-15 votes

Rothbard and Menger Trustworthy?

My reasoning for starting this topic can be reported by me, and anyone else can do with that information as they please.

Ron Paul will not be leading the fight for Liberty here in this former Republic forever and when another person takes over the collective power of every lover of Liberty every Friend of Liberty, to one degree or another: what will be done with that power then?

Wolves in Sheep's clothing are possible, and this is not NEWS, for anyone who is a Friend of Liberty to warn anyone else, beware of Greeks bearing gifts like Trojan Horses.

If the new leaders of the Liberty Movement can't enumerate specific goals as well as Ron Paul, then which ones are let go?

I know of three vital ones.

1.
End the National Level Enforcement of a Single Legal Money Monopoly Power (Legal Fraud) or otherwise known as End The Fed, and do so because that lack of abuse of that power will then allow a new age of Competition in Legal Currencies whereby the force of many people making choices (that nebulous Free Market PROCESS) will result in a steady increase, over time, in the quality of money (POWER) as that cost of that best money goes down (Interest).

2.
End the National Level Enforcement of Direct Taxation (Legal Extortion) upon The People directly or otherwise known as End the IRS, and do so because that lack of abuse of that power will return the duty of paying a true Federal government to the elected officials who are hired to run the State governments and then any State can then force the Federal employees in line by either paying for what a State wants the Federal government to do or not paying for what a State wants the Federal government to stop doing - NOW.

3.
End the ordering of our best and brightest on missions that go against The Universal Code of Military Justice, unlawful orders, and instead of ordering our best and brightest to commit crimes against humanity, bring them home, since the two other things on this long laundry list will not be seen as a good thing by all those people who are paid so well to commit legal fraud and legal extortion, legal torture, and legal mass murder, and we sure may need our best and brightest here in the battle against enemies domestic.

Knowing that Ron Paul will someday stop being the best man for the job of defending Liberty, and do so wisely, efficiently, honestly, openly, and in good time, know that his power to do the right thing for everyone else will someday be lesser than today, knowing that, in advance, aught to clue the rest of us in on getting our own acts together concerning the many vital things that must be done sooner, and done before it is too late.

The reason for my question on Karl Menger and Murray Rothbard has to do with those 3 things on that laundry list above, as to who will pick up the sword that stands in between those criminals (made legal) and those targeted victims made victims, and if that sword will be used to stop those crimes or further those crimes (made legal) in progress.

What clues may be known to potential victims in case the newer generations of Friends of Liberty rise in power to a level such as Ron Paul has skyrocketed in only 30 or so years?

If the new leaders speak with forked tongues will the targeted victims hear the contradictions, the duplicity, and thereby understand the hidden agendas in time to pull the plug of support as we provide the means by which we will suffer?

My reasons are mine, and you can certainly offer competitive reasons, for doing whatever you do, but if the negative votes were to speak their mind, would they speak lies, libel, and falsehood as a rule?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Hate to be blunt, but, that's got to be a record

on the most convoluted, incoherent post I've ever read on the Daily Paul.

"The reason for my question on Karl Menger and Murray Rothbard has to do with those 3 things on that laundry list above, as to who will pick up the sword that stands in between those criminals (made legal) and those targeted victims made victims, and if that sword will be used to stop those crimes or further those crimes (made legal) in progress."

My reply: HUH?

Confessions of a dictator?

Quote:
"Hate to be blunt,..."

Does that person actually Hate something?

Is that person being blunt?

I think that hate may be an exaggeration.

I think that the person is not telling the truth too. I think that the person loves to lie, and probably hates to be exposed as a liar.

That is not intending to be factual, that is my opinion. I don't know if this person actually hates to be blunt.

I don't think that the person is blunt. I think that the person is exaggerating as in "hyperbole".

Quote:
"Hate to be blunt, but, that's got to be a record"

Getting past what this person may or may not hate, and getting past what is or is not being blunt, and getting to the point of knowing what is or is not a record, it may help to compared one thing that may be record breaking with another baseline example of what is less record breaking.

"Hate to be blunt, but, that's got to be a record on the most convoluted, incoherent post I've ever read on the Daily Paul."

That is meant to insult or be blunt?

What is meant by convoluted?

How about an example of convoluted?

"Hate to be blunt"

Does the person hate something or actually love to do something?

I think that is an example of something convoluted.

Perhaps it is just my incapacity to understand English?

How about another example of convoluted?

"who will pick up the sword that stands in between those criminals (made legal) and those targeted victims made victims..."

I think a very good example of something convoluted is torture made legal by calling torture by a different legal name such as "extraordinary rendition" or "enhanced interrogation techniques".

Perhaps it is my inability to employ English as hate speech?

I hate when the victims discover how the criminals have taken over the power of law?

What can be done when the cat is being let out of the bag?

Lie more?

Joe

Definition you requested

con·vo·lut·ed /ˈkänvəˌlo͞otid/

Adjective: 1.(esp. of an argument, story, or sentence) Extremely complex and difficult to follow.
2.Intricately folded, twisted, or coiled.

Synonyms: convolute - intricate

Also: "extraordinary rendition" is kidnapping
"enhanced interrogation techniques" is torture
&
There is no such thing as hate speech. There is only Free Speech.

“Politicians are like diapers; they need to be changed often and for the same reason.” ― Mark Twain

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world."

Executive orders?

"There is no such thing as hate speech."

In fact the word "Hate" is the first word published in the title of the forum members "contribution" to this topic.

What is the point?

1.
End the FED (peacefully/competitively)
2.
End the IRS (peacefully/competitively)
3.
Bring the Troops home (people hired by The FED and The IRS may invade and occupy and force defenders of Liberty into no other choice than defensive violence)

Meanwhile:

1.
Act like the FED (invade this topic and commit fraud)
2.
Act like the IRS (occupy this topic and extort my precious time)
3.
Troop on in here and exemplify all that can be wrong about Standing Armies of misguided souls.

And as far as the advice offered by The Friend of Liberty, bear, I am turning the other cheek here, in a way, my way, inviting further injury merely by failing to ignore my tormenters efforts to demonize me for my defense of liberty in the effort to ask a question in English.

My first cheek exists because God put me here, and I stuck my cheek out in here, on my account, and in the form of a question, in English, my reward for that question is "Hate" aimed at me, so as to politicize, to demonize, both the question and the answer, which was a slap in my face, on that exposed cheek.

I turn the other cheek, and what happens?

If it looks like do do, and it smells like do do, I don't think I need to feel it, and I know better than to taste it, it is do do, so it will be treated like do do, not treated like a Friend of Liberty, and yes, I know, my capacity to employ English effectively needs work.

So, I can learn, even from my enemies.

Thanks.

Joe

Huh? What are you going on about?

Huh? What are you going on about?

“Politicians are like diapers; they need to be changed often and for the same reason.” ― Mark Twain

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world."

What is the question here?

...it makes no sense to me. Rothbard and Menger are dead and long dead respectively, they have nothing to do with the question of who will take up Ron Paul's mantle when he's gone. If you're asking about libertarian political and economic theory, and which version we should adopt going forward, then ask a more specific question. The answer to the question you asked is "yes," as both Rothbard and Menger have made major contributions.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Why the duplicity?

Asking:
"What is the question here?"

Do you seek an answer or do you beg a question so that you can answer the question yourself?

"...it makes no sense to me."

You say "...it makes no sense to me." and then you explain how it makes sense to you. What is the point of that?

You state that people are dead. What is the point of that?

What is the motive behind the report that Rothbard and Menger are dead?

You explain, as if someone, somewhere, may not know that Rothbard and Menger are dead, and so you explain, that "they have nothing to do with the question of who will take up Ron Paul's mantle when he's gone." and you do so because there may be someone who does not yet know that Rothbard and Menger are dead?

Who is this person who needs to be clued in on the death of Rothbard and Menger?

Can someone raise their hand, please?

"If you're asking about libertarian political and economic theory, and which version we should adopt going forward, then ask a more specific question."

Did anyone, anywhere, misread or not read the following question:

If the new leaders of the Liberty Movement can't enumerate specific goals as well as Ron Paul, then which ones are let go?

Is that question difficult to understand, and if so what is difficult about that employment of English in this effort to ask a vital question so as to discover accurate answers?

I can try again.

If the new leaders of the Liberty Movement CAN enumerate specific goals as well as Ron Paul, then which ones are kept, such as the following enumerated goals:

1.
End the National Level Enforcement of a Single Legal Money Monopoly Power (Legal Fraud) or otherwise known as End The Fed, and do so because that lack of abuse of that power will then allow a new age of Competition in Legal Currencies whereby the force of many people making choices (that nebulous Free Market PROCESS) will result in a steady increase, over time, in the quality of money (POWER) as that cost of that best money goes down (Interest).

2.
End the National Level Enforcement of Direct Taxation (Legal Extortion) upon The People directly or otherwise known as End the IRS, and do so because that lack of abuse of that power will return the duty of paying a true Federal government to the elected officials who are hired to run the State governments and then any State can then force the Federal employees in line by either paying for what a State wants the Federal government to do or not paying for what a State wants the Federal government to stop doing - NOW.

3.
End the ordering of our best and brightest on missions that go against The Universal Code of Military Justice, unlawful orders, and instead of ordering our best and brightest to commit crimes against humanity, bring them home, since the two other things on this long laundry list will not be seen as a good thing by all those people who are paid so well to commit legal fraud and legal extortion, legal torture, and legal mass murder, and we sure may need our best and brightest here in the battle against enemies domestic.

Is that specific? Does that address the following:

"If you're asking about libertarian political and economic theory, and which version we should adopt going forward, then ask a more specific question."

"The answer to the question you asked is "yes," as both Rothbard and Menger have made major contributions."

The answer is "yes" according to what specific criteria?

If Rothbard's version of "theory" is employed then what do those theorists intend to do exactly, and precisely relevant to this topic: Will those potential leaders saying "yes" to the trustworthiness of Menger and Rothbard (their work in case anyone has not yet been made aware of their deaths) enumerate, will the new leaders enumerate goals as well as Ron Paul has or will the new leaders fail to do so, and if they fail to do so, then which goals will be dropped specifically?

Will the following goals be dropped by any future leaders of the Liberty Movement?

1.
End the National Level Enforcement of a Single Legal Money Monopoly Power (Legal Fraud) or otherwise known as End The Fed, and do so because that lack of abuse of that power will then allow a new age of Competition in Legal Currencies whereby the force of many people making choices (that nebulous Free Market PROCESS) will result in a steady increase, over time, in the quality of money (POWER) as that cost of that best money goes down (Interest).

2.
End the National Level Enforcement of Direct Taxation (Legal Extortion) upon The People directly or otherwise known as End the IRS, and do so because that lack of abuse of that power will return the duty of paying a true Federal government to the elected officials who are hired to run the State governments and then any State can then force the Federal employees in line by either paying for what a State wants the Federal government to do or not paying for what a State wants the Federal government to stop doing - NOW.

3.
End the ordering of our best and brightest on missions that go against The Universal Code of Military Justice, unlawful orders, and instead of ordering our best and brightest to commit crimes against humanity, bring them home, since the two other things on this long laundry list will not be seen as a good thing by all those people who are paid so well to commit legal fraud and legal extortion, legal torture, and legal mass murder, and we sure may need our best and brightest here in the battle against enemies domestic.

If those goals are dropped by the new leaders of the Liberty Movement, because they say "yes" to the trustworthiness of Menger and Rothbard, then I think I can follow that theoretical logic, but I do not trust it, since it is patently and demonstrably false.

Joe

Rational Discussion Requested

I think Josf has a good point here. Friends of Liberty need to know what they believe and why. Someone can easily try to garner the power resident in the Liberty Movement and we as individuals need to understand what we should be looking for, or out for.

I don't understand all the economic talk in the Golden Sting, but I want to. I don't know the differences in what Menger, Rothbard & North advocate. Alot of you out there do. I would like to see people leave rational comments in this post as to why one view is better or worse than another.

Isn't this worth discussing? I need and want to understand why this topic is down voted.

Silence

Silence is Golden?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hUy9ePyo6Q

Bear,

Witness the process, please, and thanks.

Which choices work toward God's work?

Is that the point?

Some people want a Medium of Exchange to have the property of laundrability.

That is another new invention, a new word.

Money that is lauderable is money that cannot be traced.

You could be trading with a torturing mass murderer and how could you know?

Maybe you don't want to know, maybe you just want the money?

See?

Joe

is Deafening

"Which choices work toward God's work?
Is that the point?"
I do not understand those questions.
_________________________________

I do think I understand the rest... and yet, I do not...
_________________________________

Hello darkness, my old friend
I've come to talk with you again
Because a vision softly creeping
Left its seeds while I was sleeping
And the vision that was planted in my brain
Still remains
Within the sound of silence

In restless dreams I walked alone
Narrow streets of cobblestone
'Neath the halo of a street lamp
I turned my collar to the cold and damp
When my eyes were stabbed by the flash of a neon light
That split the night
And touched the sound of silence

And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more
People talking without speaking
People hearing without listening
People writing songs that voices never share
And no one dared
Disturb the sound of silence

"Fools", said I, "You do not know
Silence like a cancer grows
Hear my words that I might teach you
Take my arms that I might reach you"
But my words, like silent raindrops fell
And echoed
In the wells of silence

And the people bowed and prayed
To the neon god they made
And the sign flashed out its warning
In the words that it was forming
And the sign said, "The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls
And tenement halls"
And whispered in the sounds of silence

Choices

"Which choices work toward God's work?
Is that the point?"
I do not understand those questions.

Take any choice, such as choosing to speak publicly about the evil people taking power from all the victims at the National level of government here in U.S.A. Inc. (LLC), or mowing the grass.

Which choice is God's work?

Don't mow the grass.

Don't speak out against the certain, measurable, palpable, evil at the top of our supposed government.

That was my point.

What is THE point?

Accept having our power stolen and then used to steal more, used to torture innocent people, used to mass murder.

Is that the point?

We are witness to this right here, right now.

We pick up our pens. We choose to start standing in between the criminals and the victims.

We are The Friends of Liberty.

That is the point - to me.

Know better, knowing worse costs way too much.

Joe

Sources

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north512.html

The Gold-Plated Sting
Gary North
__________________________________________
WHAT IS THE SOLUTION?

In theory, there are two possible solutions, neither of which has any possibility of being implemented in my lifetime or yours.

One solution is free banking. This was Ludwig von Mises' suggestion. There would be no bank regulation, no central bank monopolies, no bank licensing, and no legal barriers to entry. Let the most efficient banks win! In other words, the solution is a free market in money.

