up with the plan for the federal reserve?

Ezra, there is no hope for you. Attitudes like yours, and people like you are why I no longer go to church. People are really suffering and all you can produce is an equation that obviously doesn't add up, so sorry, but I don't have time for you.


Last ditch, I recommend you spend some time with the renowned economist Michael Hudson (http://michael-hudson.com/2004/01/the-m ... ew-part-i/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;), then read all the documents he references. At that point if you still don't get it, spare us all the spin and fall on your sword.

[ithink]

Sure. Let's have at it.
Let's find out what we agree on. If you don't agree with any of this, just say so.

Excellent!

1. The people need to engage in commerce, and must be free to contract one with another as they please.

Agree.

We will leave out the illegalities for now because there will always be extortionists, blackmailers, etc. We will just assume that those folks will be dealt with no matter what the financial system is.

True. But some systems are easier to abuse than others. Just like it is easier to walk through an unlocked door, than through a locked one. Fiat monetary systems are the easiest to counterfeit. All you need to do is to get access to a computer and punch, say, 12 zeroes, and you magically become the “owner” of entire industries. All I am saying, it is infinitely easier to counterfeit one trillion dollars in 0’s and 1’s, than in thousands of tons of pure gold bullion. One is unlocked door, the other is locked. Both can be abused, but one is infinitely more susceptible to abuse than the other.

2. In order to keep the people free in commerce, It is the responsibility of the state to ensure that an unlimited public medium of exchange exists which is legal, lawful, fair, flexible,

Ok. There are a lot of assumptions built into this statement, and many of them are wrong. Let’s take them in order:

First, “in order to keep the people free in commerce” all you need to do is to forbid all forms of aggressive violence by everyone involved. That is freedom by the definition of the term.

Secondly, you need to define the word “state” before we can use it in a sentence and understand what is being meant. So please define the word “state.”
I am aware of at least two definitions. One of an unjust state. And another of a just state.
An unjust state is defined thus: State is an entity that claims a monopoly to ultimate decision making over a given territory and presumes the “right” to commit acts of legalized plunder via aggressive violence of public taxation of private property. Such state is unjust by definition, because it violates private property, and thus violates both justice and liberty (which justice and liberty, incidentally, can only be defined in terms of, and have no meaning without, the concept of private property). See more here.
A definition of a just state is thus: State is public property and its government.

Thirdly, in general, it is not “the responsibility of the state to ensure” the existence of a public medium of exchange, (Please define “public medium of exchange”), and much less it is the responsibility of the state to ensure that “unlimited public medium of exchange exists” because “unlimited” medium of exchange is by definition worthless. Remember supply and demand. If something is unlimited its price goes to ZERO, which is worthless by definition.

Fourthly, what are these magic words “legal” and “lawful”? Am I not free to transact in eggshells if I choose and find a willing buyer? Your assumption here is wrong, because you presume that a medium of exchange is not “legal” and not “lawful” unless it is approved by the state. A state (using my definition above) has exactly ZERO of just say regarding the use of private property. Why? Because the state does not own private property. It does not own you, nor your property, therefore it has ZERO right to prescribe to you as to what you do with your own, as long as you do not violate the property of another.

Lastly, a medium of exchange is a measurement of value, therefore it is never desirable for it to be “flexible” any more than it is desirable for a yard or a pound to be flexible, unless of course your goal is to defraud and rob people. The more inflexible a medium of exchange is in determining its value, the better.

and which cannot be manipulated by bankers, businessmen, or politicians.

Agreed. As mentioned before, commodity based monetary system is MUCH harder to manipulate than computer 0’s and 1’s that are created at will by a politically motivated bureaucrat at a push of a button. Case in point: the fed created one trillion dollars out of thin air at a push of a button, to bail out its politically connected friends. This would have been impossible if they had to deliver one trillion dollars in pure gold bullion. This is why banksters hate 100% gold standard, because it restricts their ability to legally counterfeit. This is why the world is awash in fiat currencies now, because the banksters gained control practically over all the governments on earth.

There must be a way for people to convert their commodity, whatever that is, into this medium of exchange in a consistently easy and orderly fashion.

