article of the day (post 'em when you find 'em)

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: article of the day (post 'em when you find 'em)

Post by attofishpi »

promethean75 wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 3:30 am henry's a gun techie then. that article was a good speed-read. alright everybody list all the guns that u have ever owned or shot or both.

here's mine in actual chronological order. Note the gradual increase in caliber as the young prom grows to become an avid hunter and sportsman.

0.  water gun
1.  BB gun
2.  break barrel single shot 4-10 shotgun
3.  bolt action .22 caliber rifle
4.  20 guage semi-automatic shotgun
5.  12 guage semi automatic shotgun
6.  12 guage pump action shotgun
7.  .30-30 lever action rifle
8.  .30-06 semi automatic rifle
9.  muzzle loader black powder rifle
10.  .22 snub nose revolver
11.  .44 'blackhawk' magnum revolver
12.  .380 semi automatic pistol
13.  9 mm semi automatic pistol

never shot a machine gun, assault rifle or bazooka.
Does PUBG count?
Walker
Posts: 14245
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: article of the day (post 'em when you find 'em)

Post by Walker »

Question: Do the citizens of China possess weapons of self-defense against government aggression?

Crowds Angered by Lockdowns Call for China’s Xi to Step Down
https://www.breitbart.com/news/protests ... na-cities/
Walker
Posts: 14245
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: article of the day (post 'em when you find 'em)

Post by Walker »

Christian persecution is worsening amid Western denial
Friday, November 18, 2022
by Karen Faulkner, Worthy News Correspondent

(Worthy News) – A new report by Aid to the Church in Need (ACN) attests that persecution against Christians in certain parts of the world is worsening dramatically – and that Western denial of the situation is endangering believers, Christian Today reports. Titled ‘Persecuted and Forgotten?,’ the ACN report documents an increase in Christian persecution in 24 countries between October 2020 and September 2022.

Among the countries reviewed in the report, seven are in Africa, where ACN noted “a sharp increase in genocidal violence from militant non-state actors, including jihadists,” Christian Today reports. The situation is especially dire in Nigeria, where persecution against Christians “clearly passes the threshold of genocide,” the ACN report says.

Islamic jihadists are also responsible for terrorizing Christian communities in the Middle East: “A revival of jihadism has the potential to deliver a knock-out blow for Christianity in its ancient heartland,” the report said. Christians in Iraq and Syria continue to be attacked by ISIS-affiliated groups.

Meanwhile, in Asia, in countries including Myanmar, China, Vietnam, and North Korea, state authoritarianism is “the critical factor” in the intensifying persecution of Christians. “At its worst, freedom of religion and conscience is being strangulated [in these countries],” the ACN report says. Afghanistan, however, is “the worst offender” in this due to the return of the Taliban.

“Indicators strongly suggested that over the period under review, the persecution of Christians continued to worsen in core countries of concern, the ACN report concludes.”Systematic violence and a climate of control meant that in countries as diverse as North Korea, China, India and Burma, the oppression of Christians increased. Part of the problem is a cultural misperception in the West that continues to deny that Christians remain the most widely persecuted faith group.”
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: article of the day (post 'em when you find 'em)

Post by henry quirk »

https://ncc-1776.org/tle2022/tle1184-20221127-03.html

On the Militia Part 2

by D. McKenzie Smith

To recap the earlier article, it was 'We the people...' and a collection of 13 sovereign nations (States) that ratified the Constitution. The founders and the Constitution itself made the issue of power and control absolutely clear. The federal government was one of few and very limited powers. The people and the States retained all other powers. The federal government was to take care of international relations. That is about all. The States were to take care of everything else. And, when one thinks about it. the States are entirely capable of taking care of all local issues.

As noted, the federal government was not to have or control a full time ('standing') army. If the nation needed military troops, it would get them from the States. That was the reason for a citizen militia controlled by the States.

The Second Amendment.

It doesn't take a genius to understand what the Second Amendment is saying, especially after reading what the founders said on the issue of citizen control of 'their' government.

The Amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." We will break this down into understandable bites.

Back in their day, 'well regulated' meant 'well trained', not well controlled from above. If the militia was to be government 'regulated' in today's use of the term, the feds would control what they were prohibited from having or controlling: a 'standing army'.

The statement of purpose is in the phrase 'being necessary to the security of a free State (nation)' The militia was seen as necessary to a State of free people. The Amendment was to protect the States and the people from overpowering federal government.

The last phrase of the Amendment should be self-explanatory. The natural right of people, as individuals, to keep (own and control) and bear (carry with them) firearms of their choice, may not be interfered with. The term 'infringed' means touched upon, much less seriously altered, by 'rule making or legislation'. If the People and the States are to be, at all times better armed than any force the feds can conjure up, it stands to reason that the right of the People cannot be interfered with by the federal government.

It is only liars and those who twist 'meanings' out of the text that can read the Second Amendment any other way.

President Washington was quoted as calling the militia 'the people's liberty teeth'. It can hardly remain as that, if the people allow the federal power to remove the right which gives people and States control over the federal government.

Literally all the State constitutions note that the right to own and control the use of firearms is retained by the people. The Pennsylvania Constitution puts it this way, "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Take heed of two points: the right is for self defense and defense of the State. The latter probably means 'from federal encroachments', as well as from outside invaders. Note also that the right may not even be questioned. Some of the liars will suggest that they are not questioning the right. That is correct: they are 'just' removing it!

West Virginia added their statement of the right in the 1960's! It reads, "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use." All uses of firearms are included in the right to control the issue. Otherwise the feds can just generate 'reasons' and remove the right...which is what they have been doing for about a century.