Another solution is 100% reserve banking. Banks would not be allowed to issue more receipts for gold or silver than they have on deposit. Anything else is fraud. There would be regulation and supervision to make sure deposits matched loans. This was Murray Rothbard's solution. The question is: Regulation by whom? With what authority?

There would be no government-issued money. There would be no government mint. There would be no legal tender laws. There would be no barriers to entry into coin production.

There would also be no free services. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Anything other than free banking or 100% reserve banking is a pseudo-gold standard or silver standard. It is just one more invitation to confiscation.
__________________________________________________

http://www.amazon.com/Egalitarianism-Revolt-Against-Nature-E...

Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays
Murray Rothbard

13
THE SPOONER–TUCKER DOCTRINE: AN ECONOMIST’S VIEW
________________________________________________
Actually, in contrast to collectivist anarchists and to many other types of radicals, Spooner and Tucker tried to use economics rather than scorn it as excessively rational. Some of their fallacies (for example, the “law of cost,” the labor theory of value) were embedded in much of classical economics; and it was their adoption of the labor theory of value that convinced them that rent, interest, and profit were payments exploitatively extracted from the worker. In contrast to the Marxists, however, Spooner and Tucker, understanding many of the virtues of the free market, did not wish to abolish that noble institution; instead, they believed that full freedom would lead, by the workings of economic law, to the peaceful disappearance of these three categories of income. The mechanism for this peaceful abolition Spooner and Tucker found—and here they unfortunately ignored the teachings of classical economics and substituted instead their own fallacies—in the sphere of money.
_______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________
The two basic interrelated fallacies of Spoonerite theory (and the theory of all schools of writers who have unkindly been labelled by economists as “money-cranks”) are a failure to understand the nature of money and the nature of interest.
________________________________________________________

http://mises.org/etexts/menger/two.asp

Principles of Economy
Karl Menger

CHAPTER II. ECONOMY AND ECONOMIC GOODS
________________________________________________
Here human self-interest finds an incentive to make itself felt, and where the available quantity does not suffice for all, every individual will attempt to secure his own requirements as completely as possible to the exclusion of others.
_______________________________________________
________________________________________________
We saw that economic goods are goods whose available quantities are smaller than the requirements for them. Wealth can therefore also be defined as the entire sum of goods at an economizing individual’s command, the quantities of which are smaller than the requirements for them. Hence, if there were a society where all goods were available in amounts exceeding the requirements for them, there would be no economic goods nor any “wealth.”
________________________________________________

Joe

Direct Opposition?

Joe, It appears to me that:
_______________________________

Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays
Murray Rothbard

13
THE SPOONER–TUCKER DOCTRINE: AN ECONOMIST’S VIEW
________________________________________________
Actually, in contrast to collectivist anarchists and to many other types of radicals, Spooner and Tucker tried to use economics rather than scorn it as excessively rational. Some of their fallacies (for example, the “law of cost,” the labor theory of value) were embedded in much of classical economics; and it was their adoption of the labor theory of value that convinced them that rent, interest, and profit were payments exploitatively extracted from the worker.
___________________________________

IS IN DIRECT OPPOSITION to Spooners words found in:
______________________________
A
NEW SYSTEM
OF
PAPER CURRENCY.
BY LYSANDER SPOONER.

http://lysanderspooner.org/node/40
__________________________________
CHAPTER II.

ADVANTAGES OF THE SYSTEM.

“16. ...Fifthly, men of wealth would retire, earlier than now, from active busi¬ness, and make way for, and loan their capital to, younger men; because they could certainly loan their capital more safely than now, and probably more advantageously. By loaning their capital first on mortgage, and thus getting one income from it; and then converting the mortgages into bank capital, and thus getting another income from it, they would probably do better with their capital, than to remain in business. At any rate, the management of their capital would thus be attended with less anxiety and risk, than if they were to remain in business them­selves.”
_________________________________

Does it appear that way to you?

It seems to me that Spooner speaks favorably toward interest and profit and early retirement for "men of wealth" as provided for in his A New System of Paper Currency

Imagine my surprise

Imagine my surprise when I uncovered the lies, the libel, published by the Holy One in Austrian Economics?

Yes you found it too.

So what is the reason for lying so much?

What is being covered up?

Then I found Menger, and the nonsense about everyone being greedy at the expense of everyone else, and that part about there being no wealth when there is abundance.

Those two things pushed me into realizing the Power Law.

See if this rings true:

A chair is not going to follow the same economic laws as food or electricity because a chair does not hold within itself a measure of actual power.

If a chair is produced into oversupply the price goes down and costs go up.

It takes more and more economic power to store chairs, so costs go up as chair prices go down.

That is easy to understand if you are a chair maker.

What about food or electricity or knowledge?

It is very instructive if electricity is used compared to chairs.

You start producing chairs.

Jeff starts producing electricity.

You make too many chairs.

Jeff makes too much electricity.

You start storing chairs and you keep making too many chairs.

Jeff starts storing electricity and he keeps making electricity.

You build a warehouse to store your chairs as your chair prices are driven lower and lower and your warehouse costs go higher and higher.

Jeff stores electricity by making food with electric lights in a greenhouse, day and night, pumping water through the greenhouse with electricity, pumping water out of a well with electricity, pumping the water through filters with electricity, and the food is now storing the excess electric power.

He can sell food and electricity and when will he run out of customers? When will the price start to drop for food and electricity?

You keep making chairs, your costs go up, you need more warehouses, and the chair prices are dropping as you have to go further and further away to sell chairs.

Jeff stores excess electricity in Algae production in another Greenhouse, not a Warehouse, a Greenhouse that makes algae and turns algae into a replacement fuel for automobiles that currently run on petroleum gasoline. Jeff started to reach the limit of his distance in selling food and electricity.

His electric production keeps going up and up, keeping pace with your continuous increase in production of chairs.

Your prices go down, you can't even give away chairs now, and your costs are going through the roof having to store more and more chairs.

Jeff is now cutting water prices down lower than the local water suppliers, cutting electricity prices down lower than the local electric company, taking over market share, cutting food prices down, and raising the stakes with higher quality food, and he just took over the local automobile gasoline market with Algae based gasoline.

He makes more electricity, needing more places to store it, he starts storing water high up in tanks for back up, and that water can then be used to run electric generating turbines. More electricity, another water tank, more water sales if the well goes dry, time to drill another well, buy another lot, invest, and the price of electricity is lower than the competition but not being given away yet, since there are still uses for electricity. There is still a demand for actual power.

Your chairs are now being sold for fire wood, and if you can get back to chair scarcity you may be able to start selling chairs again at a price that covers your costs, if you can sell those warehouses.

Jeff buys some of your warehouses, and starts a delivery business with electric trucks, trucks run on his Algae based diesel fuel, and he starts an electric car sales business and taxi business, finding more use for the excess power he keeps on making faster and faster.

He converts one of your warehouses into rental units for new businesses where indoor food farmers run electric powered light and climate control to keep producing all year long.

Warehouses are again bought from you as you ran out of business, chair prices are still in the dirt, as your chairs are burned for fire wood, your warehouses are empty and ready for storing barrels of extra gasoline and diesel and the trucks that will extend the delivery distance, run by that fuel, or run by electricity.

If Jeff's electricity prices go down who loses?

If your chair prices go down who loses?

The only time there will no longer be a demand for power is when no one wants anything made with power, and if the current supply of too much power is forcing power prices down, because everyone for miles around has copied Jeff, including you, each person independently wealthy with power, and power is flowing like water, then what is your electric bill?

What is your water bill?

What is your food bill?

How much does it cost to run a clothing manufacturing business if the power to run the sewing machines, and the lights, and the air-conditioning, is null?

How much does the low chair price change the "economy"?

How much can your days worth of earnings last when prices of everything are forced lower and lower by competition?

Not because you invested unwisely with a business that made chairs, but because you invested wisely and part of your purchasing power was invested in buying things that produce more power.

A Solar Panel exemplifies this, and a Modular Vertical Farming Unit could exemplify this power producing investment formula.

Take a Solar Panel for example.

1 is purchased and before 1 is used up it will produce enough power to pay for 3 more exact copies. That is a rough estimate. When I first did the calculation the costs of Solar Panels were higher so it took longer to pay itself off in production and therefore they were used up before paying for 2 more copies.

Now, according to what I heard in a report by Elon Musk, the costs have dropped by 2 thirds or so, I forgot his exact words, but the point was proven the first time I did the math and the fact that Solar Panels are being sold proves the economic point too.

Buy one and get 2 free, but it takes 25 years to get the 2 free ones.

That sounds insignificant but it is almost the exact opposite of Mortgage Interest.

In Mortgage interest you buy three to get one.

With Solar Panels you buy one and you get two or now three for free.

Mortgage interest takes 30 years.

Solar Panel investments take 25 years?

Not so fast.

With Mortgage Interest (only possible if money is made so scarce that people will do just about anything for money) you only get one house and you work 30 years to pay off 3 houses, and your house is worn out at the end of 30 years.

[Fraud money makes accurate money scarce, so don't claim that a BUBBLE is when money is abundant, it is abundant fraud money, not abundant accurate money, so accurate money is still scarce]

With Solar Panels the 25 year span ends with more new Solar Panels replacing the old ones (or paying off a loan if you don't have the start up money).

Suppose we use math?

Take a 100,000 dollar house and compare it to 100,000 dollars of Solar Panels.

Suppose the rough estimate of your current electricity use is 25,000 dollars worth of Solar Panels needed to make enough electricity to run your home in the manner to which you have grown accustomed and that may be a very high rate of electricity usage, something like 200 dollars a month of electricity, but the idea here is to be rough and merely estimate, so I can be off by a lot and that needs to be understood.

It also needs to be understood that you can get a lot closer to cost price when buying Solar Panels compared to Market Price which can be jacked up very high by scarcity pricing and by many middle men adding costs.

It has been awhile since I've done the math.

100,000 dollars worth of Solar Panels purchased to cover a requirement of 25,000 dollars of Solar Panel Electricity production. In other words you buy enough for 4 houses worth of electricity.

Output of 200 dollars a month worth of electricity times 4.

800 Dollars per month output if you can use it (or lose it), sell it (or lose it), or store it (or lose it), you don't want the Solar Panels to just sit there idle, you want to use them.

You use 200 dollars a month worth of electricity running your house as usual and you sell or store the rest of the production.

800 times 12 would be a years production converted to dollars:
9600

Times 25 years would be the total production over the life span of the original purchase.
240000 earned on the investment of 100,000

100,000 could be sold to other people at the same Market Price of Electricity and that replaces the whole Original Solar Panel purchase (or pays off an no interest loan) assuming that Solar Panel prices don't go up or down, and competition to meet the demand for Solar Panels is driving the price down now, and there is ample evidence that the price will go down more in 25 years.

100,000 sold and reinvested in new Solar Panels or paying off the loan at no interest.

How much did you use up running your house for 25 year?

200 times 12 times 25 = 60,000

100,000 extra electricity sales to pay back the loan or buy new replacement Solar Panels plus 60,000 used to run the house added up to 160,000 then taken away from the total production is:
240,000 - 160,000 = 80,000

80,000 extra production over 25 years, or generated interest, above the replacement costs of the loan, or replacement costs of the Solar Planes, and above the additional cost of running the house.

It works out to be reverse mortgage interest.

How much electricity does it take to run a Glass House Farm making tomatoes? If you sold the raw electricity you get 80,000 extra dollars over 25 years (to pay interest on the loan) or to invest in high demand, high quality, tomatoes to be stored in tomato paste, tomato sauce, stewed tomatoes, tomatoes in jars, for sale for Federal Reserve Notes, or Food Dollars, or Labor Notes, or Gold, or Silver, or guns, or bullets, or books, or guitars.

At the end of 30 years you have a worn out house and you paid for 3 houses because Frauds make you use their Fraud money and you have Extortionists backing up the Frauds who will put you in jail for questioning your "fair share" of the National Debt which you have to pay in those Fraud Notes.

At the end of 25 years the same investment you spent (100,000) on a National Monopoly Banking Mortgage Loan is spent on Solar Panels and where one sends you to the poor house the other pays you back to pay off the loan, or buy more Solar Panels (if you had cash), plus paying you back interest in the form of saleable or storeable or usable power to the tune of 80,000 dollars if you convert that power into Fraud Power or $.

Kilowatt/hours to dollars is already done on a daily basis and the Fascist Electric Power companies jack up the price whenever they want at "peak hours" and other lies where that scarcity is carefully managed so as to accomplish that goal.

The point being not that everyone should or can go into the power producing business but pointing out why Legal Criminals cannot allow their victims to use the power they earn to make more power which can then be used to make more power since it wouldn't be long before all the victims were powerful enough to stop being victims.

A chair maker needs to make chairs scarce to stay in business and a Legal Criminal has to make power scarce or a Legal Criminal will be out of business.

That is why the Legal Criminals destroy the money power used by their victims, and you know, seriously you know, they keep the good money for their own exclusive use.

Joe

Discovery

From my reading this morning:

Proverbs 11:1 A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight. 25 The liberal soul shall be made fat: and he that watereth shall be watered also himself.

Seems to have to do with personal economics and I suppose corporate could be applied as well.
____________________________
Here are my questions regarding the discovery:

Is there any possibility that Spooner voiced his disapproval of “rent, interest, and profit [as] payments exploitatively extracted from the worker” in any of his other writings? Could Rothbard have not have been well read when he criticized Spooner? I am not well read so I am only pointing out what I saw in those 2 offerings. Spooner I read completely. Rothbard. I only read the excerpt that was provided. I don’t know or understand all the personalities involved in Austrian economics. Honestly, I only have a vague idea of Austrian economics. Rothbard was either mistaken or a presented a bold faced lie. His words were either accidental or a flagrant lie. Do you know anything about Tucker? Is there a reason Rothbard would lump Spooner in with Tucker?

Maybe Menger was speaking in his knowledge of Legal Criminals who will always claw their way to the top and step on anyone in their way using them as a means to get more?

I am not defending the 2 chaps. I am just asking questions to give them a chance to vindicate themselves, though they are long dead.

Spooner was a member of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_International
“The International Workingmen's Association (IWA) (1864–1876), sometimes called the First International, was an international organization which aimed at uniting a variety of different left-wing socialist, communist[1] and anarchist political groups and trade union organizations that were based on the working class and class struggle.”

It seems he became disenfranchised after the Civil war according to wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner.

