Comment: Missing the point?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Indeed, a gold coin can be (see in situ)

Missing the point?

"...inexpensive instruments..."

Modern technology in accurate communication lowers the expense of World Wide Trade for individual traders trading on an individual small scale.

That was a point offered, if you miss that point, then you might come up with a defense of Gold that defends no attack by me.

Gold simply, without argument, is more expensive than modern technological advantages to accurate communication in facilitating voluntary trading, and again the individual small scale example is offered, whereby many individual small scale trades constitute a very large market collectively.

As to very large scale trades done by very large collectivist organizations such as corporations and states the use of Gold is valuable, I suppose, as an insurance against trading with frauds. I do not run corporations or states, so I don't know, but I do know that the costs of acquiring Gold so as to offset the costs of errors by which trades are made with frauds is SOUND in practice if not in principle according to those who claim to have such authority.

How about pirates?

If I ship a gold coin to Australia from California instead of merely pressing keys on a keyboard so as to get a book in a Library in Australia is it more likely that the pirates are going to intercept the Gold coin compared to the likelihood of shipping electronic digits?

Again the answer is not easy, and therefore a potential source of confusion, as if mimicking the question itself, our capacity to share ideas is confused by the same concept of piracy.

If the electronic transfer is denominated eventually into "dollars" then there is piracy at work, but it is no different that a person subjected to Federal Income Tax sending gold coins from California, as the event of payment ends up being a transfer of Fraud Notes (Federal Reserve Notes) from the victim in California to the pirates in the Corporation known as U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) in any event before or after a simple International trade involving money (gold or electronic digits) and a book.

I happened to have actually bought a book from an Australian Library, where it was at that time the only place I could find the book, and I had the book photocopied to me, page by page, and I helped get that book published on a Web Page. That book was Stephen Pearl Andrews book titled The Science of Society. His work can now be read by people interested in what he had to say without having to here what he had to say from second hand sources that have proven to be unreliable second hand sources.

"Gold as money is neither expensive nor inexpensive, that is not the manner in which gold money is judged."

That is demonstrably false, and most of the Gold Bugs I have run into are quick to dispel such falsehoods. Why are you spreading falsehoods at this point?

"If you think in terms of fiat money then perhaps you can say that in relationship to fiat dollars gold appear to be expensive in the nominal valuation of the fiat currency."

If you are spreading these falsehoods willfully, then you are finding a reason for doing so, and if so what is the reason? If you are spreading these falsehoods without reason, as if you are merely parroting something someone told you, and you believe that your falsehoods are true, then you can't answer the question of why, even if you wanted to answer the question of why you are spreading these falsehoods.

Gold is expensive money, that is an obvious measure made by anyone who does not have any, anyone who does have some, and anyone who seeks to use Gold in any trade for anything else, all by it's own, Gold is expensive, without any need to compare it to anything else, but even so, when comparing Gold to competitive money, Gold is then relatively expensive or inexpensive depending upon individual competitive money forms, and compared to individual trades.

"But, when we think properly of the purchase value of our fiat dollar..."

Which "fiat" dollar are you speaking about, you alone, there is no "we" unless you have a mouse in your pocket sharing your falsehoods, whereby the mouse can testify as being one sharing your falsehoods.

Which "fiat" dollar?

1. Accurate accounting "fiat" dollar

2. False on purpose "fiat" dollar (fraudulent)

If you are speaking about 1 and not 2 then the costs to the victims of 1 is NULL because there are no costs to the victim in the case of 1, and if you are speaking about 2 not 1 then the costs to the victims are the profits gained by the frauds in the case of 2.

Are you deliberately trying to confuse 1 with 2 as if there is only 2 and as if there never was, is not now, and never can be an accurately accounted "fiat" dollar?

If you are deliberately trying to confuse 1 with 2 then my next question that you probably won't answer is why are you deliberately trying to confuse 1 with 2?

"Thus, the appearance of gold being expensive is only in terms of the face value of the fiat dollar, not the purchase value."

If you think you need to convince someone, me for example, that the Federal Reserve System is fraudulent then you need not waste your energy on me, and if you still want to convince someone else, then it might be a good idea for you to find someone who appreciates your efforts to convince them of the obvious measures of just how fraudulent the Federal Reserve System of Fraud is in fact.

Here is a book on that subject (I have a copy):

http://www.amazon.com/The-Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal/dp/...

Here is an official confession as to how criminal the criminals who took over government are in fact:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

"You do raise a particularly interesting issue, that of a criminal government, which I am of the opinion that we have had a criminal government, illegitimate for the last 150 years, with criminal elements residing in seats of power much longer than that."

I am just passing on, or parroting, the warnings offered by those who saw the criminals taking over the government in 1787, so the length of time that the criminals have been at work is longer than 150 years, in case you want to know the facts concerning the false "Federal" government.

Powers are at work, as we speak, to take it back.

"However, we must consider the actions of people under such circumstances."

Cases in point:

1. Current
http://nationallibertyalliance.org/site/docs/Quo%20Warranto.pdf
"For purposes of obtaining full disclosure."

2. Past
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes to a painful truth - and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of…
—Patrick Henry

I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of...it is now time for full disclosure. When those hired to secure Liberty become those destroying it, who then governs the governors based upon government by consent of the governed (voluntary government)?