One of the excuses the federal government has used to take away guns is the 'sporting use' lie. Under this fable, people only have a right to hunting and sporting firearms, not military type weapons. But, since the militia was created as a potential control over the federal government, and to repel invasions, the people (the militia) cannot be deprived of military weapons. This West Virginia statement puts the 'sporting uses' lie to rest. The federal government may not interfere with the ownership or use of military type weapons under any excuse or lie. But it has, by 'law' and by presidential decree (limits on magazine capacities and such), been taking away our guns for nearly a century.

There are at least three separate reasons for citizen control of firearms. Each one is a valid reason for the right to exist and be defended. Taken together, they are a three-fold reason for not allowing any level of government to interfere with firearms ownership or usage.

1. To keep the ultimate power of coercion out of federal hands, and in the hands of the people. It was centralized power that the founders were trying to prevent.

2. Personal self defense. Removing arms from citizens makes them into victims; of ordinary criminals as well as tyrants. Prohibiting or restricting firearms to people is a criminal act by the government.

3. All other reasons, from hunting for food to 'recreational' or 'sporting' uses, as stated in the West Virginia Declaration of Rights, are rights in themselves.

The federal government is tasked with arming and training the militia. This is found in Article I, Section 8, paragraph 16 of the Constitution.

The militia was to be the armed force for individuals, for localities, for the States and for the nation if there was a real need.

Literally all wars fought by the U. S., from that War of 1812 through the Spanish-American War (1898), were all fought by State Militia troops. Just look at the unit flags of the 'Civil' War. They were all State flags.

The Swiss model proves that the militia system works at any level. Every man of adult age is equipped by the government with a modern military rifle, ammunition, and equipment as necessary, and is regularly trained in their use. Women who choose to join are welcomed into the Swiss militia. The Swiss have tank forces, fighter jets, artillery and all the other items needed for defense in great depth. All members of the Swiss system are cross-trained in specialties like artillery.

The Swiss are an example of how a militia system should work. One needs to ask why 'our government' is doing the opposite.

The bottom line that makes many people uncomfortable is that armed people control nations and politics. If the power of guns is a government monopoly, the people have nothing with which to resist tyranny or oppression.

Those who control the guns, own the nation. That is why the people and the States were to be, at all times, better armed than their 'servants' in the federal government. Many of the founders said it just that way.

Mao, the great mass murderer of his own people, put it bluntly, "Political power comes out of the barrel of a gun." And he wanted to control all the guns.

Hitler and Lenin used gun laws to disarm those they intended to kill off.

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership offers a book that records the use of gun laws to disarm groups that a government wanted to kill off. That is why there have been several genocides in the last hundred years.

If you really believe in 'power to the people', go get a gun and learn how to use it.

Many 'gun laws' have been struck down by courts. In Nunn v Georgia, 1 Ga 243, the court noted that, just because the people forbade the feds from creating anti-gun 'laws' did not mean that those same people intended to let States do so. That statement is so obvious that it can escape attention. Since the people forbade the federal government from creating and enforcing anti-gun laws...those same people could not have meant for the States to begin disarming them.

The National Firearms Act was the first illegal control of militia equipment that has not been struck down by the courts. It is illegal because it denies military tools to the militia. Art I, Sect 8, para 16 states that the feds are required to arm and train the militia, not disarm it and disuse it. What the federal government has been doing for nearly a century is quietly destroying the militia. Meanwhile, the feds have ownership and control over the military the government was prohibited from even having.

A hundred and sixty odd years ago, the federal government began violating people's rights and State's rights, and getting away with it.

President Lincoln, contrary to some of his statements, committed treason against citizens in at least three ways.

1. He jailed people, particularly publishers and journalists, for not supporting his war efforts.

2. He disregarded due process, which requires that people be charged with a crime, and that the crime be proven in court.

3. He also disregarded Habeas Corpus, which requires officials to prove that they have arrested a citizen for legitimate reasons.

Not only was Lincoln not removed from office and prosecuted, most soldiers and police 'followed orders', joining in the president's crimes. This is one of the main reasons the founders, and freedom minded people generally, resist each new federal incursion on people and their rights.

Please note that, during the 'civil' war, Confederate President Jefferson Davis was advised to do as Lincoln had done in the north; jail anyone who did not support the war. But he refused, stating that one of the reasons for leaving the U. S. was abuse of power by federal authorities. Some historians claim that one reason the South failed to win that war was because President Davis and the war effort were hampered by some very vocal critics.

Lincoln also committed treason against the States. We will next look at the issue of secession.

There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits or even hints that a State may not leave the union. During the War of 1812, several States considered leaving the nation. The New England States got together in Hartford at a convention to decide if all of the New England States would secede together! New York refused to allow its militia to be used in a planned invasion of Canada, as New York considered that to be invading a neighboring nation. This was back in a time when the States remembered that they were sovereign on many issues.

The southern States seceded individually, and then formed the Confederacy. They joined voluntarily, and they left voluntarily. They departed peacefully. It was provocations by Lincoln that caused the shooting war to start at Ft. Sumpter. Carolina reasoned that no outside nation could keep a fort in a Carolina harbor. All of the southern States saw themselves as defending themselves against invasion.

If the northern States, or at least some of them, had refused to send their militia troops for federal use against the South, there never would have been a 'civil' war.

The 'civil' war remains the most deadly war the U. S. has ever been involved in. Thomas Dilorenzo, in his book 'The Real Lincoln', made the case that the war was Lincoln's personal decision, and Lincoln encouraged the most savage treatment of the citizenry, against all applicable 'rules of war' for the time.

By the 1860's, the U. S. federal government had already become tyrannical. It just had not created a federal standing army...yet.

The U. S. has become the controller of the world, one step at a time. 'Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq' by Stephen Kinzer is the story of U. S. imperialism and meddling in other nation's affairs. It began with taking over Hawaii in the mid 1800's. It continued when the U. S. annexed the Philippines after the Spanish-American War, and colonized those islands for more than three decades.