And as you know by now, I have alarms going off.
_________________________________
I spent part of yesterday reading Spooner’s A New Paper Currency and I quickly made the following questions and comments. I see things with a critical eye, so my comments are critical in nature as well as pointing out things I do not understand. That should not be construed as me saying I do not thing Spooner’s system a good and valid idea. Just like with Warren, before I join I would have the questions I am offering. They are not contentious points. Just things I need to understand.

http://lysanderspooner.org/node/40

1. If this be the case, it sounds like a nation state constitution, not a confederation

“Even should it be possible for other persons to draw up Articles of Associa¬tion, that ‘would evade the subscriber’s copyright, banking companies, that may adopt the system, will probably find it for their interest to adopt also the subscri¬ber’s Articles of Association; for the reason that it will be important that Companies should all have Articles precisely, legally, and verbally alike. If their Articles should all be alike, any legal questions that may arise, when settled for one Company, would be settled for all.”
________________
2. This is same idea as Greene’s mutual banking:

“Theoretically the capital may be made up of any property whatever. But, in practice, it will doubtless be necessary, in order to secure public confidence in the currency, that the capital should be property of a fixed and permanent nature, liable to few casualties and hazards, and yielding a constant, regular, and certain income, sufficient to make the PRODUCTIVE STOCK, here-after mentioned, worth ordinarily par of specie in the market.”
______________________
3. I do not understand what is meant by:

“The best capital of all will probably be mortgages; and they may perhaps be the only capital, which it will ever be expedient to use.”
___________________
4. I am not sure this sounds like free banking:
“This capital is to be put into joint stock, held by Trustees, and divided into shares, of one hundred dollars each, or any other sum that may be thought best. [*10]
This Stock may be called the PRODUCTIVE STOCK, and will be entitled to the dividends.
The dividends will consist of the interest on the mortgages, and the profits of the banking.”
_________________________
5. I do not understand this:

“Those, who hold PRODUCTIVE STOCK, by transfer in redemption of bills, may be called Secondary Stockholders.”
___________________________
6. Why are the 2ndary stockholders getting 6% and who are they?

“All the resources of the bank - that is, the interest on the mortgages, and the banking profits - should be pledged to pay the Secondary Stockholders precisely six per centum per annum (or such other per centum as the Articles of Association may fix for them to receive) on their Stock; no more, no less. After these dividends shall have been paid to the Secondary Stock¬holders, the remaining dividends should be divided among the PRIMARY STOCKHOLDERS - whether such dividends shall be more, or less, than those received by the Secondary Stock¬holders”
______________________________
7. Why would anyone continue to be gluttons for punishment of failing stock?

“All losses, therefore, fall upon the bankers, and not upon the bill holders. If the original Stockholders should all fail- that is to say, if they should be compelled to transfer all their Productive Stock in redemption of their circulation - the result would simply be, that the original capital (Productive Stock) would pass, undiminished, into the hands of a new set of holders, who would proceed to bank upon it (re-issue the bills, and redeem them, if necessary, by the transfer of Productive Stock) in the same way that their pre-¬ [*15] decessors had done.”
_________________________
8. I do not see that Rothbard can support his claim:

Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays
Murray Rothbard
13
THE SPOONER–TUCKER DOCTRINE: AN ECONOMIST’S VIEW
________________________________________________
Actually, in contrast to collectivist anarchists and to many other types of radicals, Spooner and Tucker tried to use economics rather than scorn it as excessively rational. Some of their fallacies (for example, the “law of cost,” the labor theory of value) were embedded in much of classical economics; and it was their adoption of the labor theory of value that convinced them that rent, interest, and profit were payments exploitatively extracted from the worker. In contrast to the Marxists, however, Spooner and Tucker, understanding many of the virtues of the free market, did not wish to abolish that noble institution; instead, they believed that full freedom would lead, by the workings of economic law, to the peaceful disappearance of these three categories of income. The mechanism for this peaceful abolition Spooner and Tucker found—and here they unfortunately ignored the teachings of classical economics and substituted instead their own fallacies—in the sphere of money.

It is apparent to me that Spooner is quite happy for a man to make interest money since Spooner says:

“Fifthly, men of wealth would retire, earlier than now, from active busi¬ness, and make way for, and loan their capital to, younger men; because they could certainly loan their capital more safely than now, and probably more advantageously. By loaning their capital first on mortgage, and thus getting one income from it; and then converting the mortgages into bank capital, and thus getting another income from it, they would probably do better with their capital, than to remain in business.”
______________________
9. So tax assessors are reliable?

“Each bank will find it expedient to print a large number of copies of its Articles of Association, including copies of its mortgages. Appended to these copies, may be copies of the certificates of appraisers, as to the value of the property. These certificates, if they come from men of known character and judgment, will be entitled to confidence. Certificates also of the assessed value of the property, on the tax lists of the town, may be appended; and these, coming from disinterested and honest men of good judgment, as the assessors of taxes usually are, will be worthy of reliance.”
________________________
10. Question: Would it ever be of advantage of Bank A to slander bank B as being insolvent even though Bank B is solvent?

“9. The banks themselves would act as guardians to the public against frauds by each other. This would be done in this way. Bank A (a solvent bank) would not receive the bills of bank B, unless bank B had first satisfied bank A of its solvency. And bank A would be satisfied only by personal examination of the mortgages of bank B. In this way any unsound bank would be discredited by the surrounding banks, and thus discredited in the eyes of the community.”
_________________________
11. How is an assessor any more reliable than a comptroller?

“Now, it is evident that all that is necessary to get up a swindling bank, under this system, is simply to secure the approval of one man the Comptroller, (or Superintendent of Banks,) who knows nothing of the land himself- to the ap¬praisal of the land mortgaged. If but this one man can either be cheated, or be induced to become himself a cheat, all the other consequences follow; because the currency is then issued under his authority, and is received by the public, on the strength of his virtual indorsement.
Now, as it cannot be a very difficult matter to cheat this one man, or perhaps to induce him to become himself a cheat, in [*26] such a case as this, it is evident that the system affords little security for the sufficiency of the mortgages.”
______________________
12. I don’t know that this can be born out as somehow our congress has managed to become bought by lobbyists.

“But under the system proposed, no such facilities for fraud would exist, because the credit of the bank would not rest upon the certificate of any one man, nor upon any indorsement of the State. The State would not indorse the currency at all, any more than it now indorses the notes or mortgages of private persons. Each bank would, therefore, have to stand on its own merits, subject to the scrutiny of the whole community.”
__________________________
13. So is this why specie has intrinsic value?

“Thus it is evident that the whole demand for gold and silver, as a currency, depends upon the demand for them for consump¬tion, as plate, jewelry, &c. And consequently the activity of the demand for them, as a currency, depends upon the activity of the demand for them, for consumption. In other words, the activity of the demand for the coins, as a currency, depends upon the activity of the demand for them as investments, in articles of use. [*32]”
______________________________
14. Is coercion ok?

“Thus the new banks, by drawing specie from the existing banks, could pay specie, to the public, as long as the existing banks could pay it; and thus the new banks would put them¬selves on a par with the existing banks, so far as paying specie, to the public, should be concerned. But the difference between them would be, that the present banks would be compelled to pay specie to the new banks; but the new banks would not be com¬pelled to pay specie to the existing banks.
This advantage, which the new banks would have over the existing ones, would enable the new banks to coerce the existing ones, either into a suspension of specie payments, (when the new ones would stand better than their rivals,) or else into receiving the currency of the new banks at par - in which case the new banks would stand at least as well as the existing ones.”
___________________________
15. This sounds like taking out competitive options and giving it all to the new banks:

“Doubtless nine tenths, and perhaps nineteen twentieths, of all [*43] the persons, who now get credit, get it elsewhere than at the banks; in fact, never go to a bank for credit. Yet these persons are worthy of credit, as is proved by the fact that they get it of private persons, by purchasing commodities on credit. It would be far better for them to get their credit at bank, and make their purchases for cash, for they would then make them much more advantageously. All this class of persons, therefore, could be relied on to introduce the new currency. And they would have no difficulty in introducing it - that is, in making their purchases with it - because it would be preferred to their private credit, even by those who now give them credit.”
_______________________________
16. Is this the downside of Gold Bugs?

“The merchants have no claim that the whole country shall depend, for a currency, upon a commodity, or commodities, like gold and silver, which the merchants can at pleasure carry out of the country, leaving the nation destitute of a currency. And it is nothing but suicide for a people to depend upon such commodi¬ties for a currency.
Under the present system, whenever the balance of trade is much against us, the merchants export specie in such quantities as to cause sudden and severe contractions in the currency, a great reduction in the price of commodities relatively to specie, (that is, a great rise in the price of specie,) general bankruptcy among persons in debt, general stagnation in industry and trade, and immense distress and ruin on every hand. This state of things checks importations for a while, until the balance of trade turns in our favor; when the specie returns, currency expands, credit revives, industry and trade become active, and, for a time, we have what we call prosperity. But in a few years, the [*45] merchants again export the specie, and the same catastrophe is acted over again. And such must continue to be our experience, until our present vicious system of currency and credit shall be corrected. This no one seems to doubt.”
______________________________
17. This point sounds a little risky:

“But, in truth, the system would favor, instead of injuring, the interests even of those few merchants who occasionally do export specie; for it would put at their disposal nearly all the gold and silver of the country, for exportation, or any other purpose. That is to say, the merchants could export nearly all the gold and silver, without affecting our home currency; and conse¬quently without disturbing industry and trade. And this is one of the great merits of the system. The presence or absence of specie in the country would not be known by its effects upon the general body of currency.”
________________________________
18. What happens when one country hoards it?

“If the paper currency, now proposed, were introduced through¬out the world, gold and silver would enter very little into the internal commerce of nations. They would go back and forth between nations, to settle balances; and would be found, in large quantities, in seaports as merchandize. And merchants would purchase them for export, as they would any other commodities.”
_______________________________________
19. Until the legal criminals make laws to the contrary.

“8. The system is practicable for the further reason, that it can be introduced without the aid of bank charters, or special legisla¬tion of any kind. It stands wholly on common law principles; [*47] and companies can go into business under it - as they go into mercantile, manufacturing, or any other business - when it suits their interest or pleasure, without asking the consent of a body of ignorant, conceited, tyrannical legislators, who assume to know what business it is, and what business it is not, best for men to engage in; instead of leaving the wants of mankind to give direction to their industry and capital.
The banks, too, when established, would be free of all special control, oversight, taxation, or interference by the government. As the banks would ask no favors of the government, in the way of charters, monopolies, or otherwise, the government would have no more excuse for specially taxing them, or for sending Com¬missioners to pry into, investigate, or report their affairs, than it now has for specially taxing the capital, or for sending Commis¬sioners to pry into, investigate, or report the affairs, of merchants, manufacturers, or any other class of persons.”
__________________________________
Any help you can spare in energy is appreciated as it always is. I know I really need to understand the basis of mortgages as currency. I cannot quite understand that foundation. Is someone selling property to get the system started up? That is the first thing I need to understand in order to understand the whole schematic. I also started reading the working of the association here, but will probably not continue because of time constraints. I think I would like to read Andrews Labor Dollar work which I have not yet started.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=s...

Active tax payments?

"Do you know anything about Tucker? Is there a reason Rothbard would lump Spooner in with Tucker?"

If the minimum tax is to question authority so as to know true authority from bad authority, then which activities are those examples of that minimum tax?

Tucker published a periodical called Liberty and there is not much else I know about Benjamin Tucker's activities. From the reading I've done Tucker was a supporter of Equitable Commerce by Josiah Warren, as was Stephen Pearl Andrews, as are those people who now invent, produce, and employ their own competitive forms of voluntary money.

I think that Rothbard may have been gaining currency in Major Media by reading just enough from the script to get volumes of very good information out to a whole lot of people. The guy was way too intelligent to have made the error of publishing those lies, I think he knew better, but there are things that are not allowed to be said, and there are things that have to be said, if participation at the higher levels of Legal Crime is tolerated by the Legal Criminals.

In other words you don't climb up that Pyramid by telling the truth, being fair, or equitable, you compromise on principle or you are crushed.

Spooner and Tucker challenged the Religion of Gold as God and therefore they are one and the same threat despite the fact that Spooner was obviously capitalist when dealing with money (he employed the capitalist pricing method) and Tucker was obviously leaning more toward the principle of cost being the limit of price as proven by Josiah Warren.

There are arguments concerning the principle of cost being the limit of price but that is all for show, the fact is that cost is not dictated by any authority other than those who volunteer to trade, so it is a process of individual judgment and then negotiation. If it cost me too much to sell, then I don't sell, and if it cost me too much to buy than I don't buy, and that is how that is defined when that happens and it does not require me to acknowledge it, or report about it, it happens that way, that is what happens, and there is no argument about it, unless one of the people involved in the process resorts to deceit, threats of violence, or acts of violence and that resort to those willful acts constitutes crime, or the passing on of costs from the criminal to the victim.

If the intended victim can see past the deceit, then the trade returns to equity, the victims does not pay any more cost other than the cost required to know better.

If the intended victim can see past the threats of violence, and be powerful enough to deter violence defensively, then again the intended passing on of costs by the criminal to the victim is averted, not entirely, the targeted victim has paid the costs required to know better, and the costs to become defensively powerful enough to deter attack, and therefore threats are meaningless since attack is averted or deterred.

If the intended victim can deter violent attack, since the defensive power of the intended victim becomes obvious and the attack by the criminal will obviously not work, the attack will cost the attacker too much, then the passing on of costs is again not going to work as planned by the attacker.

If the passing on of costs is true charity, that is another matter, there is equity in agreeing to sacrifice a cost that is assumed by the charitable person even if the recipient of charity is unaware of who is being charitable, a need of true charity is not a debt owed to the needy and forced out of the charitable.

Deception makes this very difficult to unravel - peacefully - rather the belief in falsehood makes deception powerful enough to make this very difficult to unravel.

So...Equitable Commerce is merely the recognition of that which happens in that so called Free Market when it is Free of deceit, threats of violence, and violence upon the targeted innocent victims, since each trade, and each trader, gives exactly as much as they take, according to their own authority to measure the trade, neither party to an equitable trade is passing on costs to the other so the price is always at cost as far as each trader is concerned in Equitable Commerce and in cases where a trade is made, voluntarily, and one trader feels cheated, but not by deceit, and not by threat of violence, and not by violence, well, the trader feeling cheated needs to get up, go to the mirror, and look at the person responsible for being cheated.

Price is cost.

Cost is price.

That is what Tucker understood, as far as my understanding goes concerning what Tucker understood.

Spooner, obviously, employed a different angle of view on methods of pricing, much more in line with capitalism.

So the answer as to why Rothbard lumped Spooner in with Tucker, my guess, is that neither Spooner or Tucker were Gold Bugs.

Neither Spooner or Tucker paid homage to the God of Gold.