Again, you are making an incorrect assumption. Gold and silver, denominated by weight and purity are a universal medium of exchange that existed for thousands of years. It can exist independent of aggressive violence of coercion of governments. The gold coins of ancient Rome are as voluble today as in the day they were minted. But the paper dollar of the US, for instance, has already lost over 97% of its purchasing power since 1913 when the Fed came into existence and started debasing it via legalized and monopolized counterfeiting.
So a proper commodity, like gold or silver, is itself a medium of exchange and does not need to be converted into any other, provided the government does not tax such exchanges. It is through taxation of gold and silver transactions that the current government prevents gold and silver from being used as a universal medium of exchange. Remove this aggressive violence of the state, and free market overwhelmingly chooses gold and silver as medium of exchange because of their specific properties which make them uniquely suitable for the purpose.

People may start up their own private systems if they wish, but they must also be legal, lawful,

Is it not legal and lawful for me to do with mine own what I will as long as I do not violate the property of another?

and fair.

Definition of “fair” is no fraud and no aggressive violence.

Whether it is flexible or not, manipulated or not, is irrelevant to the private system, but the public system cannot be.

I assure you, that if a private system is “flexible” it will be rejected as a fraud by a free market. Would you like to get paid in “flexible” dollars, whose value and purchasing power can be stolen at a push of a button by a bureaucrat or bankster who counterfeits another trillion? If the value of the medium of exchange is flexible, people get robbed of the value of their labor. It is fraud. Would you like to get paid in a “flexible” number of eggs? “Flexible” pounds of cheese? “Flexible” gallons of fuel? I don’t think so. It is a fraud.

3. Public or private, it must be mathematically tenable.

Yes.

4. There must be a way in perpetuity, for any citizen to launch a challenge to the public system at any time.

Yes. It is called free competition in currencies. Free market “challenges” all kinds of goods and services on a continual and perpetual basis. If your currency is “flexible,” it will be rejected as a fraud that it is, in a free market.

If a flaw can be proved, those responsible for the flaw will be held accountable.

Yes. In a free market they will go bankrupt, and will be forced to restore what they have stolen.

This is going to get messy fast, the format here doing a response is very hard to navigate.

1. Good enough, let's skip your minor quibble about ease of abuse and move on the the bigger fish.

2. "Aggressive violence". No idea what that is. Wow, we're off the rails already. Are you Ezra in disguise? If I don't define a term, use your dictionary. I'll do this one for you though: "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government." You would do well to avoid these strange conjectures you like to engage in. The fish is on the line, if you wait too long, he will get away. Other than that, it appears you agree with #2 as well.

3. Oh yes it is the duty of the state to set up the public money system. In fact LIT, it is the state's PRIMARY and SOLE solemn responsibility, because if they get this wrong, nothing else matters. All of the best minds on the subject agree with this, as does your Constitution. You're not opposed to your God inspired Constitution are you?

4. Oh, you don't know the difference between legal and lawful? Clearly you don't since your response here is to put words in my mouth. There are many laws on the books which are legal, but not lawful, which imputes that the some legal action may be valid although it is actually defective. Lawful is more to the spirit of the law, meaning it is in real accord, and if tested, will be shown to be not only legal, but in line with the reason the law was put there in the first place. Police officers normally operate under the "color of law" (the legal side), without a thought as to whether what they are doing is "lawful". In the case of this discussion, the current financial system is legal, but not lawful since it violates the reason a money system existed in the first place.

I've purposely set you up here to see if you will essentially agree on this stuff because we haven't defined a money system yet, but you have none the less found a ton of irrelevant stuff to argue about. Like #4: there is no reason you should be arguing about anything in there.

I'm not going to address the rest of your post yet until we essentially agree on these four items. I think the first two are OK, maybe we need to discuss three, but four -- you should be in total agreement with that.

[LoveIsTruth]

"Aggressive violence". No idea what that is.

That is key to this whole discussion. Why? Because aggressive violence is the definition of evil and injustice.

So, I am going to define it for you very carefully, because when you arrive at such fundamental things as good, evil, justice and liberty, you need to be sure you got them correct. This will determine EVERY conclusion we are going to draw from here. This is how we may judge good from evil. Nothing is more important than this. You live or die by this one thing. So we better get it right.

All concepts pertaining to interactions between intelligent beings derive from this one thing: Private Property.

Private Property is defined as all the things you exclusively own, that belong to you and none else. You do not need to obtain anyone’s permission to use it, but all must obtain your permission to use it because it is yours. You have a right to do with it as you please as long as you do not violate the property of another.