If nations don't do what the U. S. tells them to do, they first get economic sanctions placed against them. If that fails to get them to comply, harsher methods, including invasion, will follow. This is one reason why our federal government was prohibited from having an army.

The various levels of government have gotten into two bad habits: bad for us. They have generated all manner of illegal (unconstitutional) 'laws' to control us and to remove our rights. These they enforce through the police and the courts. On the other hand, the government does not do some things it is mandated to do, like arm and train the militia. This is the total reversal of roles of master and servant. Sovereign citizens have become controllable entities, while 'public servants' order citizens around like children.

Take the recent Supreme Court ruling that New York City could not operate a system of rights removal by local 'laws', specifically the permitting system for carrying firearms. So the mayor just instituted other local 'laws' that did virtually the same thing. He created 'gun free zones' so numerous that people cannot carry a gun without stepping into one of the mayor's 'gun free zones'. So, the people will be forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars and years of their lives, to fight basically the same question back through the courts again and again. This illegal activity by the New York government is called 'fatiguing them into compliance'. And, if some people do take the time and effort to take the specific issue through court, the politicians will just make another 'law' to deny people the right to self defense. They know what they are doing: violating the Law.

President Biden, or his handlers, have stated that they intend to end the right to own and bear arms. They intend to actually take all guns from the people. They call it 'confiscation', which is government language for 'stealing' from people.

This is no longer a government under law, nor is it a group of 'public servants'. The federal and State governments have been joined by many local governments in doing the opposite of their job, and are busy destroying the last vestiges of freedom.

What do they fear? Us. The federal government has been taking on powers it is not allowed to have, including removing the right to arms, and disusing the militia. They are afraid that we will wake up.

Are we going to let the usurpers remove the last of our rights, and the main tool of freedom?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: article of the day (post 'em when you find 'em)

Post by henry quirk »

http://southsidemessenger.com/bonhoeffe ... ire-quote/

Bonhoeffer on Stupidity

Averett Jones

Taken from a circular letter, addressing many topics, written to three friends and co-workers in the conspiracy against Hitler, on the tenth anniversary of Hitler’s accession to the chancellorship of Germany…

‘Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease. Against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed - in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical – and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self-satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack. For that reason, greater caution is called for than with a malicious one. Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous.

‘If we want to know how to get the better of stupidity, we must seek to understand its nature. This much is certain, that it is in essence not an intellectual defect but a human one. There are human beings who are of remarkably agile intellect yet stupid, and others who are intellectually quite dull yet anything but stupid. We discover this to our surprise in particular situations. The impression one gains is not so much that stupidity is a congenital defect, but that, under certain circumstances, people are made stupid or that they allow this to happen to them. We note further that people who have isolated themselves from others or who live in solitude manifest this defect less frequently than individuals or groups of people inclined or condemned to sociability. And so it would seem that stupidity is perhaps less a psychological than a sociological problem. It is a particular form of the impact of historical circumstances on human beings, a psychological concomitant of certain external conditions. Upon closer observation, it becomes apparent that every strong upsurge of power in the public sphere, be it of a political or of a religious nature, infects a large part of humankind with stupidity. It would even seem that this is virtually a sociological-psychological law. The power of the one needs the stupidity of the other. The process at work here is not that particular human capacities, for instance, the intellect, suddenly atrophy or fail. Instead, it seems that under the overwhelming impact of rising power, humans are deprived of their inner independence, and, more or less consciously, give up establishing an autonomous position toward the emerging circumstances. The fact that the stupid person is often stubborn must not blind us to the fact that he is not independent. In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with a person, but with slogans, catchwords and the like that have taken possession of him. He is under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in his very being. Having thus become a mindless tool, the stupid person will also be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil. This is where the danger of diabolical misuse lurks, for it is this that can once and for all destroy human beings.

‘Yet at this very point it becomes quite clear that only an act of liberation, not instruction, can overcome stupidity. Here we must come to terms with the fact that in most cases a genuine internal liberation becomes possible only when external liberation has preceded it. Until then we must abandon all attempts to convince the stupid person. This state of affairs explains why in such circumstances our attempts to know what ‘the people’ really think are in vain and why, under these circumstances, this question is so irrelevant for the person who is thinking and acting responsibly. The word of the Bible that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom declares that the internal liberation of human beings to live the responsible life before God is the only genuine way to overcome stupidity.

‘But these thoughts about stupidity also offer consolation in that they utterly forbid us to consider the majority of people to be stupid in every circumstance. It really will depend on whether those in power expect more from people’s stupidity than from their inner independence and wisdom.’

-Dietrich Bonhoeffer, from ‘After Ten Years’ in Letters and Papers from Prison (Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works/English, vol. 8 ) Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2010.
Walker
Posts: 14245
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: article of the day (post 'em when you find 'em)

Post by Walker »

The First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Commentary:

Although Congress did not make a law, government power did use surrogates at Twitter, and no doubt elsewhere, to abridge free speech. The word on the street is that in past the Supreme Court has interpreted that to be a No No. However, Rule of Law may have gone so far down the Rule of Man Rathole that it doesn’t matter anymore.

The good news is that in theory, the perpertual, unwarranted persecution of Trump should make Brandon fair game for the same … but the Rule of Law has been so warped into the Rule of Man that Brandon will skate and stay insulated during the next thirty years or so of appeals, that is ...

... unless a complaint about this government censorship leads to the top, and is somehow fast tracked right to the SCOTUS. If that happens, and it should, it won’t be with help of the current Republican leadership who barely managed mid-term wins against the most corrupt presidential administration in the short history of the USA.

However, prosecution of Brandon just might happen. Why? To set a precedent in order to put Trump behind bars, which more and more is being revealed as the true objective of the Evil Left.