That is heresy so both witches are burned at the stake (monetary cranks).

"Maybe Menger was speaking in his knowledge of Legal Criminals who will always claw their way to the top and step on anyone in their way using them as a means to get more?"

How many lies are necessary to apologize (rationalize) the willful plans followed by the willful execution of those plans that result in the passing on of costs to unaware or unwilling victims?

I think I found the first two, whereby all men are bad (same theme as Machiavelli) but in this case all men are greedy (satisfy their own requirements) enough to exploit other people (to the exclusion of ALL others), that being the first lie, and the second is that there is no wealth unless we give our selves permission to make needful things scarce on purpose, so as to "create wealth" by making things that are needed scarce, not scarce for us, but only scarce for them.

This can be illustrated within a story line.

There are 100 people all living in an area where there is one water supply, which can be a natural lake fed by a river that is fed seasonally by a distant mountain.

One fine capitalist wakes up one fine morning having read Menger the night before and this person sets himself up as owner of the lake.

He builds a fence with one gate.

Water was plentiful.

Now it is made scarce.

How scarce?

Will the market bear nubile women as sex slaves?

Perhaps the capitalist reading Menger is a woman, so, what if she is a lesbian?

Will the market bear nubile women as sex slaves?

Aren't women weaker at defending themselves?

What if the capitalist prefers young boys?

What are the former lake residents willing to pay for some water?

What does this mysterious market thing bear, exactly?

Care to find out?

The capitalist has all kinds of things to say about just how right he is, with his or her property, and how everyone is just like him, and how wealth isn't wealth unless it is made scarce and all that dogma.

Where are my books?

Were is the relevant text that authorizes my ownership of the lake, and all that I do with my property?

Fine, then, you are right, everything you say is right, so I go and build a damn up river.

Me and my blue river army says pay me.

Down river are the Red Lake boys.

Strong lads all, they own the women too.

Where is the relevant authorized papers of ownership?

Where is the official stamp of approval?

Which color wins?

Water is money. In time I can own everything, so time is money?

Let them eat cake.

"And as you know by now, I have alarms going off."

You are where I once was, since my first baby steps including my joining the John Birch Society where those Blue Bloods were (and still are) very anti-communist, and for good reason. So I go straight to the horses mouths, the Communist Manifesto, and find what I linked to you earlier. The Communists (at least Engles, if not Marx) points out that there are these "socialists" like Fourier and we the communists are not them, they are not us, we get things done, they are loons, they are Monetary Cranks, they don't pay homage to the God of deceit, the God of threats of violence, and the God of violence because men are bad, and we are ready to make them less evil for their own good even if they prefer to be left alone.

Funny I say, that is funny, since now I'm back full circle, since Andrews points out how Socialism started the same way as Democracy (probably meaning sortition based democracy not majority rule democracy) and Protestantism, meaning a means of rejecting false authority and Andrews drops the name Fourier.

The Communists hate the voluntary socialists like Fourier.

Warren picked up on the ideas of Fourier and got rid of the last bits of involuntary servitude to false authority and Warren came up with Equitable Commerce.

Andrews picked up on Equitable Commerce and joined this Socialist club same as Spooner, this Internationale, another guy named Bakunin did the same, and they were all 3 kicked out as being those voluntary socialists, not one of us, not one of the true believers in being the lesser of two evils, the God of falsehood, the "All Men are Bad" except I'm less bad Club.

So, you are a member of The IRS, The FED, Club, like it or not, as long as you keep paying membership dues, and as soon as you question that authority, well, you can't, it is against the law, so there is none of that, but if there is, then, well, you know, you know, I scream, you scream, and yeah baby: you know...

You are owned by U.S.A. Inc. (LLC), The Dollar Hegemony, Wall Street, anyone at the Top of that heap. They have all the papers, you may get some papers too, read from those papers, that is your script.

How would you feel if you were kicked out of U.S.A. Inc. (LLC), The IRS, and The FED, just kicked out, they don't want to own you anymore? Military Veteran down on his luck?

Andrews, Spooner, and Bakunin were all kicked out of that club.

You and I want to know why they joined it in the first place?

Sure, sure, and turn that thing around, wear the shoes, why did you join U.S.A. Inc. (LLC), The IRS, and The FED, you pay dues, you are a member.

We have the power of empathy, use it.

If you don't use that power it may fall off, or it may be turned against you, I mean, well, who's the boss?

Learn from the kids.

I have one niece who says to the other niece, both toddlers: "you're not the boss of me". I remember that back in the 70s. One of the same nieces being spanked, she turns to her mom and asks: "Are you done?"

A nephew, also being spanked, turns and reports: "That didn't hurt."

We are wiser?

Authority is what it is, found where it belongs, and the counterfeit versions are what they are, found where they are, which are being watered? Which will grow stronger?

"And as you know by now, I have alarms going off."

You see RED, and foam at the mouth. Have you checked out the John Birch society? I was once a member. I have no problem joining again, they are a fine group of people, very intelligent, very informative, never contradictory, conservative, Christian, a fine group. They wouldn't touch my viewpoint with a ten foot pole, they see RED, and I'm figuratively dead.

The Involuntary Communists hate anarchists like Spooner, Andrews, and they never even mention Warren.

The Involuntary Capitalists hate anarchists like Spooner, Tucker, and they never mention Andrews or certainly not Warren.

Does that tell an interesting story or am I some nutcase conspiracy theorist wearing a tin hat and one step away from becoming a terrorist?

What is next Horrorist?

________________________________
“Even should it be possible for other persons to draw up Articles of Associa¬tion, that ‘would evade the subscriber’s copyright, banking companies, that may adopt the system, will probably find it for their interest to adopt also the subscri¬ber’s Articles of Association; for the reason that it will be important that Companies should all have Articles precisely, legally, and verbally alike. If their Articles should all be alike, any legal questions that may arise, when settled for one Company, would be settled for all.”
_________________________________

That to me is all part of contract law, which is the Equitable Commerce of record keepers, it is merely finding agreement, writing down agreements, because people tend to forget what they agree to, some people may even resort to deceit, so things are recorded, memories may evaporate, records are more stable, more consistent, less able to be counterfeited.

That is all part of voluntary associations unless you can find a targeted victim, then where is the victim?

Did they assume ownership of a lake used by a lot of people and then they had to solve the "native" problem?

No.

Then what is it the stuff of: voluntary association?

Then that is the stuff of Equitable Commerce, or Voluntary Association, Contract Law, honest, accurate, record keeping?

What is money?

If you smell a rate with Spooner you are going to have a hard time finding the source of the smell.

I found rat smell produced by the horses mouths with Rothbard and Menger, and those confessions are their own words, having nothing to do with my subjective opinion, and as one of the people here on this forum has so astutely reported, those people are dead, so they can't defend themselves, or their ideas, or the plans, or their actions.

Who is a follower of Spooner, or Tucker, or Andrews, or Bakunin?

They say don't follow anyone, but if you are going to lead yourself, here are some suggestions.

Who follows Menger and Rothbard? Where are all the Gold Bugs willing to defend the viewpoints of their Founding Fathers?

I have no Founding Fathers. The one's I found advise against such nonsense. I am perfectly capable of defending my own founding. I can borrow from some people, mostly Warren, a lot from Andrews, some things from Spooner, especially Trial by Jury, now with GregP there is a very keen awareness of that power of sortition brought up to the surface.

GregP isn't my leader either, what leads? What is true authority? Pick authority out of a hat? No, pick a peer, another human being, perhaps one of God's Children, perhaps not, out of a hat filled with names. Is that not better than providing the means by which we suffer, paying the worst criminals the most for doing what they do better than anyone else: torture, mass murder, and worse?

They make their crimes legal?

Pay them, elect them, authorize them?

I see red too: oceans of innocent blood.

"2. This is same idea as Greene’s mutual banking:"

BREAK (SAVE)

OK, here is where I see an opportunity to step back some.

Green and Spooner could be seen as PayPal and E-Gold taking over market share from The Dollar Hegemony or The FED/IRS/Wall Street Monopolists if it were made legal to do so: you can pay State taxes in some States with those forms of money PayPay and/or E-Gold, and the States pay whatever the want to a Federal Government if the States (actually the people running those States) want.

We don't have that, so you can't entertain any of these notions concerning what might happen if something resembling a W.B. Greene Mutual Bank Money was gaining currency in Arkansas, or a Lysander Spooner Real Estate Money was gaining currency in Kansas, and E-Gold was taking over Banking in New Jersey, and PayPay took over the entire North West.

That is all part of competition in Money Markets Made Legal within a Democratic (sortiton no majority rule) Federated (voluntary) Republic (military defense).

One State may become as or more despotic than The Nation State (U.S.A. Inc.) is now.

Suppose New York became the place where all the despotic people in America go to once Ron Paul takes over the office of Benevolent Dictator King to the God of Gold.

We can both be discussing finer points of interpretations of scripture and beliefs, while we try to warn everyone else that Ron Paul may be appeasing the wrong God, but we now have a working Democratic Federated Republic without an IRS and without The FED and the Troops are finding their ways back home, making sure that China and Russia think more than twice about giving up their sovereignty to a bunch of Globalist Bankers Crooks, and then invading our Liberty here at home.

So...

The Despots make a mini-Nation State in New York State, they all flock there, to prey on each other, charging each other all kinds of costs, for every possible reason under the sun, Breathing Tax, Poop Tax, Urine Tax, who knows, they raise the bar. All the people from The FED and the IRS move there, along with all the Lobbyists from the farmer Chicken Ranch that once was Congress, you know the Prostitutes that reside there now.

You don't have to know why all the Prostitutes left, along with the Lobbyists, themselves Prostitutes, just know that they flock to New York.

The No Bid Contractors at the Pentagon, they go to New York too.

Blackwater takes back their Blackwater name, no longer needing to hide, they go to New York too.

The School of the Americas, all those well trained torturers and mass murderer teachers, move to New York.

Some of the lesser evil "programs" run by the former Nation State, TSA, EPA, whatever, they move to New York, and some other States pick up those costs too, sure, they give it one last hurrah, like maybe California picks up a smaller version of the EPA, so those guys and gals move to California.

Ron Paul is all about defending Liberty at the Federal Level, and he made me secretary of the honest currency so I try to keep him from using the word Nation, please, this is a Federation not a Nation.

Thanks Ron, you don't even have to pay me, I'm doing much better now without a serious need to stop handling Fraud Money, so I now have about 5 new business going and I don't need more income - too much work.

So if you get the picture work from that point on how well or how poorly W.B. Green money gains or loses currency here or there as it can on its own merit or as it won't because people, like you, prefer something more powerful to you, and lest costly to you, which is the same thing too you, all you want money to do, for you, is to have the power to purchase.

Did I stray too far off the spirit of the question?

________________________
3. I do not understand what is meant by:

“The best capital of all will probably be mortgages; and they may perhaps be the only capital, which it will ever be expedient to use.”
________________________

Which loans tend to be the most powerful accumulations of capital? Which of your monthly expenses (if you did not inherit a house) are your largest bills?

Which of the largest things are needed by the most people?

I think that Spooner is very smart and he saw what was happening and he saw what will happen. What he saw did happen. Real Estate is the best capital and it is used as the basis of money because it is expedient to base money on Real Estate capital. When it is done accurately there wouldn't be housing booms and busts since the power of fraud would no longer be causing booms and busts on purpose with such things as Liar Loans, Derivatives, Mortgage Bundles sold with Triple AAA ratings known to be false by people who control the people selling the loans, control people rating the loans, and control the people printing the money that denominates the loans, etc.

__________________________
4. I am not sure this sounds like free banking:
“This capital is to be put into joint stock, held by Trustees, and divided into shares, of one hundred dollars each, or any other sum that may be thought best. [*10]
This Stock may be called the PRODUCTIVE STOCK, and will be entitled to the dividends.
The dividends will consist of the interest on the mortgages, and the profits of the banking.”
____________________________

The Free part is the part where anyone can take it or leave it. If a Gold Money Bank is opened lawfully on the same street (or same Internet) as the Real Estate Money Bank then people dealing with Real Estate go to one bank for reasons that make that Bank the Bank to go to, and people who deal with Gold go to the Gold Money Bank, what is not free?

What you may be missing, again, is the Tax Liability Payments and which money is accepted by which Tax Collectors?

If you accept my illustrative future with Ron Paul as self demoted Benevolent Dictator of the Nation State, demoting himself down to Chief Defender of Liberty within a Democratic Federated Republic, then tell me which State makes the people use one money to pay State taxes, and tell me which money Ron Paul demands from each State, and tell me which States agree to pay Ron Paul anything?

If, on the other hand, you are still thinking in terms of the Dictate that there will only be one money, without question, then you have no power to shop around, so what is the point?

You owe, you owe, so off to work you go, and shut up as ordered.

__________________________________
5. I do not understand this:

“Those, who hold PRODUCTIVE STOCK, by transfer in redemption of bills, may be called Secondary Stockholders.”
__________________________________

They don't own the Real Estate, they are secondary owners, kind of like the junior loans we have today? I'm guessing. It has been awhile since I've read A New System of Paper Currency and since then I have invented something better in my opinion. Product 1 and Product 2 makes much more sense to me, but my inventions, or Spooner's, or Greene's is much better than Legal Fraud Money if you no longer want to be a victim, if you love being a victim, keep the Fraud going for as long as that lasts.

"6. Why are the 2ndary stockholders getting 6% and who are they?"

Those are probably the investor/speculators who gain or lose divisions (pieces) of Real Estate ownership (control) and so long as their Real Estate is maintained in good order, and they are lucky, or knowledgeable, then their rate of return is secure. They invest wisely. If they lose control and something unfortunate happens to their Real Estate, then they lose that bet, which is a portion of it, unless they own the whole enchilada, all the stock, which may be possible. Invest big, and if it pays off, win big. Diversify, on the other hand, and losses are less catastrophic.

The assumption here might be that criminals who may resort to crime to gain more power over Real Estate would be handled by some form of due process, such as Trial by Jury, or some other method of dealing with criminals who take over all the power that exists on Earth.

Absent that criminal power the backing of money with Real Estate, among Real Estate owners, is their business, and if you prefer money backed by Food, you may be able to buy some Real Estate with some Food money, do those people in Real Estate eat?

You may not yet grasp the 3 sided fence illustration made by Andrews when speaking about Gold Bug dogma. Black Market money isn't Black Market money if there is no resort to legal crime, the best money wins, and there does not have to be only one winner.

"7. Why would anyone continue to be gluttons for punishment of failing stock?"

I think the meaning there had to do with the contribution to the market offered by The Bankers as The Bankers are no longer subsidized, they, The Bankers, are providing a service and if their service is no longer needed, or wanted, then who is going to pay them?

