Comment: Focus on the principles

(See in situ)


Focus on the principles

If you understand the difference between Enforced Monopoly (destroy competition) and Market Forces (no one is destroying competition), then the Gold Standard can make sense but there has to be an understanding of the concept of government.

Enforced Monopoly is bad, even if it is an enforced Gold Standard Monopoly.

Why?

Because there is no competition.

Competition, or Market Forces, forces the quality of products up (including money) and the costs of products down (including money).

What you will encounter when people argue against this or that is a point of view that destroys, or intends to destroy, competition.

Your point of view is competitive.

The person arguing wants to monopolize his own point of view.

Why is monopoly bad?

Your point of view may be true, his point of view may be false.

Which viewpoint wins according to the monopolist?

Which point of view wins if competition is not destroyed?

So a Gold Standard point of view could win out in a free market of money but there will be someone claiming that there has to be a monopoly of force, by this thing they call government, and they mean Monopoly Government, so your point of view will be crushed, snuffed out, because Monopoly always wins, just ask any Monopolist.

Me and my army, say the Monopolists, wins.

Not true.

In a Voluntary or Competitive Government there exists a Free Market of Governments too.

So now your viewpoint can continue to offer both a Voluntary or Free Market product called Money, and you offer a Gold Standard for that way of measuring money, AND, you offer that in a Voluntary or Free Market product called government, and you offer that Standard for that way of measuring government.

Already you may be thinking that I'm nuts, who knows, I don't, but if you have not figure this out yet, then it may be impossible for you to sell your Gold Standard to anyone - ever.

Monopoly wins, and if that is what you have in your brain, where you think that Monopoly of government force is necessary, then you are right, but it is only necessary if the goal is Monopoly, which is the same goal as the goal of destroying competition.

A Republic where there are competitive governments called States offered to the Market of tax payers, and each State joins, or does not join, and pays for, or does not pay for, a Federal Government, in that Voluntary Union, the force of all the Tax Payers voting with their feet (if all else fails to reign in government employees and force government employees to supply what the people want), where tax payers will fire (your fired) one State, and hire another State, at will, then there is in that way, that process, a market force, a sum total of all the free traders picking which State they want, a force of voters on foot, forcing the quality of the State up, and forcing the cost of the State down, in each case.

Now here is where the Gold Standard arrives on the scene.

After painting that voluntary picture of voluntary government and completely eliminating the Monopolists argument that involuntary taxes, and involuntary associations are necessary (for monopoly they are necessary but for competition they are not necessary and in fact involuntary associations eliminate competition), after destroying Monopoly with a competitive process that is higher in quality and lower in cost than Monopoly can ever pretend to be, after you do that, you usher in the concept of how a State pays Union Dues if a State wants to be a part of the Federated States.

Gold and Silver work as a very good way for a State to pay Union dues to pay the Employees who are hired to run the Federal part of the Voluntary Government.

Note: Oil may work as good as Gold, or Silver, in that competitive money used by State governments to pay the employees who are hired to run the Federal part of the voluntary Government.

Oil value may be depreciating, but it still fetches a sizable relative weight in Gold.

There you go.

In Liberty the use of a Gold Standard is a competitive method of payment between State and their employees who are hired to run the Federal Government. If a State can't make ends meet, being too despotic, having fewer tax payers because the tax payers are running away like runaway slaves, finding Liberty in better States that don't cost an arm and a leg, then that State can't afford to be in the voluntary Union AND that poor despotic State is probably a belligerent State that wastes a lot of power on failed aggressive wars for profit so it is better that no one finances it because if too many people finance a belligerent State within a Voluntary Union then that State may try to invade and take over other States by force (Civil War for example).

Too much information?

How about this:

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol3/...

"Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers that it is a national government, and no longer a Confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the general government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes does, of itself, entirely change the confederation of the states into one consolidated government. This power, being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of control, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly a confederation to a consolidated government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the state governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: the general government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than the state governments, the latter must give way to the former. Is it to be supposed that one national government will suit so extensive a country, embracing so many climates, and containing inhabitants so very different in manners, habits, and customs? It is ascertained, by history, that there never was a government over a very extensive country without destroying the liberties of the people: history also, supported by the opinions of the best writers, shows us that monarchy may suit a large territory, and despotic governments ever so extensive a country, but that popular governments can only exist in small territories. Is there a single example, on the face of the earth, to support a contrary opinion? Where is there one exception to this general rule? Was there ever an instance of a general national government extending over so extensive a country, abounding in such a variety of climates, &c., where the people retained their liberty? I solemnly declare that no man is a greater friend to a firm union of the American states than I am; but, sir, if this great end can be obtained without hazarding the rights of the people, why should we recur to such dangerous principles? Requisitions have been often refused, sometimes from an impossibility of complying with them; often from that great variety of circumstances which retards the collection of moneys; and perhaps sometimes from a wilful design of procrastinating. But why shall we give up to the national government this power, so dangerous in its nature, and for which its members will not have sufficient information?"

Think like a Monopolist and you get what you pay for - every time.

Joe