Private property thus includes, and is indeed derived from your self-ownership. It means the simple fact that you own yourself: your body, your mind, your abilities. Ownership of the fruits of your labor is the extension of your self-ownership. In fact, without ownership there are no rights. All rights are expressions of ownership. You have a right to say what you please precisely because you own your body, your mind, and your ability to speak. You have a right to live because you own your body. Etc. Without ownership of property there are no rights.

Private property is the most fundamental, and thus, the most important type of property, from which all other types are derived. It is the bedrock foundation of the Science of Justice and Liberty.

Now, let’s define other important concepts from this all important principle of Private Property.

Justice is non-violation of Private Property with the implied right to use equal force to offset/neutralize the aggression of another against your property.

Liberty/Freedom is the right to do with your own property what you please as long as you do not violate the property of another.

Good is Private Property.

Evil is violation of Private Property.

Aggressive violence is a violation of Private Property, therefore it is the definition of Evil and injustice.

Aggressive violence is offensive violence. It is the initiation of force/aggression against the property of another. It is always wrong. As I said before, it is the very definition of EVIL itself.

Aggressive violence is the opposite of defensive violence. Defensive violence is justified violence because it is used to offset/neutralize aggressive violence. Only defensive violence is ever justified.

Thus justice is equivalent to the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), because as I pointed out earlier, justice is nothing more than non-violation of Private Property.

This Non-Aggression Principle originates from God who said:

• Thou shall not kill. Thou shall not steal.

In fact, the war in heaven was fought over this very concept: Private Property, more specifically, Self-ownership, also known as Free Will. Those who rebelled against it, were cast out of heaven with Lucifer, because they sought to violate self-ownership of others, and thus JUSTICE and LIBERTY, which God gave to his children. If God permitted such violations, he would have ceased to be God.

Thus, God is the author and the champion of Liberty and Justice, i.e. Non-aggression. And the devil is the father of aggressive violence.

These laws of liberty and justice predate the universe. They are no more subject to the opinions of politicians than the laws of gravity, electricity, mechanics, and math. They cannot be voted away, because they are absolute and universal, and God is their source.
Based on these definitions we now can examine any policy or any system and clearly and easily determine whether it is good or evil, just or unjust.

This is where we have to begin, or we will be forever lost in error, uncertainty, and sophistry of men.

Let’s start here, and then move on to other concepts derived from this solid foundation.

[ithink]

"Aggressive violence". No idea what that is.

That is key to this whole discussion. Why? Because aggressive violence is the definition of evil and injustice.

I understand violence, and I understand aggression. Your marriage of the two words is bizarre.

What your "aggressive violence is is a straw man you keep putting up, then beating to death.

Back to #2:

2. In order to keep the people free in commerce, It is the responsibility of the state to ensure that an unlimited public medium of exchange exists which is legal, lawful, fair, flexible, and which cannot be manipulated by bankers, businessmen, or politicians. There must be a way for people to convert their commodity, whatever that is, into this medium of exchange in a consistently easy and orderly fashion. People may start up their own private systems if they wish, but they must also be legal, lawful, and fair. Whether it is flexible or not, manipulated or not, is irrelevant to the private system, but the public system cannot be.

I'll make it easy for you. In our city, we have a PUBLIC water supply. Everyone who is on it has a pipe and they get water to do whatever they want with. I know that if I go to anyone's house, I can drink the water from the tap because I know that the quality is monitored and tested as safe regularly. I can TRUST that it is what it is.

Some in my town are on wells, on their own private property. So, they have PRIVATE water. If I choose, I can drink their water, but it may smell bad, have heavy metals and even bacteria, and even then, a PRIVATE well must be tested and certified before a permit is issued to use it because people need to be monitored lest they start pumping out water that poisons themselves and others. But it might also be OK.

I have no problem with PUBLIC water because society has sanctioned it to a certain standard, and all benefit.

I have no problem with PRIVATE wells either, but there may be a risk there that isn't present with the PUBLIC water.

Now, if you agree with this, then we can move on.

[LoveIsTruth]

"Aggressive violence". No idea what that is.

That is key to this whole discussion. Why? Because aggressive violence is the definition of evil and injustice.

I understand violence, and I understand aggression. Your marriage of the two words is bizarre.

What your "aggressive violence is is a straw man you keep putting up, then beating to death.
...
Now, if you agree with this, then we can move on.

No, I do not agree with this. You have just disposed of the entire heart and core of what good and evil are. We have nothing to talk about until we agree upon this fundamental principle.