This is not easy for me, and I may be way off the mark, since it has been awhile since my reading of A New System of Paper Currency by Lysander Spooner. I hope my comments help, but if not then I can re-read the whole thing and get a more comprehensive picture refreshed in my operating memory.

(for example, the “law of cost,” the labor theory of value)

That is particularly troubling to me since there is a whole lot of misdirection going on in that very small space. If Greene is guilty of employing the dogmatic phrase "Labor Theory of Value" then why is that attributed to Spooner. Why is Rothbard referring to "law of cost"? Does Rothbard misunderstand The Cost Principle as explained by Warren? It may be possible to answer these questions within text written by Tucker, I don't know, it is possible that Tucker rephrased Warren's work on The Cost Principle, where the rewording became "law of cost" and it may be that Tucker connected Warren's Equitable Commerce, with The Cost Principle, to a "law of cost", and then to a nebulous "Labor Theory of Value".

I don't know much about Tucker other than my limited reading of his work with the publication Liberty. If my memory serves me, as to those words published by Tucker, there was definitely a link between his work and Josiah Warren's Equitable Commerce and by extension a link to Andrew's complimentary work in The Science of Society.

This reminds me of the game played in grade school where the teachers writes a couple of sentences down on a piece of paper and then whispers the message to one student and the idea is to pass the message on to each student one at a time in secret, and then see how far off the message is from the original when the last student speaks out the message he or she heard.

If there is to be a refutation of Equitable Commerce and the Cost Principle then why not go straight to the horses mouth?

Well that guy is dead.

He left bread crumbs?

"9. So tax assessors are reliable?"

If they compete in a Free Market, of some repute, not a counterfeit version, then the answer is yes, or they will be rendered obsolete.

Not by resort to deceit.

Not by resort to threats of violence.

Not by resort to violence.

They will be rendered obsolete by the force of many people choosing better over worse i.e. the force of competition.

The unreliable one's can move to the State of New York in my illustrative future Democratic Federated Republic with Ron Paul as Chief Defender of Liberty? I hear that despots are welcome and paid well in that State, being unreliable as to their word, and depending upon what is is.

"10. Question: Would it ever be of advantage of Bank A to slander bank B as being insolvent even though Bank B is solvent?"

Is there a functioning due process involved?

Spooner is not the guy to be questioning on these matters of crime since he did have Trial by Jury, based upon sortition, in his resume, beside the possibility that Spooner may have been thinking along the lines of the chips eventually falling as they may when liars resort to lies among the Friends of Liberty. Liars resorting to lies among the liars is all together another matter.

Who has the power to pay who for what?

Please be aware of the negative hits aimed at this work. It has been my experience to find years of work vanish down the memory hole in an instant. I hope that you are not expecting our Liberty to last when it is out of our control, by definition, it is perishable.

"11. How is an assessor any more reliable than a comptroller?"

I may have to read the specific work in it's entirety to satisfy specific questions like this, otherwise the general answer of a force of competition, which is merely a total sum of all the choices made by people who have the power to choose, and that force forces quality up and cost down among The Friends of Liberty.

If the matter concerns crime with or without due process, then, that is another matter.

If the matter concerns no due process, at all, then by definition criminals are not processing victims duly either, so what is the concern specifically?

If there is due process, such as Trial by Jury then are we going to try someone for some wrong doing, and is that the specific question being asked?

"12. I don’t know that this can be born out as somehow our congress has managed to become bought by lobbyists."

In which State did all the Lobbyists migrate when Ron Paul stepped down from Benevolent Dictator to the competitive position of Chief Defender of Liberty within our Democratic Federated Republic to which your State may or may not pay the dues in due time?

BREAK (you, bear, and a welcome tax to my power)

__________________________________________
13. So is this why specie has intrinsic value?

“Thus it is evident that the whole demand for gold and silver, as a currency, depends upon the demand for them for consump¬tion, as plate, jewelry, &c. And consequently the activity of the demand for them, as a currency, depends upon the activity of the demand for them, for consumption. In other words, the activity of the demand for the coins, as a currency, depends upon the activity of the demand for them as investments, in articles of use. [*32]”
___________________________________________

I think you have that right, since money can be merely an accounting method such as is PayPal used during an E-bay purchase, so "as currency" PayPal is valuable as currency without any use at all of PayPal as anything else.

This is instructive in measuring relative costs too. Suppose you found a very cheap crate on E-Bay containing many boxes of attractive looking jars, that would be perfect for you storing the intrinsic value of food, so in essence you want to buy a BANK to store the fruits of your labor against loss, and you may also want to sell the food in those jars as a service like the Milk man who brings bottles full of milk and takes away empty bottles of milt to be refilled.

There are, in fact, two identical crates, one is located in South Africa and another crate is located in Bosnia.

The South African crate is sold for the same 10 dollars as the Bosnia crate, less than replacement cost, but as far as the sellers are concerned they need room for other stuff, and their storage space, their bank rent, is expensive, so they want you to take away that stuff to make room for higher profit stuff.

The South African seller demands payment in actual gold.

The Bosnian seller will accept a PayPal payment.

Which currency will you choose and why will you choose the better currency?

You use the currency of text and English language and you invent a third option offered to the highest bidder, where you are willing to sell your secret formula for tomato sauce in exchange for the crates. Do you send the secret formula before you receive the crate? Do they send the crate before they receive gold, PayPal, or the Secret Formula?

"14. Is coercion ok?"

I think that Spooner is turning the argument for coercion on its head; saying OK you claim that debts are legally (coercion) demanded paid in specie, but we do not, so according to your rules we can demand that you pay us in specie, we, on the other hand, demand no such thing so don't expect us to obey such nonsense.

Who makes the rules? Which rules? If you argue for demand in species, and you argue that there can be no suspension of that demand, no exceptions, but we do, then whose idea is more competitive in fact?

This is where, again the genius of a Democratic Federated Republic can prove which argument works better in fact as one State may try one thing (absolute despotism for example) and another state may try something else (absolute anarchy) and let the chips fall as they may, and the Chief Defender of Liberty at Federal Government Central is hired by those States that want a Federal Government to do what they want, and if Ron Paul is there Defending Liberty, and interpreting the Constitution his way, and is means is, then runaway slaves running away from the despotic State won't be kidnapped and returned to their masters just because the masters say so.

Due process of some kind, such as Trial by Jury based upon sortition may rule the day.

Even if the counterfeit anarchists say that there are no rules the fact remains that that is a rule and therefore there is a return to the measure of who has the POWER to enforce the rules and which rules do they enforce? Do they enforce the same rules on themselves as they enforce on everyone else, which is Equity, or Justice, or do they satisfy their own requirements as completely as possible to the exclusion of all others?

Please don't loose sight of the understanding of free and open competition which is certainly what Spooner advocated.

"15. This sounds like taking out competitive options and giving it all to the new banks:"

I don't see the same meaning as you may see. The concept there is again that 3 sided fence and if there were no sides on any fences or a Free Market then why would private lender A be any better than public lender B? Why wouldn't, as my cousin Mike pointed out, why wouldn't almost everyone choose the best money?

Have you seen the Television show Shark Tank (Vicki watches that show) and consider asking yourself why those borrowers are connected to only those lenders?

Why not offer up your proposal to the internet and a hundred pages appear and you buy the best lender?

What would be the best lender on page 1 today?

That is the vital question I keep asking.

What is the best money?

We know what the best (worst) of the worst money looks like, so how about going the other way?

"16. Is this the downside of Gold Bugs?"

Yes, that pulls the curtain and exposes the Wizard of Oz, hence the down votes, the lies, misrepresentation etc.

Enforced Legal Monopoly is the tool, a demand for only one government, only one money, and only one tax collector. Gold can be the designated single currency as well as buggers pulled from Ben Bernanke's nose.

Having that tool handy the process knowable as The Business Psycho is possible and the operators pulling the levers are no longer speculating as to what may or may not happen in the Free Market they are orchestrating boom followed by bust followed by boom and so they know when to sell (at the top when prices are highest) and when to buy (at the bottom when prices are lowest) and all ownership titles flow to the men behind the curtain.

They don't need money, they have all of it already. Your ability to earn credit has turned into their ability to force you to pay the DEBT that they alone create.

You do all the work, pay all the costs, they get all the POWER.

"17. This point sounds a little risky:"

If Gold, as far as you are concerned, is never traded, it always stays in one place, like Fort Knox, then there is no risk to you if all that money moves once to China. That is the point of The New System of Paper Currency based upon Real Estate Ownership as a competitive option to any other competitive option.

You have one money now.

If you had three options tomorrow morning, then lack of access to 2 options leaves you with 1 option left.

1.
Gold as money
2.
Real Estate backed Money
3.
Federal Reserve Fraud Money

The point being offered is to point out the vital need to maintain alternatives in case of a POWER that makes POWER scarce to you.

Money is your Power to Purchase or how can it be called money by you?

Right now we are using fraud as money. How is that working so far?

You know the score board, should I link it again?

"18. What happens when one country hoards it?"

If all the Gold moves to China then they can buy anything they want with that much Power to Purchase. Can they buy your support in enslaving mankind under the thumb of a few Legal Money Monopolists?

You are already supporting a few Legal Money Monopolists.

Do you pay payments to the IRS?

Do you pay with Fraudulent Federal Reserve Notes?

Suppose "we" make sure that all "our" gold is back in Fort Knox. Do "we" invade China, subdue those 3 billion people, and take our gold back?

How do we pay for our war effort in that case?

Can we use something other than Gold to finance the defense of Liberty at home if we can fund aggressive wars for profit with fraudulent money?

Is there only two options?

1.
Gold
2.
Fraud

What is the point?

"19. Until the legal criminals make laws to the contrary."

So...reward them with bonuses, bail-outs, and those are merely the accounts published for public consumption and the actual net flow of POWER is much larger and well hidden in plain sight?

"Is someone selling property to get the system started up?"

It may help to compare Real Estate Backed money with a simpler form of money such as early Egyptian money based upon receipts of deposits of grain into a Granary.

Instead of Grain in a Granary there is Real Estate Titles held in some depository of records that record ownership contracts safely or secure against counterfeit.

It is established by record that a farmer in Egypt deposits grain into the Granary and that fact is established when a receipt is drawn up at the point of transfer.

Farmer moves grain into the Granary and in exchange the Farmer receives a record of having deposited the grain in the Granary.

Now the deposit receipt serves as money.

Times are good, the Granary is filled or filling, new Granaries are being built, money value fluctuates, sure, but it is money, and the farmer can buy tools, seed, water, labor, tomatoes in jars, teachers to teach economics to her kids, whatever.

Now another bank, if the King of Egypt allows, which is not likely, but the new bank is built up by a group of investors who have a lot of Granary money and they buy farmland from the previous owners, now they have titles of that land, the King may not be paying attention. so these Land Barons can now sell the land titles, sell the land, rent the land, or use the land titles the same way that the King uses Granary receipts as money in the Kingdom.

How?

You buy a share on some land that is held in ownership, owned by you, and a bunch of other people, divided ownership, shares of ownership. Do you sell your shares or keep your savings stored as your shares?

Does the farmer keep her granary receipts as savings for a rainy day when there may be drought and famine but she can go back to the granary and get a share of the remaining food that is growing scarce and therefore much more valuable?

What happens to the value of the land while the land no longer bears fruit in drought and many people are dying off from starvation?

Out with the Real Estate Bankers?

In with the Granary Bankers?

Boom and Bust by nature?

What happened to the water Bankers?

The King kept control of the water flow?

Not so stupid after all?

You pay the tax or you suffer drought?

Oh wait, the farmer isn't a her, now, because now women are property, how about titles on women, oh wait, that is called legal marriage?

Whore houses are back in business, Banking on fornication?

No wait, now all the whores are in Washington D.C. it is called Congress?

No, no, that is an insult to the oldest profession?

"I also started reading the working of the association here, but will probably not continue because of time constraints. I think I would like to read Andrews Labor Dollar work which I have not yet started."

Taxing?

I may not find the time (power) to edit this, and there are frontal attacks in progress to defend against.

Joe

Minimum Tax

“I think that Rothbard may have been gaining currency in Major Media by reading just enough from the script to get volumes of very good information out to a whole lot of people. The guy was way too intelligent to have made the error of publishing those lies, I think he knew better, but there are things that are not allowed to be said, and there are things that have to be said, if participation at the higher levels of Legal Crime is tolerated by the Legal Criminals.
In other words you don't climb up that Pyramid by telling the truth, being fair, or equitable, you compromise on principle or you are crushed.”

So then, was Rothbard really a good guy?

“Spooner and Tucker challenged the Religion of Gold as God and therefore they are one and the same threat despite the fact that Spooner was obviously capitalist when dealing with money (he employed the capitalist pricing method) and Tucker was obviously leaning more toward the principle of cost being the limit of price as proven by Josiah Warren.”

From reading Greene & Spooner on Mutual Banking & New Paper Currencies, respectively, both of those men wanted to base the value of their currency on specie value although the currency would not be tied to the specie.

Do the gold bugs only want one to one gold tied to paper representation?

“There are arguments concerning the principle of cost being the limit of price but that is all for show, the fact is that cost is not dictated by any authority other than those who volunteer to trade, so it is a process of individual judgment and then negotiation. If it cost me too much to sell, then I don't sell, and if it cost me too much to buy than I don't buy, and that is how that is defined when that happens and it does not require me to acknowledge it, or report about it, it happens that way, that is what happens, and there is no argument about it, unless one of the people involved in the process resorts to deceit, threats of violence, or acts of violence and that resort to those willful acts constitutes crime, or the passing on of costs from the criminal to the victim. “

Yes, and the way it works sounds like capitalism to me. The marketplace determines the prices regardless of the commodity…supply vs demand with price being a caveat; i.e. price can influence both supply and demand.

“So...Equitable Commerce is merely the recognition of that which happens in that so called Free Market when it is Free of deceit, threats of violence, and violence upon the targeted innocent victims, since each trade, and each trader, gives exactly as much as they take, according to their own authority to measure the trade, neither party to an equitable trade is passing on costs to the other so the price is always at cost as far as each trader is concerned in Equitable Commerce and in cases where a trade is made, voluntarily, and one trader feels cheated, but not by deceit, and not by threat of violence, and not by violence, well, the trader feeling cheated needs to get up, go to the mirror, and look at the person responsible for being cheated.”

What do you mean about not passing on costs? Are not costs passed on in price? Is it perhaps profit that does not have to be passed on in the price?

What is a monetary crank?