*

Censorship by surrogate: Why Musk’s document dump could be a game changer
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3 ... e-changer/

“Handled.” That one word, responding to a 2020 demand to censor a list of Twitter users, speaks volumes about the thousands of documents released by Twitter’s new owner, Elon Musk, on Friday night. As many of us have long suspected, there were back channels between Twitter and the Biden 2020 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to ban critics or remove negative stories. Those seeking to discuss the scandal were simply “handled,” and nothing else had to be said.

Ultimately, the New York Post was suspended from Twitter for reporting on the Hunter Biden laptop scandal. Twitter even blocked users from sharing the Post’s story by using a tool designed for child pornography. Even Trump White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany was suspended for linking to the scandal.

Twitter’s ex-safety chief, Yoel Roth, later said the decision was a “mistake” but the story “set off every single one of my finely tuned APT28 hack and leak campaign alarm bells.” The reference to the APT28 Russian disinformation operation dovetailed with false claims of former U.S. intelligence officers that the laptop was “classic disinformation.”

The Russian disinformation claim was never particularly credible. The Biden campaign never denied the laptop was Hunter Biden’s; it left that to its media allies. Moreover, recipients of key emails could confirm those communications, and U.S. intelligence quickly rejected the Russian disinformation claim.

The point is, there was no direct evidence of a hack or a Russian conspiracy. Even Roth subsequently admitted he and others did not believe a clear basis existed to block the story, but they did so anyway.

Musk’s dumped Twitter documents not only confirm the worst expectations of some of us but feature many of the usual suspects for Twitter critics. The documents do not show a clear role or knowledge by former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey. Instead, the censor in chief appears to be Vijaya Gadde, Twitter’s former chief legal officer who has been criticized as a leading anti-free speech figure in social media.

There also is James Baker, the controversial former FBI general counsel involved in the bureau’s Russia collusion investigation. He left the FBI and became Twitter’s deputy general counsel.

Some Twitter executives expressed unease with censoring the story, including former global communications VP Brandon Borrman, who asked, “Can we truthfully claim that this is part of the policy?” Baker jumped in to support censorship and said, “It’s reasonable for us to assume that they may have been [hacked] and that caution is warranted.” Baker thus comes across as someone who sees a Russian in every Rorschach inkblot. There was no evidence the Post’s Hunter Biden material was hacked — none. Yet Baker found a basis for a “reasonable” assumption that Russians or hackers were behind it.

Many people recognized the decision for what it was. A former Twitter employee reportedly told journalist Matt Taibbi, “Hacking was the excuse, but within a few hours, pretty much everyone realized that wasn’t going to hold.”

Obviously, bias in the media is nothing new to Washington; newspapers and networks have long run interference for favored politicians or parties. However, this was not a case of a media company spiking its own story to protect a pal. It was a social media company that supplies a platform for people to communicate with each other on political, social and personal views. Social media is now more popular as a form of communications than the telephone.

Censoring communications on Twitter is more akin to the telephone company agreeing to cut the connection of any caller using disfavored terms. And at the apparent request of the 2020 Biden campaign and the DNC, Twitter seems to have routinely stopped others from discussing or hearing opposing views.

The internal company documents released by Musk reinforce what we have seen previously in other instances of Twitter censorship. A recent federal filing revealed a 2021 email between Twitter executives and Carol Crawford, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s digital media chief. Crawford’s back-channel communication sought to censor other “unapproved opinions” on social media; Twitter replied that “with our CEO testifying before Congress this week [it] is tricky.”

At the time, Twitter’s Dorsey and other tech CEOs were about to appear at a House hearing to discuss “misinformation” on social media and their “content modification” policies. I had just testified on private censorship in circumventing the First Amendment as a type of censorship by surrogate. Dorsey and the other CEOs were asked about my warning of a “‘little brother’ problem, a problem which private entities do for the government that which it cannot legally do for itself.” In response, Dorsey insisted that “we don’t have a censoring department.”

The implications of these documents becomes more serious once the Biden campaign became the Biden administration. These documents show a back channel existed with President Biden’s campaign officials, but those same back channels appear to have continued to be used by Biden administration officials. If so, that would be when Twitter may have gone from a campaign ally to a surrogate for state censorship. As I have previously written, the administration cannot censor critics and cannot use agents for that purpose under the First Amendment.

That is precisely what Musk is now alleging. As the documents were being released, he tweeted, “Twitter acting by itself to suppress free speech is not a 1st amendment violation, but acting under orders from the government to suppress free speech, with no judicial review, is.”

The incoming Republican House majority has pledged to investigate — and Musk has made that process far easier by making good on his pledge of full transparency.

Washington has fully mobilized in its all-out war against Musk. Yet, with a record number of users signing up with Twitter, it seems clear the public is not buying censorship. They want more, not less, free speech.

That may be why political figures such as Hillary Clinton have enlisted foreign governments to compel the censoring of fellow citizens: If Twitter can’t be counted on to censor, perhaps the European Union will be the ideal surrogate to rid social media of these meddlesome posters.

The release of these documents has produced a level of exposure rarely seen in Washington, where such matters usually are simply “handled.” The political and media establishments generally are unstoppable forces — but they may have met their first immovable object in Musk.
Walker
Posts: 14245
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: article of the day (post 'em when you find 'em)

Post by Walker »

Must Get Musk!

Simple, short, alliterative, easy to remember. Perfect for the minions.

This is the current slogan of the Left. Who is the Left? Simply observe who now tries to silence and punish Musk, and you can then put a face to the principle. You will find the qualities of the Left, reincarnated into form.