You say, "I understand violence, and I understand aggression. Your marriage of the two words is bizarre." Really?
Do you not understand that there is aggressive violence and defensive violence? Do you not comprehend the difference between the two? I will give you an example: A rapist breaks into you house for the purpose of murdering your daughter. That is aggressive violence. It is wrong by definition, because it violates your property and the property of your daughter. All aggressive violence is evil by definition because it violates private property and self-ownership of individuals. You taking out your gun and shooting him dead is defensive violence. Defensive violence is justified violence, because it equals to and is designed to neutralize the aggression.

Do you see the difference in the two types of violence? Do you not think this difference is important?

One is good, the other is evil. One is just, the other is unjust.

If we cannot agree on this, we have nothing else to discuss.

Both types of violence are defined, and have any meaning, only in the context of self-ownership and private property. Private property is the key to the whole matter. It is impossible to discern right from wrong, just from the unjust without it. And without justice we have nothing to discuss, because the whole point of this exchange was to determine justice of different monetary systems, and justice of, and the imperative need for, free competition in currencies.

If you agree with this, then we can move on.

[ithink]

If you agree with this, then we can move on.

Look buddy, we were talking about a medium of exchange and suddenly you are talking about rapists and murderers. I know you are passionate about what you believe, but please, stay on topic.

Let's break down what I posted that prompted your crazy rant on really bad people.

#2. In order to keep the people free in commerce,
ie. I want people to be free. How about you?

It is the responsibility of the state to ensure that an unlimited public medium of exchange exists which is legal, lawful, fair, flexible, and which cannot be manipulated by bankers, businessmen, or politicians.
ie. I want a system that is what I just said it is. I am not talking about the KIND of system, just philosophically: do you not agree in a fair, legal, lawful, flexible system that is beyond manipulation by bankers, businessmen, and politicians?


There must be a way for people to convert their commodity, whatever that is, into this medium of exchange in a consistently easy and orderly fashion.
ie. This system must be easy to use. It must be simple to understand.

People may start up their own private systems if they wish, but they must also be legal, lawful, and fair. Whether it is flexible or not, manipulated or not, is irrelevant to the private system, but the public system cannot be.
ie. You should like this: if anyone wishes to start any other system than what the Government is running on our behalf (like the public water supply), they can do that. But it has to meet the previous criteria, which in a nutshell is that it cannot be fraudulent. Are you in favor of fraud? If not, then why do you not agree with this?

[LoveIsTruth]

Look buddy, we were talking about a medium of exchange and suddenly you are talking about rapists and murderers. I know you are passionate about what you believe, but please, stay on topic.

Let me slow it down for you. Yes we are talking about monetary systems. We are trying to determine which system will be just. To accomplish this we must agree on the definition of the word justice. Would you agree?

I gave the definition of Justice here.

Do you agree with this definition? It will be completely pointless to continue this conversation to more complex structures if we do not agree on the fundamental definitions.

So please answer my question, and if you disagree with my definition of the term Justice, give your own, and see if we can reconcile the two views with the truth.

• 1) Do you agree with my definition of justice as non-violation of private property?
  2) Do you agree with my definition of liberty as the right to do with your own property what you will as long as you do not violate the property of another?
  3) If you disagree with either (1) or (2), please give me your definition.

I believe this is the proper place to start before we get answering your question of what is “fair.”

There is no point proceeding any further until we agree on this foundation, just like there is no point in hoisting the roof before laying the building’s foundation.

You have to agree that my questions are more fundamental than yours and are directly related to answering yours, since you are asking what is “fair.” Therefore you must answer the more fundamental questions I put to you first, and then I will answer your questions. Otherwise this conversation is over.

Cheers.

[ithink]

Look buddy, we were talking about a medium of exchange and suddenly you are talking about rapists and murderers. I know you are passionate about what you believe, but please, stay on topic.

Let me slow it down for you. Yes we are talking about monetary systems. We are trying to determine which system will be just. To accomplish this we must agree on the definition of the word justice. Would you agree?

I gave the definition of Justice here.

Do you agree with this definition? It will be completely pointless to continue this conversation to more complex structures if we do not agree on the fundamental definitions.

So please answer my question, and if you disagree with my definition of the term Justice, give your own, and see if we can reconcile the two views with the truth.

• 1) Do you agree with my definition of justice as non-violation of private property?
  2) Do you agree with my definition of liberty as the right to do with your own property what you will as long as you do not violate the property of another?
  3) If you disagree with either (1) or (2), please give me your definition.