“There are 100 people all living in an area where there is one water supply, which can be a natural lake fed by a river that is fed seasonally by a distant mountain.
One fine capitalist wakes up one fine morning having read Menger the night before and this person sets himself up as owner of the lake.
He builds a fence with one gate.
Water was plentiful.
Now it is made scarce…”

And now you cannot even collect rain water in some states.

“Andrews picked up on Equitable Commerce and joined this Socialist club same as Spooner, this Internationale, another guy named Bakunin did the same, and they were all 3 kicked out as being those voluntary socialists, not one of us, not one of the true believers in being the lesser of two evils, the God of falsehood, the "All Men are Bad" except I'm less bad Club.”

OK, so are you a Voluntary Socialist? Is that what you are? Are there any more of you? What exactly is it?

Andrews, Spooner, and Bakunin were all kicked out of that club.
You and I want to know why they joined it in the first place?
Sure, sure, and turn that thing around, wear the shoes, why did you join U.S.A. Inc. (LLC), The IRS, and The FED, you pay dues, you are a member.

I was born into it…I had no choice. As far as I can tell those guys probably had a choice. They were intelligent men. Did they not know who they were joining?

“I have one niece who says to the other niece, both toddlers: "you're not the boss of me". I remember that back in the 70s. One of the same nieces being spanked, she turns to her mom and asks: "Are you done?"
A nephew, also being spanked, turns and reports: "That didn't hurt."”

Jon got a swat last week. Whatever he did I cannot remember but I sent him straight to his room. I gave him one swat and asked if it hurt (I didn’t think it did because I don’t want to hurt him.) He said no. So I said, do I need to give you one that hurts or can you remember not to do x? He said he could remember. I said good, I love you. That is discipline/correction as opposed to punishment. I do not punish my children. Punishment is out of anger or vengeance. Discipline is Correct used to teaching. Sometimes words are not enough, but they are always necessary.

“Does that tell an interesting story or am I some nutcase conspiracy theorist wearing a tin hat and one step away from becoming a terrorist?”

I sure hope not because I am starting to sound like you…and you are starting to quote me…

Thank you so much for going thru each one of my questions and giving a thoughtful answer. I realize it took you longer to write your answers than it did me to make my statement or voice my question. Thank you for your voluntary tax on my behalf.
“ (for example, the “law of cost,” the labor theory of value)
That is particularly troubling to me since there is a whole lot of misdirection going on in that very small space. If Greene is guilty of employing the dogmatic phrase "Labor Theory of Value" then”

As far as I know Greene said “Labor is the true regulator of value.” I didn’t see anywhere where he used the word Theory related labor and value.
"9. So tax assessors are reliable?"
You: If they compete in a Free Market, of some repute, not a counterfeit version, then the answer is yes, or they will be rendered obsolete.

I see in Mutual Banking I forgot there were criminals and here I am forgetting there is a free market. I was trying to remember what I forgot to remember in Mutual Banking Parasite City…The Criminals, so when reading A New Paper Currency I was looking for criminals behind every bush! LOL
“Please be aware of the negative hits aimed at this work. It has been my experience to find years of work vanish down the memory hole in an instant. I hope that you are not expecting our Liberty to last when it is out of our control, by definition, it is perishable.”

Really? You think that would happen here? Why, because we are talking about voluntary socialism? Is that bad? Or is it because Rothbard was questioned? What is the big threat? Let’s see, I am not naïve, but duped, but in this case I would say naïve. Is it because you are talking about “fraudulent banking?” What is the big deal?

“The South African seller demands payment in actual gold.
The Bosnian seller will accept a PayPal payment.
Which currency will you choose and why will you choose the better currency?”

Paypal because it is convenient, and there are guarantees that I as the buyer will be insured against a bad seller by getting my money back if the seller is a flake.
“You use the currency of text and English language and you invent a third option offered to the highest bidder, where you are willing to sell your secret formula for tomato sauce in exchange for the crates. Do you send the secret formula before you receive the crate? Do they send the crate before they receive gold, PayPal, or the Secret Formula?”

I have decided on the 3rd option. Why can we just use the Fed dollars without the Fed or IRS? They are already in circulation and it would save money not to have print up something new.

How about this Prodigal Son from Luke 15, Jeff’s sermon tonight. . I always thought Prodigal meant rebellious. Nope, prodigal means excessive and wasteful spending. It sounds to me like we (whoever) have a Prodigal government. Spending what they don’t have.

“Have you seen the Television show Shark Tank (Vicki watches that show) and consider asking yourself why those borrowers are connected to only those lenders?”

Nope, I don’t have time to watch TV, I am too busy writing…besides about all that is on here are a few cartoons and the wii. The Olympics have been on here the last 2 weeks too. The boys have had fun watching and cheering for the US Team.

“That is the vital question I keep asking.
What is the best money?”

I say maybe the one that is already in circulation without any of the strings attached. It can be backed by specie, real estate, electricity or whatever. All we (whoever) have to do is say so. Why can’t we just use the money without the Fed. Who says it is theirs? However, if you ask someone else it will be electronic transfer and RFID. Maybe that is not the money but the mechanism though. Seamless just like payal except you don’t need a computer. Just your hand and a scanner. See no need to print anything. Everything is electronic. And if you do not comply, well, they can just turn you off.
"16. Is this the downside of Gold Bugs?"
You: Yes, that pulls the curtain and exposes the Wizard of Oz, hence the down votes, the lies, misrepresentation etc.

So do the Gold Bugs understand the principle of specie leaving the country? Why not a good debate on this issue?

Profound Statement: “They don't need money, they have all of it already. Your ability to earn credit has turned into their ability to force you to pay the DEBT that they alone create.”
“You do all the work, pay all the costs, they get all the POWER.”

“Money is your Power to Purchase”
Instead of Grain in a Granary there is Real Estate Titles held in some depository of records that record ownership contracts safely or secure against counterfeit.
It is established by record that a farmer in Egypt deposits grain into the Granary and that fact is established when a receipt is drawn up at the point of transfer.
Farmer moves grain into the Granary and in exchange the Farmer receives a record of having deposited the grain in the Granary.
Now the deposit receipt serves as money.
Times are good, the Granary is filled or filling, new Granaries are being built, money value fluctuates, sure, but it is money, and the farmer can buy tools, seed, water, labor, tomatoes in jars, teachers to teach economics to her kids, whatever.
Now another bank, if the King of Egypt allows, which is not likely, but the new bank is built up by a group of investors who have a lot of Granary money and they buy farmland from the previous owners, now they have titles of that land, the King may not be paying attention. so these Land Barons can now sell the land titles, sell the land, rent the land, or use the land titles the same way that the King uses Granary receipts as money in the Kingdom.
How?
You buy a share on some land that is held in ownership, owned by you, and a bunch of other people, divided ownership, shares of ownership. Do you sell your shares or keep your savings stored as your shares?
OK, so a bunch of people who have land put their titles in a holding. These are the Primary Stockholders

And then someone else comes along and buys up the titles. These are the Secondary Stockholders. What did they purchase the stocks with? Specie?

Then based on the specie? Circulation shares are printed. But where does the 6 & 7 % interest come from that is paid to the Primary and 2ndary stockholders? I don’t know why this concept is so hard for me to understand. I understood mutual banking pretty well, even though right now I can’t tell you anything about it other than it was a non profit operation.
“Oh wait, the farmer isn't a her, now, because now women are property, how about titles on women, oh wait, that is called legal marriage?”

Women are not anymore property than a man is. The man and women belong to each other. They are one flesh. I am Jeff’s. He is mine. We are each other’s and yet I am still me.
"I also started reading the working of the association here, but will probably not continue because of time constraints. I think I would like to read Andrews Labor Dollar work which I have not yet started."
You: Taxing?

Yes, and I only found the Association document so I could try to understand how it worked to have land as backing for money, which I am still a little shy of understanding. But, does it really matter? All I want is power to purchase and I do not want that power to diminish at anyone’s whim.
“I may not find the time (power) to edit this, and there are frontal attacks in progress to defend against.”

What is a frontal attack?
Thank you again for the effort you expended in replying to each of my 19 points and then some. Not going to edit. Sorry if this is rough, but I must retire to start a new day tomorrow.

Humans are not perfect

"So then, was Rothbard really a good guy?"

There is no question in my mind that Rothbard was one of the most important Whistle Blowers of modern Legal Crime. I think his very few obvious and measurable resorts to deceit stand out in high contrast to all the other very valuable work that he has done, but in context to our current situation there are a few things worth knowing better, so as to be better prepared if a similar situation occurs concerning a new regime pending.

If Ron Paul were to take over at Legal Crime Central and where the Friends of Liberty less than vigilant there could be a short time of Liberty followed by a new usurpation, like a repeat of the time between 1776 and 1788, only this time we may be able to avoid the violence of war at home (and stop waring abroad), and if we learn from past errors we can avoid another Con Con.

Here is where the John Birch folks really shine as they warn of a Constitutional Convention being a ploy to get rid of limits on The Constitution. They say, sure, there may be an effort by people who mean well, today, asking for a new Constitutional Convention, but beware that those people may be misdirected and they may actually be looking to overthrow, or usurp, limits on government.

Two things:

1.
That is exactly what did happen during the first Constitutional Convention or Con Con, since these Federated States were already a working limited government, so the first Con Con was, in fact, a Con Job, or confidence scheme.

2.
Any effort from any angle, including Austrian Economy, can be overthrown, or usurped, by bad people seeking to do bad things.

If all I can find wrong with Rothbard is his resorts to deceit concerning a very competitive alternative, in particular Equitable Commerce, but including A New System of Paper Currency, and not so much Mutual Banking, then that small exposure of accurately measurable error is only what it is, no more, but no less.

"Do the gold bugs only want one to one gold tied to paper representation?"

Here is where there is much more poof to the viability of any voluntary capitalist since none of them appear to agree on anything, while the Legal Criminals in unison will speak the same words verbatim, like those often repeated Talking Heads saying the same exact things, like the link with Conan O'brien and those "news" people saying "I scream. You scream. Well you now the rest."

Many of the Gold Bugs insist on only Gold, no paper, as money. Some Gold Bugs support paper receipts. Almost all refuse to even entertain fractional banking, as they call it, and many allow for Silver and other commodities as money. To be a Gold Bug, though, the concept of money is equal to the perception of Gold, as if one is the other, interchangeable words meaning the same thing. I am only guessing, since I am not a Gold Bug.

I could discuss the topic with a Gold Bug, but I don't get touched with 10 foot poles, by anyone, with very few exceptions, as if I were a leper, and so the exceptions stand out, such as yourself, as being what I call one in a billion people.

If I do get challenged the initial volleys are often insulting and so I see through that and challenge that dictatorial message.

Hey you.

Yea

You are too stupid to even speak English

Yea, I heard that before.

I even paid 800 hard earned Federal Reserve Notes for an on-line course in Writing for Publication. My writing assignments including exactly the stuff I write here on this forum, political economy messages, and the teacher tore me apart on the accuracy of the information I reported, not on my capacity to write well, in English, so I challenged that fact. Why are you trying to school me on the things I do know, which I can prove, and why are you not schooling me on the things you are supposed to know, which is how a student can learn to write well, to use English language better?

The teacher fired me and sent me the balance of my money, minus the cost of the books that are pretty much useless to me.

If you don't read from the script, here in good ole' U.S.A., then you will encounter script readers. Step out of line and there will be cattle prods ready to direct the errant cattle back into line.

Where does the line go?

That shall not be questioned.

"Yes, and the way it works sounds like capitalism to me. The marketplace determines the prices regardless of the commodity…supply vs demand with price being a caveat; i.e. price can influence both supply and demand."

But the pure ones, if such a lofty goal can exist, given the nature of mankind, capable of error, and sin, purer ones, the voluntary ones, admit that free competition forces quality up and cost down, so long as we don't apply that to money.

Ancaps admit that a free market will adjust behavior in such a manner as that which will discourage overpricing since someone else will then see the opportunity to compete, charge less, offer higher quality, and take market share, so long as we are not talking about money.

When talking about money the principles disappear as if by magic. This is where I found my power law, along this path of resolving these mysteries, inconsistencies, omissions, resorts to deceit, etc., since the capitalist pricing method works with non-power products, since too much of non-power products is costly, like digging your own grave, jumping in, and then filling it back in again, a producer of non-power products has to know when to stop producing. On the other hand, power products do not work that way, unless the power product is obsolete, and even then the obsolete power product isn't thrown away, it is used up, because people use power to make more power, and that is the nature of life. A seed becomes a plant that makes many seeds.

A chair is good for sitting one butt down at a time, and that is the extent of that, a chair does not make another chair, and putting two chairs together does not result in a family of chairs.

A productive power producing product, whereby the product can produce more productive power than the productive power used in making it, can be a product that increases the power supply.

1 becomes 2, 2 becomes 4, 4 becomes 16, and that is entirely different compared to the number of chairs being produced.

Who wants power scarce?

Food is power.

Who wants food scarce?

Not the people who are starving.

Why do people want food scarce?

Not the people who have plenty of food, and plenty of power, enough power to make food scarce.

"What do you mean about not passing on costs? Are not costs passed on in price? Is it perhaps profit that does not have to be passed on in the price?"

Here is where it is vitally important to get your own ducks in a row when dealing with the medium of exchange called language, you can't expect to communicate in your own mind, using language, if you accept a word that is ambiguous or worse: a word that is duplicitous.

What is cost?

What is price?

What is Credit?

What is Debt?

If you are the first or the last person alive do you price anything?

If you are the first or the last person alive do you own anyone anything (not counting God or Jesus: any other human being)?

The answer by definition in both cases is no, there is no such thing as price and there is no such thing as debt.

If you are the only person do you still pay costs?

If you are the only person do you get credit from any source of credit (this is where God obviously steps in)?

When dealing with more than one person there may be an incentive to create something called price and something called debt, otherwise there is no such thing.

If that does not make sense, then the words price, cost, credit, and debt may be ambiguous or duplicitous and therefore incapable of being used to solve problems.

"What do you mean about not passing on costs?"

An illustration is a person who has enough purchasing power to buy a working company whereby the company is making ends meet, doing very good, producing the highest quality products, and selling at the lowest cost, and all the people working are paid more than enough to actually buy the stuff they make, and then this person takes over and passes on costs.

This person starts spending the accumulated capital saved in the company savings account on false advertizements including payments to government agencies that are supposed to regulate the assessing of company stocks, so the company goes from A rating stock to AAA rating stock while the person fires all the high paid employees, pays imported workers from countries where torture and mass murder is no only legal but running amok in the streets, these starving refugees will work for less than nothing, but the quality of the product may suffer, and this person, passing on costs, uses up all the inventory, buys no more inventory, and this cost passer on-er stops all maintenance, and then this cost passing boy sells the company to a dupe, and then when the dupe finds out he has holding an empty bag, having to sell at a loss, the cost passing on dude buys up the company again at bargain basement prices.

