Comment: Comments on sources

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Sources (see in situ)

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:

"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.


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.