Only me?

Who defends the criminals so as to perpetuate crime made legal?

Those not knowing any better?

"Even with the threat of heavy fines and imprisonment, only 22% of Americans obeyed the illegal edicts of the FDR when he illegally confiscated the money property of the People and defaulted on the U.S. government obligations."

Your words contradict your earlier words here:

"Gold as money is neither expensive nor inexpensive, that is not the manner in which gold money is judged."

One expense of Gold as money is the expense, or cost, of having it stolen by criminals with or without badges; and you reported that actual fact after you claimed the opposite as if both opposite facts are true, which they can't be true, even if you keep claiming so.

"If this government was foolish enough to seek to repeat that act, I have a feeling that the level of resistance would be far greater now then it was then."

Again, if you mean "government" can be held to account for being "foolish" then say so, since that is another falsehood. If you mean that there are a list of people who you want to hold to account as being "foolish" and you use the one word "government" so as not to have to list all the names who are all the names on the list of "foolish" people, then say so, and then we may move onto finding which people on the list are the ones who are "foolish" according to you.

"Actually, during the history of this country there were several commodities that served as money, not just whiskey, but tobacco, cattle, woolen cloth, flax linen. The point however of gold, and to a lesser degree silver, is that they have a better utility to serve as money with a weight to value ratio that is extremely difficult to compete with."

Paypal was a competitor and it was taken over, or incorporated into the crime organization, I have witnessed that myself. The Liberty Dollar and the E-Gold competitors were, or are, being crushed out of existence, and I can link sources reporting these examples. If you are looking to find someone who you think is in need of knowing how good Gold is, as if you are trying to sell Gold, then you can save your energy because your efforts are wasted on me. I am in no position to buy any Gold, and if I were in any position to buy Gold I would not waste my time with Gold, I have productive things I want to do, and I have no interest in storing surplus wealth. Gold is not used as currency, and if it does suddenly or slowly return into use as currency, then, but not until then, I too will be using Gold as currency.

Why waste your time selling me Gold now, if that is what you are doing?

"...the People’s mint..."

Just to be clear, please, are you speaking as a socialist or are you speaking as a communist when you speak of "...the People's mint...," and please don't skip past this vital question?

"...the government could not..."

Again, are you speaking as if there is this entity that is accountable or are you speaking about a list of names whereby you are not yet going to hold actual people to an accurate accounting?

"Even the term “regulate the value thereof” didn’t mean regulating the price..."

If you are speaking about the actual people who wrote promises to be broken, in that Con Con of 1787, such as James Madison, then you may want to find out which of the members of those Secret Proceedings where criminals and which were not, and James Madison is a good study, since he started out working for the criminals and then he turned his coat back to the side that defends Liberty. So your specific quote, if it refers back to the Con Con of 1787 may be just another promise made by criminals whereby their intent was to promise anything to gain power and then use the power they gain to commit crimes.

Example: "Read my lips, no more taxes."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5DZBFbMdjI

“regulate the value thereof”

Some lies work better than other lies?

"...didn’t mean regulating the price..."

According to whose authority?

Here is a case of price regulation, if you care to know the facts:

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/whiskey/...

If you want help in understanding how that is case of regulating the price then you can find help. If not, then not.

"The government was not involved with money or the contracts between individuals in their usage of money."

Alexander Hamilton as Treasurer, and George Washington as Dictator of the Corporation/"government" was involved with money in the events that became known as The Whiskey Rebellion. If you refuse to know this then why waste my time with your falsehoods any longer?

Are you only here to sell gold to someone, and if so you are wasting your time on me.

"As a Disunionist, I am of the firm belief that the States, being Free and Independent in character should dissolve this Compact of Union formed under the Constitution and in doing so create new governments that are more inclined toward local administration, autonomous of any centralized government that has been corrupted by the power a criminal central banking cartel enables."

I am against that for reasons of the defense of Liberty in this country against very large armies of aggression that may try to take over one constitutionally limited republic at a time, so the concept of a Voluntary Union among Constitutionally Limited Republics is a very sound concept if it remains voluntary.

So the only problem is the problem of the Union going from Voluntary as it was under The Articles of Confederation, to an Involuntary Union as it is now under The Constitution.

The two cases that prove the facts of the matter were Shays's Rebellion under The Articles of Confederation, and then The Whiskey Rebellion under The Constitution.

In the Former the Voluntary Union POWER or Federal Government had no POWER to assemble a conscripted (slave) army to enforce a money monopoly, in the later there was that POWER employed by both Alexander Hamilton and George Washington.

If each constitutionally limited Republic declares it's independence from both The Federal Reserve System of Fraud and the Internal Revenue System of Extortion, both Criminal powers centralized in the Corporation known as U.S.A. Inc. (LLC), there remains to be the problem of who is in charge of who in any form of Military power, including local Police, Sheriffs, Federal Marshals, State Militia, or Federal Standing Armies, and, now, Mercenaries that include many foreign troops housed in this country as I type.

Joe