Who reaps all the rewards?

Who pays all the costs?

That is passing on costs.

If you are told that the thing you are going to buy will be something that cures Legal Crime, and it turns out to be Legal Crime, then you are working to pay into that fraud, paying those costs, and you are sent the bill for any expenses those people tally up, so you pay those costs too, pay, and pay more, and don't even question those people who are passing on costs to you.

How many example of passing on costs are needed?

I want to have fun, so says the rapist, so I will have my fun at the expense of someone else, someone not having fun, so who pays the costs?

I want to stay in business, despite the fact that my products are poisonous, so I hire a guy who will connect my products with the Women's Liberation Movement, and my profits go through the roof, but poor old women die of C.O.P.D for having those costs passed onto them.

Someone can say that there is no such thing as Hate Speech, but I think deception is deception for a reason, and I don't think that the reason is anything close to Free Speech since the goal of deception is to deceive someone who would otherwise be someone who would not assume those costs. Why else would someone resort to deception?

Hey, how about a date? Here, drink this, is only water. See drank the drink, and she suddenly became very pliable, so hey who am I to turn that down? Free speech?

Take that drink?

Free?

Here take this drug, you will feel wonderful!

Free speech?

There is only Free Speech, there can be no Hate Speech?

Drink this cool-aid, and we can all go to heaven quicker?

Free?

I'm going off on a rant in the wrong thread.

"What is a monetary crank?"

When modern Legal Criminals want to direct Hate at the targeted victims they call out "Terrorist".

When an Austrian Economist wants to direct Hate at the targeted victims they call out "Monetary Crank", it is like the kiss of death, like saying, hey, your days are numbered, and the number is few.

Austrian Economists are self proclaimed Economists, the real deal, the experts, the right ones, and if you are a "Monetary Crank" then you are one with the "Keynesian Economists" a "Keynesian", and you are done, persona-non-grata, it is over for you, too bad for you, you have been tagged.

You are it.

Look, over there.

What is it?

A monetary crank.

I would never have know.

Not only that...

What?

A Keynesian.

You're kidding?

Nope.

Really, a Keynesian?

Yup.

Too bad.

Yup.

"And now you cannot even collect rain water in some states."

Talk about passing on costs! What happens when someone makes off like a bandit with those POWER plants in Fukushima, having raided and ran, pumped and dumped it, while plutonium, the worst poison known to mankind (or close to it), rains on everyone else, in the air, in the water, talk about tax, talk about passing on costs, that is a breathing tax, payable with doctor bills, and a much shorter, and much more miserable life on Earth. Standing on Earth and stood for Destruction of LIFE!

Something for nothing = passing on costs.

Somebody pays, someone passes on payment - perhaps just delaying payment.

"OK, so are you a Voluntary Socialist? Is that what you are? Are there any more of you? What exactly is it?"

I am much more in line with Josiah Warren than anyone else I've ever read, and this is a matter of happy coincidence, since I do not "follow" Warren. I do not accept any labels by anyone without my prior approval. What do you mean by socialist? What do you mean when you mean to ask me of I am one?

I can show you were I can easily accept the label so long as it is the label described by Stephen Pearl Andrews. If it is the label described by Hugo Chavez then no, I am not a Socialist. But if you are going to call Hugo Chavez a dictator, then I will ask you to please place Hugo Chavez in the right order on the dictator list, above or below Franklin Roosevelt, Honest Abe Lincoln, Cannot tell a lie Washington, or it depends upon what is is Doctor of Death Clinton.

Hugo Chavez is in the competitive legal banking business so that makes him a Dictator according to the same Main Street News Sources that come up with "I scream. You scream. You know the rest..."

"OK, so are you a Voluntary Socialist? Is that what you are? Are there any more of you? What exactly is it?"

A person who employes the scientific method to reach the goal of understanding society well enough to then be armed with the knowledge of how to improve society, and what constitutes that knowledge you may ask?

Don't make anything involuntary and you can then do anything else, but don't make anything involuntary, so that is what the scientific study of society, or socialism, uncovers, don't, I repeat, don't, do not, "provide the means by which we suffer", because the victims grow weaker and the criminals grow stronger through that false solution to that problem that would not exist had it not been prescribed in the first place.

If a socialist or a botanist arrives at the door selling socialism or flowers and either one says you have to buy or else, and you can't question having to buy, and there really isn't any "or else" just by, that is it, just buy into that sale of socialism or botany, then my guess is that they are not selling either socialism, or botany, and you had better be armed well enough to resist such nonsense, and if the offer is genuinely voluntary and you prefer not to buy into that socialism stuff, or that botany stuff, then tell them to move along, close to door, and return to whatever it was you were doing voluntarily, but if you were working harder to "provide the means by which you suffer" before the knock on the door, then the enemy isn't the botanist at the door, and the enemy isn't the socialist at the door, the enemy is whomever you will be connected to, involuntarily, the moment you fail to pay as much as you are told to pay, when you are told to pay it, without question.

"I was born into it…I had no choice. As far as I can tell those guys probably had a choice. They were intelligent men. Did they not know who they were joining?"

They read the sign on the door that said all you scientist are welcome to add to the scientific study of society and those three soon found out that the sign on the door was a false front.

They were born into the same thing you were born into, one was touring the country, just head of the hangman's noose, freeing the slaves from people who were doing everything required to keep the slaves in their place.

The time period was very close to that time when half of this country was busy murdering the other half of this country, so the bad choices made by 3 people during that time can certainly be put on a scale of greater evil to lesser evil, and joining a science club and finding out that the existing members where criminals hiding behind a false front may have been the rule, not so much the exception then.

Now is different?

"Sometimes words are not enough, but they are always necessary."

I can reply with similar experiences but it may be better to pass further details on this subject, or not, prudence can be a thought, even in my head.

"What is the big deal?"

Power. Threaten someone's power and they are apt to defend it. If there are things that someone does not want to be published, and they have the power to censor it, it will be censored. The bottom line, if I am right, which may or may not be the case, the bottom line is power.

This is not the same thing as The Austrian Economics Forum, where I was censored.

This is more similar to The Prison Planet Forum, where I was censored.

This is similar to the Anarchist Forum, where I was not censored, but the owner of the forum stopped policing the forum and it was overrun with spam.

My work was deleted from the Free State Project Forum too.

I don't know what will happen, but I have recorded some of what did happen. In particular the Alex Jones and Austrian Economics Forum "exile" is mirrored on my one Forum in parts, not the whole thing.

I lost two things that I prefer not to have lost on the Austrian Forum: one was a short essay on banking and another was a schematic of voluntary versus involuntary social structure.

Here there is a lot of exchange, discussion, questions and answers, and so the work may be of some value to someone, someone as new to political economy as you were, and someone as new to scripture as I am, and so the dialogue may be in line with people on similar paths.

If it vanishes, don't be caught off guard, it has happened, and it can happen again.

"I have decided on the 3rd option. Why can we just use the Fed dollars without the Fed or IRS? They are already in circulation and it would save money not to have print up something new."

Now you are seeing what I see, since it isn't the paper money, it is the connection to very bad people. The money is not responsible for the acts of people who "provide the means by which we suffer" to the people who make fraud, extortion, torture, and mass murder, by them, legal.

If it were only the FED then they would be understood as counterfeiters soon and if due process was working those fraud would be found and their additions to the supply of dollars would be seen as any fraud anywhere, they would be counterfeiters, and a jury of some kind would process them as they would any other counterfeiter.

If it were just the IRS and again there were in the works a working due process then move from previous taxes to a National Income tax could have, conceivably, been understood by State governors as a usurpation of their sovereignty and they could have challenged that move, on those grounds.

Combined together, both in that same time period of 1913, the IRS and The FED are the means of counterfeiting and extorting power from productive people Nation Wide.

Soon after was World War I, then World War II, and it can be understood that Legal Criminals have been very busy stealing power from the sources of it, and passing on all the costs to whomever will pay without question.

I have to get more work done, so I'll stop here. It is spaghetti night and I am the cook.

Joe

Making Sandwiches

“There is no question in my mind that Rothbard was one of the most important Whistle Blowers of modern Legal Crime. I think his very few obvious and measurable resorts to deceit stand out in high contrast to all the other very valuable work that he has done, but in context to our current situation there are a few things worth knowing better, so as to be better prepared if a similar situation occurs concerning a new regime pending.”

“If all I can find wrong with Rothbard is his resorts to deceit concerning a very competitive alternative, in particular Equitable Commerce, but including A New System of Paper Currency, and not so much Mutual Banking, then that small exposure of accurately measurable error is only what it is, no more, but no less.”

Have you ever heard of sandwiching criticism in between positive comments? What if that had done that in the Rothbard/Menger Post? Would readers be set at ease and actually opened their ears at the beginning and the end of the post before leaving a comment?

What is the point of discussion? To win or to educate?

“Here is where the John Birch folks really shine as they warn of a Constitutional Convention being a ploy to get rid of limits on The Constitution. They say, sure, there may be an effort by people who mean well, today, asking for a new Constitutional Convention, but beware that those people may be misdirected and they may actually be looking to overthrow, or usurp, limits on government.”

Yes, that is my great fear. And if you had said something like this to me before having me read Patrick Henry I would have gone into it with a balanced view of your view, but instead I thought you were unpatriotic. Remember? My mother-in-law thinks the constitution needs rewritten…because she thinks the right to bear arms is no longer necessary in this day and age. I wonder where in the world she got that idea? Women’s Liberation has done more than sell cigarettes IMO.

“Many of the Gold Bugs insist on only Gold, no paper, as money. Some Gold Bugs support paper receipts. Almost all refuse to even entertain fractional banking, as they call it, and many allow for Silver and other commodities as money. To be a Gold Bug, though, the concept of money is equal to the perception of Gold, as if one is the other, interchangeable words meaning the same thing. I am only guessing, since I am not a Gold Bug. “

Both Greene and Spooner in the works I just read wanted the value of their paper tied to the value of gold. Would that make them gold bugs?

I even paid 800 hard earned Federal Reserve Notes for an on-line course in Writing for Publication…

I drove my Comp prof up the wall because of my paper discrediting Humanism, but I still got an A because she did not discredit my opinion. She graded my writing.

“An illustration is a person who has enough purchasing power to buy a working company whereby the company is making ends meet, doing very good, producing the highest quality products, and selling at the lowest cost, and all the people working are paid more than enough to actually buy the stuff they make, and then this person takes over and passes on costs.
This person starts spending the accumulated capital…”

I would have never have thought of defining passing on costs in that way. Buy it, harvest it, sell it, goes bunk…to bad, so sad…I’ll rebuy it. Bain Capital, is that what they did?
…A rating stock to AAA rating stock while the person fires all the high paid employees, pays imported workers…”

When my dad quit working for GE he went to work for a private company in Houston, Powell Electric. My mom said the guy highered my dad because he was trying to get some kind of cert and after that my dad wasn’t needed…guess that is why my parents went into the antique business…to bad, so sad.

ME: "What is a monetary crank?"

Does that label have anything to do with cranking out money?

My work was deleted from the Free State Project Forum too.

What do you think about FSP? Is it a fraud?

I lost two things that I prefer not to have lost on the Austrian Forum: one was a short essay on banking and another was a schematic of voluntary versus involuntary social structure.

Can you recreate them, those 2 things?

Me: "I have decided on the 3rd option. Why can we just use the Fed dollars without the Fed or IRS? They are already in circulation and it would save money not to have print up something new."

But would we need to connect the paper to something of value?

“I have to get more work done, so I'll stop here. It is spaghetti night and I am the cook.”

Do you go by a weekly/monthly menu, or do you just cook what you feel like eating?

...

Both

"What is the point of discussion? To win or to educate?"

Winning is using the power available to make more power sufficient to survive better and longer, and one of those powers required is knowing better.

Discussion to me is expanding the limits of individual capacities to know better into an animated contest of freedom from ignorance, powerlessness, misery, and premature death of individuals, and of our species, and life as a whole.

Winning through eduction is the point, it seems to me.

Your viewpoint on making sandwiches sounds like a winning point of view. If I could have thought of it before publishing this then I may have incorporated the idea into the effort.

"Both Greene and Spooner in the works I just read wanted the value of their paper tied to the value of gold. Would that make them gold bugs?"

I think the answer is no, or Gold Bug light, but again I'm not a Gold Bug so I can't speak for them as to who they accept or don't accept into the fold. My guess is that Rothbard put the official stamp of rejection on those two, possibly because of the "Monetary Crankism" involved in linking value to Real Estate (and Gold?) with Spooner, and bemoaning the concept of interest with Greene.

"She graded my writing."

English writing teachers grading writing? How odd!

What was she thinking?

"Bain Capital, is that what they did?"

I don't know about that specific case, or that specific variation of the tactic. The tactic can be called Pump and Dump, Corporate Raiding, just plain Fraud, or The Business Cycle, or Legal Crime. When it is all nice and legal, who's to complain to who?

If it is illegal light, then just don't get caught, or know who gets their piece of the action, know who butters your bread, and don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

"Does that label have anything to do with cranking out money?"

Could be, I don't know the origins, but it is the same tactic as calling bogey men any other name, it is a Man of Straw, it is a tactic.

You want to censor someone.

What do you do?

Paint up a "terrorist" (monetary crank), and then point at the painted up "terrorist" (monetary crank), you know exactly how to pull apart the Man of Straw, because you made the Man of Straw out of Straw, easy to pull apart.

Look friends and neighbors (tax payers), how I defeated the "Terrorists" (monetary cranks)!

Meanwhile the people who have been so well handled, defeated, are looking at each other asking, where are these "terrorists" (monetary cranks), all I see is us, and we actually have our own things to say, and what we have to say is the opposite of what that Man of Straw says, so what gives?

The very illustrative historical example concerns those people who wanted a Democratic Federated Republic, like Patrick Henry, but they were called Anti-Federalists.

Call them anything, just so long as it is not true.

Any word will do, and so Monetary Crank works too.

"What do you think about FSP? Is it a fraud?"

No, like the Austrian Economists and the Alex Jones Prison Planet forum operators, they have their turf and they don't like to be shown any dirty laundry, so they are not Frauds, they are merely jerking their knees, defending their own sense of authority - or at least that is my opinion.

Defense of a vehement belief in a lie? That is not fraud, that is error. A belief in a lie is a closed loop. What happens, logically, when someone challenges the belief in the lie?