The White House is "keeping a close eye," on Twitter, so says the White House spokesbabeperson.
Walker
Posts: 14245
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: article of the day (post 'em when you find 'em)

Post by Walker »

"I'm sorry that's happening to you. Best of luck."
Tom Cotton
*
Cotton explains what he means by that, with this quote:

“You know,” Cotton began, “this situation reminds me a little bit of the situation Big Tech companies have found themselves in recent years. They’ve come to Washington because they fear regulation from our Democratic friends, or action by the Biden administration and they expect Republicans, who are traditionally more supportive of free enterprise, to come to their defense.”

Cotton continued: “And I’ve cautioned them for years that if they silence conservatives and center-right voters … if they discriminate against them in their company, they probably shouldn’t come and ask Republican senators to carry the water for them whenever our Democratic friends want to regulate them or block their mergers.”


https://patriotpost.us/articles/93384-c ... 2022-12-08
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: article of the day (post 'em when you find 'em)

Post by henry quirk »

https://coyoteprimeblog2.blogspot.com/2 ... -name.html

Giving Anarchy a Bad Name

Jeff Thomas


9B8134DA-2C5B-4626-AEFB-52BAAED53674.jpeg
9B8134DA-2C5B-4626-AEFB-52BAAED53674.jpeg (56.06 KiB) Viewed 717 times


Here we have a photo of Corporal Maxwell Klinger, a character in the American television comedy, M.A.S.H., filmed in the early 1970’s. The Klinger character was written as a soldier in the Korean War, who hoped that, if he became a transvestite, he’d qualify for a Section Eight discharge and would be sent home. In this photo, Corporal Klinger was taking part in a troop inspection.

In the early 70’s, America was still involved in the Viet Nam War. The liberal press graphically covered that war and its travesties – to the point that a majority of Americans became sick of the seemingly endless (and pointless) conflict and thoroughly sympathized with the Klinger character.

But, make no mistake about it: Corporal Klinger was an anarchist. He did not desert on the firing line; he was not violent to his superiors; he simply dressed in an entertaining series of female outfits in order to be classified as insane, so he could be allowed to go home. His superior, Captain Pierce, sympathized with Klinger’s effort, often commenting something to the effect, "Do I think he’s insane? Only if it’s insane to object to having your government send you half way around the world in order to get shot at."

But the 70’s were different times. Back then, the media were not owned by the same corporations that were profiting from the war. Today, the major corporations that profit from warfare not only donate heavily to the political campaigns of both political parties, thereby assuring that there will be a proliferation of unnecessary wars; they also control both the news programs and the film industry, assuring that there will be no equivalent of M.A.S.H. for present-day Americans to watch.

There will also be no news broadcasts that expose the US government creating and funding rebel organizations such as ISIS – that create chaos that the US must then come in and "control." If the American people were to receive such news on their televisions, they would today be asking meaningful questions as they did in the 70’s, such as, "How is it possible for the US, the greatest military power on earth, to invade a country like Afghanistan, fighting against disorganized sheepherders for 20 years, spending trillions dollars doing it, and not gaining any ground whatever – in effect, being no further ahead than when they started?"

And how can returning veterans of that war be treated by Government as being potential terrorists - classified as "threats to democracy" upon their return? The American media of today does not present these questions to viewers and they shall not do so in the future.

But, what of the anarchists? Of course, when we think of anarchy, we think of groups like the SLA (Symbionese Liberation Army), who, at the time when M.A.S.H. was being aired, were a small group of people who armed themselves, robbed banks, kidnapped and killed people in the name of "liberation." The SLA were not, in fact, terrorists; they were a small gang of thugs. They were annihilated by the Los Angeles police, in a shoot-out and conflagration, and justifiably so, as they had violently aggressed against others without provocation.

Today, we incorrectly see groups like Black Lives Matter and Antifa as anarchists and, of course, we’re encouraged to view them in this light, as they’re groups that use force in order to terrorise others. Presented in this light, we could be forgiven if we regard anarchists as "evil people who wish to destroy us." Of course, we would oppose their activities and even their existence. They represent force, violence and intimidation.

The trouble is, "anarchy" is being misrepresented by both governments and the media in order to assure that the citizenry is compliant. In truth, a definition of anarchy is, "The absence or non-recognition of authority." Another definition is, "The absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual." What these true definitions represent, therefore, is, "leave me alone to live my life as I choose. As long as I don’t aggress against others, my liberty should be respected."

Of course, this was the primary principle of America’s founding fathers – that the US would be a republic – a state of rule in which the rights of the individual are of paramount importance – not the will of leaders, or even the will of the majority. And, in M.A.S.H, we have Corporal Klinger defending that inalienable right. He’s a classic anarchist – a draftee into a system that he does not believe in. He offers no force, he simply states, in a peaceful manner, that he does not wish to participate in his government’s invasion of a sovereign nation halfway round the world. The fact that he does so through a comical manner makes his anarchy no less valid.

During America’s involvement in the Viet Nam War, peace activist Charlotte Keyes wrote an article entitled, "Suppose They Gave a War and Nobody Came?" The title became a minor anthem thereafter. Its supporters were anarchists – people who suggested that governments can create all the aggressive foreign adventures they want, but those who are being invited to become the cannon fodder in those adventures should be able to choose not to participate. And, they should have every right to do so.

Centuries ago, leaders rode the horse that was at the head of the charge, followed by any who wished to arm themselves and fall in behind the leader. Today, that’s decidedly not the case. The entire world is a grand chessboard, as Zbigniew Brzezinski has so eloquently described it, and political leaders never see the back of a horse. They, instead, provide for themselves the safest of perches upon which to sit, whilst they send out the gullible citizenry to do battle. They fund their wars through taxation - the fruits of the labour of the people they are elected to represent.