I believe this is the proper place to start before we get answering your question of what is “fair.”

There is no point proceeding any further until we agree on this foundation, just like there is no point in hoisting the roof before laying the building’s foundation.

You have to agree that my questions are more fundamental than yours and are directly related to answering yours, since you are asking what is “fair.” Therefore you must answer the more fundamental questions I put to you first, and then I will answer your questions. Otherwise this conversation is over.

Cheers.

I have no problems with "your" definition of justice. I am having trouble finding the dictionary with your name on it though.

I've answered you, now you answer me. I'm sure I don't need to repeat myself, for the 4th time.

[LoveIsTruth]

"1) Do you agree with my definition of justice as non-violation of private property?"
I have no problems with "your" definition of justice.

Wonderful! I will show you that all your questions about what is "fair" are resolved by this definition.

I've answered you, now you answer me.

Certainly! You probably missed the fact that I have already answered most of your questions in detail here which you failed to rebut, but I will be happy to copy and paste for you.

#2. In order to keep the people free in commerce,
ie. I want people to be free. How about you?

Yes.

It is the responsibility of the state to ensure that an unlimited public medium of exchange exists which is legal, lawful, fair, flexible, and which cannot be manipulated by bankers, businessmen, or politicians.

That is a self-contradiction. You cannot have a medium of exchange that is both "flexible" and "fair" just like you cannot have a yard that is flexible and fair. It is an oxymoron, kind of like "dry water."

And again you cannot have a "flexible" medium of exchange "which cannot be manipulated by bankers, businessmen, or politicians." That is also an oxymoron, because "flexible" by definition means "capable of being manipulated."

So you contradict yourself without even noticing it.

The less "flexible" the value of the medium of exchange is the better it fulfills its function of being an honest store of value. A "flexible" medium of exchange is nothing more than fraud, just like a flexible pound, or flexible gallon, or elastic measuring tape. If you disagree, you should have no objection to being paid in "flexible" pounds of cheese, or "flexible" number of eggs, or "flexible" gallons of fuel. It is fraud by definition.

There must be a way for people to convert their commodity, whatever that is, into THIS medium of exchange in a consistently easy and orderly fashion.

Since "this medium of exchange" refers to the fraud pointed out above, the answer is a resounding, No!

People may start up their own private systems if they wish, but they must also be legal, lawful, and fair.

Yes, except that I already pointed out to you that ANY system devoid of aggressive violence and fraud ought to be "legal" and "lawful" because it is JUST by definition. And if it is not "legal" then the law is unjust.

You should like this: if anyone wishes to start any other system than what the Government is running on our behalf (like the public water supply), they can do that. But it has to meet the previous criteria, which in a nutshell is that it cannot be fraudulent.

Yes. In other words, it must not be "flexible," just like a pound, a gallon, or a yard must not be "flexible," or it will be fraudulent by definition.

Are you in favor of fraud?

No. But apparently you are.

If not, then why do you not agree with this?

Because I am against fraud.

[ithink]

It is the responsibility of the state to ensure that an unlimited public medium of exchange exists which is legal, lawful, fair, flexible, and which cannot be manipulated by bankers, businessmen, or politicians.

That is a self-contradiction. You cannot have a medium of exchange that is both "flexible" and "fair" just like you cannot have a yard that is flexible and fair. It is an oxymoron, kind of like "dry water."

And again you cannot have a "flexible" medium of exchange "which cannot be manipulated by bankers, businessmen, or politicians." That is also an oxymoron, because "flexible" by definition means "capable of being manipulated."

So you contradict yourself without even noticing it.

Wow, you are a total wacko. By your own words then, you are in favor of a system that is inflexible and fair, or flexible and unfair, or both inflexible and unfair.

[ithink]

"flexible"

I just reread your post. I'm sorry that the time it took to do that I can never recover.

But look guy, we're discussing economics. You should understand what flexible currency means in this context. The fact you don't belies the fact you are inept, or are being obtuse because it certainly DOES NOT mean what you say it means.

So which is it: inept, or obtuse?

[LoveIsTruth]

"flexible"

I just reread your post. I'm sorry that the time it took to do that I can never recover.

But look guy, we're discussing economics. You should understand what flexible currency means in this context. The fact you don't belies the fact you are inept, or are being obtuse because it certainly DOES NOT mean what you say it means.

So which is it: inept, or obtuse?

Please define what "flexible" means.