"Can you recreate them, those 2 things?"

No. That is much like a song that I may invent and play for hours so as not to lose it. I can get back to the guitar (or piano in my distant past) and regain the song if I get back soon enough, or if I record the song I can remember it by hearing it. If I forget then the song is gone. I can make something similar, using the same chords, and scales, or notes, but it may be worse, and it may be better, but it will be different.

That reminds me; however, that I have reloaded my operating system onto an old hard drive and I may be able to find an old copy of the drawing, probably not the illustration on banking. I can look.

"But would we need to connect the paper to something of value?"

It can be connected to The Good Faith and Credit of the American people, as it is, loosely now. Now it is more connected to thinly disguised fraud, but the point is that it does not need to be connected to commodities. That is well explained in the Labor Dollar pamphlet written by Andrews.

Another angle on that same topic concerns what people do when they are being invaded by powers that will destroy them, or enslave them, and they give each other credit, the credit needed to work toward mutual defense. People can bemoan the use of Continental Dollars during the Revolutionary War, or the Greenbacks used by the "winners" in the Civil War, but the point that is illustrated in those examples is that people can be inspired to bet heavily on their futures, putting all in on one final bet, betting the farm so to speak, on winning the war.

When it is defensive, as in the case of the Revolutionary War, the winners won a very temporary Liberty, from the moment the British left to the moment the British Agent Hamilton retook possession of all those subjects in America.

When it is offensive, such as the case in The Civil War, where the winners bet heavily on winning, and they win, then that is how Aggressive Wars for Profit are conducted on the Good Faith and Credit of the Slaves, or The American People as we are told to read from that false script.

A.
Defensive use of necessary credit (kill or be killed, fight or be enslaved, and borrowing from that intended future of Liberty)

B.
Offensive use of unnecessary credit (Might makes Right)

Throw bad words at Credit all they want, the proof of it working is illustrated in The Revolutionary War. The fact that much of the people "loaning" material support for that defensive war effort were actually committing fraud so as to be paid large profits from that "war" effort can be confused with the employment of Credit when Credit is necessary in defense of Liberty.

People loaned each other their property, their lives, their labor, their arms, legs, their production of boots, socks that never made it to the front (but the contract for socks was probably paid off eventually on par), and when it was all over many people were broke, starving, and in need of more credit. So what did the Bankers do then? In Massachusetts, for one example, they went all in, doubling down, or actually double dealing, betting the farms of other people, betting on Aggressive Wars for Profit into Canada. That is the story being told in those Whiskey Rebellions. That had to do with the Legal Criminals profiting from the wars, and learning how better to profit from the wars, and making The People foot the bills. It is all well documented. It is beyond "theory" or "Revisionist History" it is written as confessions, if not actual signed confessions, then confessions by actual documented actions.

The use of Credit didn't injure anyone. People used the concept of Credit to turn that concept into Debt Slavery. One is accurate, the other is false. One is the real deal, and the other is counterfeit.

There are people who claim that the Baby has to be thrown out with that bathwater. They may actually be the one's who drink the bathwater and eat babies, or they may be merely misdirected.

They may be ignorant, and they may be stuck in a closed loop with no way out.

"But would we need to connect the paper to something of value?"

Many versions of money connected to many measures of value can operate in many interconnected networks all at once, and that is easily proven, but the one connection that cannot be ignored (or questioned) is The IRS, The FED, and The Troops connection to The People who actually produce things of value, and that is all connected by those Federal Reserve Units of Legal Money backed by Fraud, by Extortion, by Torture, by Mass Murder, and this is not mere hearsay.

Anyone suffering Federal Income Tax "liabilities" is a victim of fraud, it is all written in black and white, in court cases, all over the place, since The IRS is a fraud from the start, along with The Federal Reserve, it is all Fraud.

Anyone suffering in any way connected to The IRS and The FED is a victim of FRAUD.

That is very well documented FACT.

In order to keep that fraud covered up there has to be much in the way of expending costs on keeping that ball rolling. Torture has been made legal, why?

Mass murder is legal all over the world, on our dimes, why?

Spreading Democracy?

Fighting Terrorism?

Saving the Children by burning them and crushing them under tanks?

It is all done to cover up the one big lie, and that lie goes all the way back to 1788, in our American history, and that one big lie goes all the way back to Jesus dealing with The Money Changers.

Who is the boss?

Straw Men?

You will defend that lie with the blood, sweat, and tears of your own life, and you (not you bear) with the blood of your children?

I am the nut case worthy of negative votes?

"Do you go by a weekly/monthly menu, or do you just cook what you feel like eating?"

When someone asks me what is for dinner I start listing ideas, and when someone says make that, then I make that, when I get noses turned up I don't make that, and spaghetti turns up the fewest noses most often.

Our tradition is to have no traditions.

Joe

Active tax payments?

Error messages, not stutter post - odd forum behavior

Joe

Comments on sources

Gary North
"The question is: Regulation by whom? With what authority?"

A power (which can be a false authority, not earned, rather stolen) can regulate the single supply of money in such a way as to cause a boom, by adding more than the demand, and by causing a bust, by subtracting more than the demand, and I know this may sound complicated to some people but such is reality.

Those who say they are bearing gifts of regulation may be those who are stealing power and using the stolen power to steal more through manipulation of the economy by manipulating the single legal money that is made the single legal money because taxes are not only involuntary they are of one money, no competition, tax payers must pay, and tax payers must pay with the one money.

If you do not understand that you will be ignorant about it for as long as you do not understand it, and that is merely factual.

Rothbard's hit piece.

If Rothbard had something to say as a criticism concerning Lysander Spooner's work on A New System of Paper Money, then Rothbard might have said anything concerning Spooner's work, but he did not, so the criticisms published have nothing to do with Spooner's actual work, and that is either error made from ignorance or error made from confusion, or it is willful deceit, libel, and error as a form of attack upon the message and the person being attacked, wrongfully, by Rothbard.

Here is the actual work done my Spooner:

http://lysanderspooner.org/node/40

Example:
"The best capital of all will probably be mortgages; and they may perhaps be the only capital, which it will ever be expedient to use."

I've read the work. It is sound money. Money is based upon ownership of Real Estate. Anyone having a criticism concerning the work, without actually referring to the work, is ignorant or willfully deceptive, this is factual.

Rothbard then speaks in vituperative language concerning another very important Friend of Liberty in history concerning some nebulous false, made up, and ambiguous "theory" about labor, which is nonsense in any sense, and therefore obviously a Straw Man Argument invented by people intending to slap that nonsense on their targets so as to then be able to defeat their targets who they say are proponents of nonsense in the form of some mysterious "Labor Theory of Value".

Who invented and supposedly believes in this mysterious "Labor Theory of Value"?

What is this "Labor Theory of Value"?

Who ever, anywhere, supported a "Labor Theory of Value"?

Tucker and Spooner supposedly support a "Labor Theory of Value"?

That is nonsense.

Spooner wrote a proposal called A New System of Paper Currency where value is based upon Real Estate Ownership.

Where is this "Labor Theory of Value"?

Tucker was a very important publisher in American History and one of his works was a periodical publication called LIBERTY.

Where did this Tucker person ever support a "Labor Theory of Value", so named?

If Rothbard had something to say about Tuckers thoughts on money then Rothbard could have just as easily found out the same thing I found out which is that Tucker was a supporter of the work done by Josiah Warren called Equitable Commerce.

If Rothbard has something to say about Equitable Commerce, then Rothbard could hardly pin his Straw Man on that work, because it was not "theory" it was scientific work done and proven in test cases, so the "theory" part was proven and therefore no longer "theory" but proven fact, and today there are still examples of current examples of Labor Dollars in use, so the scientific validity of the proof is ongoing, still being tested, and still being proven correct - repeatability in test results reinforcing the proof over time.

Note the wording of the Man of Straw, the lie, the deceit, the attack upon the innocent as the deceiver resorts to crime in the effort to discredit competitive issues of money - protecting a desire for MONOPOLY, and all the Power that goes with MONOPOLY.

Labor
Theory
of
Value

Who ever claims that labor does not have value?

That is utter nonsense. Labor by definition is valuable or no one would labor.

I plan on moving onto Menger, which uncovers more utter nonsense, and those who trust in nonsense can rationalize their "trust" as they must do, since non sense can't be proven, it is without sense.

Joe

It really helps to put this post in context...

if you read The Gold-Plated Sting that Josf has linked in the Sources.

In reply to the question posed in the title - Are Rothbard and Menger trustworthy? - I believe you would have to know the motives of Rothbard for his endorsement of a 100% reserve system. For Menger, I see nothing with what he said to suggest he should be untrustworthy. Short answer.

Rothbard (part 1):

There are good motives and bad motives that could have been associated with Rothbard's position regarding 100% reserve banking.

The bad motive can be easily understood by reading your link to Lew Rockwell's site - implying he endorsed it with intentions of theft. I don't subscribe to that, however.

More likely, he was trying to reverse the steps that got us into the situation that we are in at the present - provide a method for the public to reclaim part of the bullion through currency exchange. He probably figured this was the most workable solution given the politics of the time.

Rothbard (part 2):

I agree with Rothbard that the labor theory of value as he described it is inconsistent with my understanding of economics - which is more based on fundamental thought rather than academic training.

I am not sure what Spooner and Tucker were arguing for however. I apologize for not taking the time at present to go look it up.

Back to the source - If the fundamental argument is over the labor theory of money as described, Rothbard has a point - though not laid out in the text presented in the above comment.

Rothbard's point can be understood by considering a primitive barter economy. One person produces a product that has some trade value in the market - a trinket for 10 bananas maybe. As primitive craftsmen, some are more or less efficient than others at making the trinkets; however, this has no effect on the market value. The amount of labor that went into the trinkets is irrelevant to how much value was added to the economy.

The amount of value added to the economy in that scenario is the price of the trinket - which is likely set by the most efficient producers.

I don't see anything wrong in Rothbard's premises here. Like I said however, I am not familiar with Spooner and Tucker.

Menger:

Menger has a good point. Namely, in a society where all desired goods are absolutely abundant, no wealth is required to exist, and therefore, it would not exist. However, this is an idealization and could never occur in a practical sense, IMO.

The first paragraph from Menger you posted in the above comment gives the fundamental source of economic demand.

Like with the trinkets, the availability determines the price, and the price is inversely proportional to market supply. As production becomes more efficient, the supply increases, the price decreases - unless demand can be artificially stimulated to exceed normal levels and keep up with or outpace the supply. Then, the price would remain unchanged or increase, respectively.

I still trust Rothbard and Menger.

One Fallacy

Please consider the concept of Principle applied in actual work.

You may need to access those skills some day.

I'm guessing, of course, and I may be all wrong, of course.

How about explaining, exactly, why you believe that taxes must be involuntary - please - and if you move the goal post know that I will see such things happening in real time.

Joe

There is a narrow instance....

where tax in a representative form of government is voluntary that I can concoct.

I made the argument that taxing and (gov't) spending are equivalent - both extract wealth from the populace, even financed spending due to its consumption of available capital.

There is an exception to this, however. Taxing and spending are not equivalent when the government "spends" the tax money by simply giving back to the taxpayers the amount they paid in. But even this narrow situation is impossible. The representatives would likely have a payroll from that money. The taxes would still be voluntary up to the point where every person was satisfied with every representative that their tax money paid.

The instant tax money is spent in a non-agreeable way - for even one taxpayer - the tax is no longer completely voluntary.

For instance, I don't agree with the way my sister spends her money. So, I don't give her any money in general. Now, what if my sister asked me for money to buy her child clothes for school? I would voluntarily give her that money because I agreed with the purpose of the spending. However, what happens, if instead, my sister takes her friends out for a night on the town and wastes the entire sum?

The giving of money is only voluntary when one agrees with all the ways it will be spent - especially when the force of law is used to collect it.

See what I'm getting at?

Please

Can you explain why you believe that taxes must be involuntary - please - and if you move the goal post know that I will see such things happening in real time?

Joe

2 act play

Here is what I am getting out of all of this:

Josf: I think all taxes should be voluntary and I only want to pay what I want to pay.

dwalters: I think all taxes are involuntary and I don’t want to pay any of them, but I will because I have to.

Josf: Voluntary taxes are only paid if you want to for what you want to.

dwalters: I still don't want to pay any because if I do they are involuntary because I ain't volunteering.

What exactly am I missing in all of this as I laugh?

My guesses

Before I guess a guess as to what may be the problem with this failure to communicate I'm going to contrast an obvious successful process with the obvious unsuccessful one.

What does work to reach the common goal?

Bear:
Jesus will return some day, it is written in scripture.

Josf:
I want to believe as much, but for whatever reason that knowledge has not yet been my salvation.

Bear:
I understand.

Josf:
I trust that you do, and thanks for the help, teacher, I may need your help again, if that is possible.

Bear;
No, it is you who are helping me.

Josf:
Is that equity?

The process appears to be something along the lines of a mutual agreement and each can't dominate the other with superiority of any significance, for some reason.

Something may be a work that is not as definable as the rate of gravitational acceleration, something more along the lines of an inability to actually know what gravity is, exactly, and the willingness to admit ignorance?

Open minds?

What does not work, by contrast?

How can something that does not work be well defined, in contrast with that which does work, if the idea is to know better?

Josf: I think all taxes should be voluntary and I only want to pay what I want to pay.

If I may speak for myself while the door has been so graciously opened as if someone actually welcomed the news I may report despite the hazards often found in a steady supply of unfortunate events World Wide, if not in the gate, and at the door knocking.

A tax is something real or it is something pretending to be something real so which is it in this case?

1.
An actual thing.

2.
A counterfeit version of an actual thing (a false thing, which is a thing, but why call it a tax if in fact it is accurately measured as a deception, not a tax)?

From there anyone's guess is probably better than mine.

Joe

Time for Some Music

I didn't even have to put a quarter in!!! Imagine that it's free!!!

Except my netbook, electricity, and dsl charge, but oh well...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9Kcm2OAWNA

I don't think your missing much...

My point simply is that because Josf thinks some certain tax is voluntary and he/she agrees with the tax doesn't mean someone else agrees with the tax.

No tax can be completely voluntary. It's a farce.

The very fact that just I do not voluntarily agree to any tax, proves that taxes cannot be voluntary universally.

I did not create the rules of logic, but any absolute statement - such as the proposition of a voluntary form of taxation - only take one example to discredit.

To qualify voluntary taxation as an absolute statement, I would argue is equivalent to claiming - "There is a form of taxation ALL taxpayers will agree with ALL the time including absolute agreement with the way the taxes are spent."

Voluntary taxation does not exist. If one person protests, the tax is not voluntary.