The people of a country pay the price with their earnings and their blood. The leaders take no personal risk, but are the recipients of the spoils. Not surprising then, that they do all they can to discredit not only the anarchist, but the very concept of anarchy. To the American founding fathers, the anarchist was respected for his reasoning and his courage. With or without the dress, the anarchists of today are equally worthy of our respect. They represent the voice of Liberty just as much as they did in 1776.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: article of the day (post 'em when you find 'em)

Post by henry quirk »

https://www.anarchism.net/anarchism_bar ... talism.htm

Barter Trade, Not Capitalism

ARE ANARCHISTS PRO OR ANTI capitalism? Many anarchists dogmatically claim an anarchist cannot be pro capitalism simply because capitalism is oppressive--and anarchism is based on socialist ideals. The anarchist society necessarily needs to be “free from capitalist oppression.” Other anarchists claim an anarchist society, based solely on voluntary action of free people (individually or collectively) cannot be anything but capitalist. There seems to be an unbridgeable gap here.

As anarchists often and correctly note, barter trade is inoffensive and it is ethical. Someone believing in natural rights (or any other kind of rights too) would say barter trade does not violate rights and is thus ethical. Some simply state that since barter trade is in full voluntary and does not include any kind of coercive measures it is ethical and just. This is a fully anarchist point of view, all anarchists should be able to support this.

Now, why is barter trade not the same as a market? Imagine two people, let’s say a baker and a fisherman, get together every now and then to voluntarily exchange things. The baker obviously values fish higher than the bread he needs to give up to get it, and the fisherman obviously values the bread higher than the fish he “pays” for it. It is very simple, if either one of them would believe it was not just--and that they were not better (or as good) off as before--they would not voluntarily agree to the exchange. This is how many libertarian or anarcho-capitalist anarchists define the market--voluntary exchanges for one’s own benefit, which means every exchange is for all partaking actors’ benefit.

Imagine there are more people in this society, for instance a wagon maker. Now, this is going to get troublesome since one wagon takes a lot of time and skill to produce, and the wagon maker cannot produce more than a few wagons each year. And, since the baker and fisherman know they cannot make a wagon unless not baking or fishing for a long while, they will agree to exchange a large quantity of bread or fish for a wagon (if they need it). Of course, working for a couple of months making a wagon, and then getting perhaps one thousand loaves of bread or many hundreds of fish is not an attractive exchange. Bread gets bad after a while, and fish will rot. Also, the wagon maker needs something to eat while making the wagon he is about to sell.

It is the same the other way around too: bread and fish will go bad as the baker or fisherman is trying to save enough bread or fish to buy a wagon. So the wagon-maker would have a wagon which he wishes to exchange for fish or bread, and the baker and fisherman would have their bread and fish while being interested in trading it for a wagon. But the exchange would never happen, since bread and fish easily goes bad when saved. So what would happen in this little society?

It is obvious the three people would come to an agreement since it is in their mutual interest to make this exchange. Maybe they agree on paying the wagon maker a couple of loaves of bread or some fish every day for a couple of months, and will in return get the wagon when it is finished. This means they have avoided the problem with bread or fish getting bad, and they all benefit from this scheme since nobody needs to keep a lot of bread/fish while awaiting the right quantity. There is nothing wrong with this, right? They are still into barter trade, but have agreed on paying for the thing of greater value in smaller portions. With this solution, they have through voluntary action invented the contract, since they have an agreement for exchange even thought the exchange is not immediate. The agreement therefore causes an ongoing interdependence throughout the time of the contract, but it is still barter and it is still 100 % voluntary.

Also, they have invented a financial instrument since there is value in the contract. The value arises simply because the baker and fisherman offer their products before they get anything in return (which is the basis for this contract), and will as time goes by have a bigger claim to the property (wagon) of the wagon maker. And, of course, the wagon maker will be in debt as the baker and fisherman pays him bread and fish while he has not yet given them anything. The difference is the current value of the contract, since--in this case--the baker and fisherman relies on the contract to get value in the future.

It is still barter, so there is no conflict and it is not offensive; it is still as ethical as we agree barter is. We are still relying totally on voluntary exchange for the mutual benefit of whomever is involved (in this case: the baker, the fisherman, and the wagon maker).

Now, maybe there is a storm and the fisherman’s boat is thrown ashore and sinks to the bottom of the sea. The fisherman cannot get any more fish (or he cannot get the quantity he expected) and would need to get a new boat. According to the contract he will have to continue paying a number of fish every day to the wagon maker even though the wagon maker in real terms is in debt to the fisherman. What can he do?

He can of course go to the wagon maker and ask him to release him from his obligation stated in the contract through cancelling it. Maybe the wagon maker will agree to this, but it would mean he has to pay the fisherman back the number of fish he has already paid. But the wagon maker has probably already started working on the fisherman’s wagon, which means he has really “paid” a part of the value of the contract even though it is not yet realized for the fisherman. Maybe he cannot afford to let the fisherman get his fish back because he ate them all and cannot trade for new ones. Now we have a problem.

Either the wagon maker could give the fisherman whatever he has achieved in making the wagon, perhaps a wheel and a blueprint (which are not really of value to the fisherman, who cannot continue the work), or he can simply demand the fisherman continues giving him fish as was already agreed. Or, he could offer to make yet another agreement saying perhaps that the contract is off and that the fisherman will have a few fish back, but that he will keep 10 fish because he now cannot get food the following days. Since he expected to get fish every day while working on the wagon he now demands some of his costs are covered by the fisherman--this is not hard to imagine.

As we can see, the contract is here a financial instrument since there is value in the expected completion of whatever is stated in the contract. The agreement in itself means a promise to make a future payment, thus the contract is simply an agreement to make such an exchange as we have covered above--but it is not immediate.

The contract is to some extent also to be considered as speculation, since the fisherman promises to give the wagon maker a number of fish every day--but while signing the contract he does not have the fish. He simply expects to have the fish when he is supposed to deliver it to the wagon maker. He believes he will be able to catch fish every day to give to the wagon maker, so he takes this chance. But there is, as we can see, a certain amount of risk involved.

