Comment: It seems like after

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Lack of Regulation is the problem (see in situ)

It seems like after

six plus years you ought not still be getting lost on that point. Lack of regulation is the problem? Oh my ...

Money governs. Take a look around and I will wager you would be hard pressed to find anyone who does not want or seek money. The rule of money is guaranteed while it is in extremely high demand.

RE: "We got into the situation that we're in, precisely because there was no clear law, and no clear regulation against crooked Bankers lobbying Congress, and bribing them (or funding their proxies) to take complete control of everything."

Let's hop in a time machine and go back to the 1930's. Remember Congressman Louis T. McFadden:

""Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of constitutional privilege.

"Whereas, I charge. . .Eugene Meyer, Roy A. Young, Edmund Platt, Eugene B. Black, Adolph Casper Miller, Charles S. Hamlin, George R. James, Andrew W. Mellon, Ogden L. Mills, William H. Woo W. Poole, J.F.T. O'Connor, members of the Federal Reserve Board; F. H. Curtis, J.H. Chane, R.L. Austin, George De Camp, L.B. Williams, W.W. Hoxton, Oscar Newton, E.M. Stevens, J.S. Wood, J.N. Payton, M.L. McClure, C.C. Walsh, Isaac B. Newton, Federal Reserve Agents, jointly and severally, with violations of the Constitution and laws of the United States, and whereas I charge them with having taken funds from the U.S Treasury which were not appropriated by the Congress of the United States, and I charge them with having unlawfully taken over $80,000,000,000 from the U.S. Government in the year 1928, the said unlawful taking consisting of the unlawful creation of claims against the U.S. Treasury to the extent of over $80,000,000,000 in the year 1928; and I charge them with similar thefts committed in 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933, and in years previous to 1928, amounting to billions of dollars; and "

That is just the first paragraph of one speech in which the charges levied are quite extensive. So what happened to McFadden's resolution? Not a dam thing ...

RE: "It was not the presence of law and regulation that made this possible. It was the absence of law and regular that permitted this corruption to flourish."

Complete hogwash. Let us consider all of the charges McFadden laid before Congress. Theft of gold, defrauding the United States, false entries to books of account, permitting acceptance bankers and discount dealer corporations and other private bankers to violate the banking laws of the U.S, unlawful issues and advances of Fed currency on the security of artificially created evidences of debt, debts and losses of the Fed Board and the Fed Banks unlawfully transferred to the Government and the people of the U.S., obtaining money under false pretenses, unlawfully exporting U.S. coins and currency, unlawfully raised and lowered the rates of money, unlawful operations in the open discount market and by resale and repurchase agreements unsanctioned by law, unlawful manipulation of money rates and the volume of U.S. money and currency in circulation, concealing the insolvency of the Fed and with having failed to report the insolvency of the Fed to the Congress, unlawfully failing to report violations of law on the part of the Fed Banks, unlawfully allowing Great Britain to share in the profits of the Fed at the expense of the Government, entering into secret agreements and illegal transactions with Montague Norman, Governor of the Bank of England, swindling the U.S. Treasury, conspiring and acting against the peace and security of the U.S.

You don't think there were laws against any of those charges? Get real with the lawlessness nonsense.

RE: "A stronger system of laws and regulation, would have made private bankers controlling all our money -- an illegal construct"

Could we have expected the same Congress that did not act on McFadden's resolution passed to the Judiciary Committee to do anything? Could we have expected a progressive executive wholly committed to increasing the size of scope of government by executive orders to enforce anything? Could we expect anything from a judicial branch that held most new deal legislation unconstitutional and then went along with it after Roosevelt threatened to stack the Supreme Court? Any suggestion laws would have any impact is an absurd one. There has never been a shortage or absence of law in the United States. Quite the opposite is true, laws have only ever greatly increased.

I find it hard to believe one could even suggest a law would make any difference. How many of the vast laws against official wrong doing are enforced against police abuses which occur frequently?

RE: "So what we the people have to do, is take the government away from the Corporations and Banksters, and operate it ourselves"

Good luck with that. Could you imagine a roundtable of founders suggesting what we have to do is take the crown and operate it ourselves?

All limited theories of government to keep power in check have failed miserably. Who has paid the price for these terribly bad ideas? If we want to talk about justice, I say anyone who has ever espoused separation of powers or eternal vigilance can keep a strong central government in check ought to be hung for the sheer amount of misery their ideas have inflicted upon humanity. That would be justice.

The only way limited government could even possibly happen is if people believe it to be in their best interests, which a majority does not verified by any number of polls. On a personal note, since limited government or anarchy can only really work among an educated, tolerant people I have zero intention of selling failed theories or second best solutions.

RE: "We got into this mess because a bunch of rich guys had the freedom to co-opt and overthrow the government"

No, we got into this mess the same way we got into the modern right to travel fiasco. A few rich guys had automobiles and all the rest of the people said ... hey we need a law to deal with these rich automobile owners always being in a hurry and causing problems on roads dominantly used by horses and carriage. There was already plenty of law to deal with harming others or damaging property but the people wanted a new law just for automobiles and they got it.

Well guess what they forgot? All those little people using horses and carriage wanted to be rich and like the rich just like they want credit cards so they can be like the rich. They did get their laws but those laws have now been shoved up the anus of all the American people in driver licensing and vehicle registration schemes so vast they control almost every aspect of modern life.

I will tell you what I find most absurd about your post. We are going to create a gun. This gun is going to be called government. Whoever controls the gun can point it at whomever or whatever they want but we are going to set up a rule to determine who can control the gun. Here is the rule: only the most popular people elected by a majority get to control the gun.

So ... how do you think something like that happens? I will tell you how. Whoever has access to the most money to do the most advertising is going to be the odds on favorite in any popularity contest. What is offensive is that you have no problem with a system designed to benefit whoever has money but then bitch when people with money get their way.

The only historically proven check against money is competition which has been repeatedly verified by bankruptcy. I am interested in competition in justice and currency. I am not interested in giving a gun which can be pointed in any direction by whomever has access to the most money so they can win some popularity contest.