Comment: Kidnapping

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I used ransom, because the (see in situ)


"I used ransom, because the Legal Criminals have already kidnapped us, so to speak."

That to me is a very good angle of view if the idea includes the fact that we are born into this mess, where previous generations have already been manipulated into tolerating the empowerment of criminals into public office.

"However, you are correct, extortion is the proper term because paying ransom does nothing in hope of being set free, but rather keeps further pain from being inflicted."

Again the angle of view can factor in the scale of time. Now the viewpoint expresses time preferences, which is a concept that was well communicated by Hans Hoppe (who I met at an Austrian Economic Convention), the idea involves the competitive comparison between short term or long term consequences resulting from specific actions.

The extortionist arrives at the door:

"Pay me my protection money."

"Protection from what?"

"I'll break your legs if you don't pay me now, so you are being protected from having your legs broken. See?"

So the short term benefit is to avoid having broken legs, but by the time your kids grow up you may have bought into the scam so heavily that the extortionists are all powerful and their victims are completely powerless - relatively speaking.

Selling out, or selling short, or a put option on futures of doom. The smart ones try to squeeze out as much gain, at the expense of everyone else, despite the long odds on Liberty, or so the thinking goes, I suppose. Few are confessing with accurate currency.

Older books help. I found one titled Confessions of a Monopolist. Hold on I'll get a link.

Legal Crimes

That shows how it is done, a confession, the link between "public" and "private" called fascism, or Legal Crime, where those who prefer less competition hire those in public office supposedly preserving liberty to enforce despotism instead, just a small cut in the overall scheme of things, but definitely a transfer of power from those who produce power to those who then use that power to steal more power from those who produce power = monopoly.

The fraud is moved from a voluntary tax paid by people hiring specialists to protect them: to an extortion fee paid by victims to criminals (made legal) so as to avoid a present serious injury without concern for the long term greater injury to future generations.

Hop aboard: this train is bound for Economic Collapse and Hell on Earth.

Those who begin to figure it out, which are few people out of the whole, are presented with a false choice:

Game the game and take what you can while the taking is good.

Suffer more as a victim while holding onto outdated concepts such as equity, morality, charity, and yes: Liberty.

Out with the golden rule, out with the hypocritical oath, out with any sense of an accurate, logical, reasonable, agreeable, sense of right and wrong, and in with might making right, us with our army.

Hidden from view, on purpose, are the opt out options, which are as many options as there are grains in the sand, and that is the point behind monopoly (or extortion), the only choices in view are non-choices.

Criminals and victims agree, voluntarily, that there are no options.

Join (as a criminal)

Join (as a victim)

Who keeps score?

We lose

If money can be seen as the tool used by people to share information, then what happens when that tool is purposefully deceptive?

Fraudulent money is a method by which some are able to gain at the expense of others and please consider reading the following section of a larger work:

Parasite City

This is where the Austrian Economists join to club with the Keynesian Economists in keeping their dirty little secrets under wraps, insider information, need to know basis, not for public consumption, intellectual property wrongs, and other such form of monopoly or censorship.

There was a time before the Civil War when many champions of liberty wrote things worth reading, and those things are avoided by all on the Monopoly Wagon like Superman avoids Kryptonite, and more like Vampires avoiding sunlight.

If those few are mentioned they are demonized, insulted, and misrepresented, as a rule, and it ain't the golden rule.

Don't ever mention the unmentionables, but if you must, then twist, and spin, and make damn sure the truth never can see the light of day.

It is very interesting stuff, even though it is so terribly, and horribly, tragic.

"So with the Liberty Challenge, I do not have to come up with my own competitive monetary currency?"

I may run out of time to respond immediately, but my goal is to return later, for now I can rush in a few more words.

You may want to pick up a copy of Ben Franklin's Auto Biography, and know more than I can offer on that subject, from a "how to" do it perspective that isn't theory.

I grew up and through wage slavery, and I had a lot of fun, I am competitive that way. I did not live the life of an industrious entrepreneur, inventing new and exciting ways to out do all the other competitors in liberty, but the answer is yes, definitely yes, that you, me, and everyone else has to offer each other an improved example.

Read also Albert Jay Nock (Our Enemy The State) on that point of offering society an improved example. Why is your money (whatever that form may become according to you and your power to compete) any worse than anyone ease's money?

Worst case = 1 Fraud Money enforced upon all

Best case = Not the worst case

When there are 2 instead of 1 choices there is then, obviously, measurably, accurately account ably, a better and a worse, a cheaper and a more expensive money. What happens when there is no need to pay someone for the permission to compete (which is a fraud)?

You can go to Equitable Commerce and understand much more, and do so quickly, it is a small book, written by Josiah Warren in the early 1800s, before The (not so) Civil War.

What happens when anyone can make their own money?

You don't know, but that does not mean that the experiment wasn't tried, just because you don't know something doesn't mean that it can't happen, as it did happen, and it worked great, according to those who tried it. Who could stop them?

You and what army?

I have to go now, and much of your questions concerning how Legal Criminals identify their Top Ten, and Top 100, so on and so forth, can be well explained by Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn in his book The Gulag Archipelago (a top 10 on the reading list for Political Economists in my opinion).