The wagon maker and the fisherman most likely think this is quite troublesome, exchanging fish for wagons. The difference in value is too great, thereby causing a lot of problems. Of course, the value they identify in fish and wagons is totally subject to their wants and desires. There is no real (or rather: objective) value in the wagon nor in the fish. To the wagon maker the wagon is worth approximately the time and effort it takes him to produce the wagon, to the fisherman the wagon is worth as much as it lightens his burden or what he expects to gain in whatever he would like to use it for. The same is true with the fish: the fisherman values the fish to the time and effort he puts in catching the fish, while the wagon maker values the fish according to his needs or desires.

The values of the things is thus not objective, it is subjective and individual. What happens when these two people get together to exchange a wagon for a number of fish is the establishment of market value of both the fish and the wagon. The market value in this case is simply whatever is agreed between seller and buyer, e.g. a wagon is worth 1,000 fish and a fish is worth 1/1,000 wagon. There is nothing strange about this, it is simply a voluntary agreement to exchange products and the values of the products are established by the parties involved in the exchange.

Since the wagon maker also makes a deal with the baker, there is also a market value of bread (relative to wagons) established. Perhaps the wagon is sold for 1,500 loaves of bread (the value of one wagon) meaning the bread is valued to 1/1,500 wagon. So we have established the market value of wagons, fish and bread. This does not mean the value is always the same, the market value is set only for the instance in which the single agreement is made. In this instance fish seems to have the value of 1.5 loaves of bread, but we do not know this until the baker and fisherman agree to exchange their products. (Simple Austrian economics, very rational and very intelligible.) The so-called “market value” the State uses for taxation and the multitude of government programs with subsidies or whatever is simply a scam.

Competition
The same is true if there are multiple actors in the marketplace (the market is simply the abstraction of all voluntary exchanges). If there are 1,000 bakers, 1,000 fisherman, and 1,000 wagon makers the market value is set in exactly the same way--in each individual transaction or exchange. But what is now added is the choice of whom to make the exchange with. If there are two fishermen in our example the value of fish would probably be lower since there are more fish available in exchange for roughly the same number of loaves of bread or wagons. Competition is introduced, which in this example increases the volume of fish available in exchange for bread or wagons.

This does not mean the fishermen will do anything to get as many fish as possible in order to buy all wagons and bread on the market. No, every exchange is still the result of voluntary action from both the “seller” and the “buyer,” thus the baker will exchange his bread for fish with the fisherman of his choice. Of course, the number of fish he can get is an important factor, but so is how the baker feels about the fisherman and his products, trust, friendship, politeness etc. Maybe the baker prefers fish caught using float and not nets, or he wishes the fish to be killed painlessly and treated in a good way, or he feels sorry for a poorer fisherman, or whatever. All these factors are of course important, since the choice to trade bread is only the baker’s.

As a matter of fact, since the baker has the option of with whom to exchange, the fishermen will have to outbid each other--the one offering the best deal for the baker (on the baker’s terms) will probably get the bread thus selling his fish. And of course, price is an important factor, but it is not at all the only one. The baker chooses which factors he wishes to consider, and chooses freely with whom to trade. So competition between the fishermen is for the trust of the baker, on the baker’s terms. In competition, the customer is king and the sellers will have to accept his terms.

This is of course not true in today’s society, where the state has a large number of rules on how to make exchanges, how to produce things, how to tell people about them (advertising), how to offer them, and a lot of other things. Such rules of course upsets the “market,” since it is no longer up to the fishermen to agree to the baker’s terms, and the baker’s terms are no longer important for the exchange--only the laws are. This is what happens when coercive measures are introduced to an otherwise voluntary exchange. The laws are of greater importance since they are backed by the guns of government, the baker’s preferences are no longer a priority. All the baker can do is not to trade his bread while the government can fine, outlaw or in other ways punish the fisherman. (Actually, many governments demands the baker to take part in the exchange even if he does not like the terms.)

Money
Imagine another thing in our original example with one baker, one fisherman and one wagon maker: one day the fisherman finds a couple of very beautiful pearls in some of the clams he caught while fishing. He thinks they are very beautiful and puts them in his pockets, anxious to show them to people. Everybody agrees that these pearls are really something special, and people imagine a number of different uses for such beauties. Thus, there is a demand for the pearls. It is not created in terms of producing a demand not before existing in the minds of people, but the new information (that such pearls exist) brings new thoughts to people and lets them reconsider their priority hierarchies. Hence, some people value the pearls very highly and some don’t. It is a newly identified demand, but it is based solely on voluntary preferences. The value of pearls is exactly as with bread, fish, and wagons--it is subjective. (What is objective is that there is an identified value in the pearls--all people seem to agree on this even though they do not agree on what the value is.)

The fisherman notices there are a lot of people wanting such pearls, and thus that there is a market value. He does not know what the market value is (since it has to be established in each individual exchange) but he is sure there is a value. Thus, he tries offering the baker pearls instead of fish in exchange for bread. The baker accepts according to what we established above--he places a higher value in these pearls than in the bread exchanged for them, and the fisherman vice versa. So an exchange takes place and a market value is established for that single exchange.

Since the fisherman exchanged only half of his pearls for bread, now both the baker and the fisherman have pearls. The fisherman makes the same offer to the wagon maker, offering pearls instead of fish as payment for the wagon. The wagon maker accepts since he thinks these pearls are very rare and beautiful. His wife would love them, and since he has heard the fisherman has already gotten bread for the pearls they surely have a market value.

The pearls have hence become a general medium of exchange, since people agree to trade using pearls as bearers of value instead of the direct exchange of products. Any medium of exchange such as this is money, so in our small society everybody is suddenly using money! Why? Because everybody wants to own the pearls (they all place a certain value in owning the pearls), and they choose to use the pearls rather than fish, bread, and wagons when exchanging value for products.

Thus, the next time the wagon maker visits the baker to make an exchange for bread he does not have to go through the trouble of trying to sell the baker a wagon and settling a contract with part-payments. Instead, he brings the pearls he was paid by the fisherman, and pays the number of pearls the baker and wagon maker agree the bread is worth.

The reason they all start using the pearls instead of direct barter is that they all consider them valuable and it is much easier for all of them to trade products for pearls instead of products for products. They are easier to store and handle, and they are scarce--one cannot find large numbers of pearls everywhere. Finding pearls takes time and energy, and thus there is a cost for getting more pearls (money) into the marketplace.

Investment
Now the fisherman can simply sell fish to the others and perhaps save the few pearls he does not need to use directly to get bread and whatever he needs. So he starts leading a little cheaper life in order to save; saving being the main prerequisite for investments. What is now spontaneously invented is a money-based economy with profits--the fisherman is saving a little money from each exchange.

The profits are not coercive or violate the rights of anyone. Any exchanges are still the result of voluntary action between the buyer and seller (they are both better off!), thus a new market price is established every time people agree to make an exchange. And it is still the same as barter, even though it is indirect because everybody taking part in exchanges believes it is easier and better to use pearls.

If the fisherman can save a lot of money it means simply that his costs are far less than what people are prepared to pay for his fish (meaning they place a higher value in the fish than in the pearls they give up for it). And because of this others can easily start fishing in order to get a piece of these profits. There is a rational incentive in catching fish if the fisherman is already making profits--of course other people want to be better off just as the fisherman. So profits cause competition, which in turn cuts profits. The result of this spontaneous balance-making is simply cheaper (and better) products for the consumers.

Anyway, when the fisherman has saved enough money (pearls) he goes to another town to buy a new boat or a net in order to catch more fish so that he can save more money and perhaps buy a house or a more comfortable bed for his wife. This way he can, through saving and investing his profits, increase the supply of fish in the market and thereby supplying more food to hungry people. Since there is more fish available (in the market) people are willing to pay less. If the fisherman tries to charge the same price for the fish he will only find that people will not be able to buy all the fish and it will rot while awaiting buyers. Also, the greater profits per sold fish will create an incentive for people to compete with him. So his profits will not be stable no matter what he does (unless he goes to the government asking for “favors”).

Thus, the market price for fish goes down. The fisherman can probably still save a little money from his business, since people are better off paying less for the fish and there is a small barrier for competitors to enter the market. Buying a boat (or net) is costly, and this produces a possibility for modest profits. Of course, the fisherman can set whatever price he wishes, but setting a too high price will only mean less people will be able to buy the fish.

Also, it creates a greater incentive for other people to get a boat/net and compete. As we have seen above anyone would be able to make an equal deal with a boat maker as the baker and fisherman did before with the wagon maker--i.e. making a contract for exchange of products in order to buy a boat. If there is a big profit in catching and selling fish there is enough for a competitor to cover the costs of such an agreement with the boat maker. So the price of fish will go down either through the fisherman recognizing this fact or through the “threat” of a new actor (competitor) in the market. The threat is of course only directed to the “unnatural” profits of the fisherman, all others are better off with such competition.

Capitalism
Another great thing with this is that there may be people in such a society who have been successful fishermen for many years through which they could have saved some money (pearls). Either they can use the money for covering daily expenses (food, clothes etc) or they can boost the balance-making in the market, thus cutting profits, lowering consumer prices and stream-lining production, through investing. This is what is called capitalism.

Imagine the fisherman gets old and has quite a few pearls in his possession. A new fisherman takes his place, so there are still three actors in the market: a baker, a fisherman, and a wagon maker. The fisherman is very intelligent and finds ways of being very successful in catching fish. He lowers the price of each fish a little bit, but is still able to make a lot of money from his business. He somehow knows there is no one able to buy the boat needed to compete with him, except for the old fisherman (who has no interest in going back to catching fish).

But since the fisherman is making profits there is an incentive for others to catch fish and get part of the profit. The baker’s son sees the opportunity but has no pearls to invest in the boat necessary for such an enterprise. But he knows the old fisherman has quite a few pearls, and one day goes to him offering him a very good deal. He says he wants to buy a boat to earn pearls from catching fish, but does not have enough pearls to make the purchase. So he offers the old fisherman the deal of buying (and owning) the boat, and the baker’s son will pay him a number of pearls every month. This way he will in time pay for the boat, and gives the old fisherman an extra pearl with every payment for the trouble and use of his property.

The old fisherman thinks about it, and finds the idea very attractive. So he agrees to pay for the boat and teaches the baker’s son a few secrets on how to catch very big fish. The baker’s son enters the markets and sells his fish, of course to a slightly lower price than the other fisherman. So the fisherman will have to lower his price not to lose the customers. Thus, the price of fish goes down.

The baker’s son sells the fish to a price covering the costs of the boat, the small profit for the old fisherman, and his personal expenses. Probably the other fisherman sells his fish for about the same price, since he wants to get as much as possible for his fish, but cannot charge a higher price than the competitor (the baker’s son). So, spontaneously and voluntary there is capitalism created in the market.

Also, the old fisherman could agree to a slightly different deal. He could agree to buy the boat for the baker’s son in order to start the enterprise, but with the condition that he gets part of the profits. Perhaps they agree that the old fisherman buys the boat and the baker’s son does all the work, but they split any profits fifty-fifty. If so, they have started a corporation and own 50 % each of the stock. The corporation may hire people to professionally do necessary work, but the owners still require their money back--and maybe a little profit on top. Corporations, the stock-market etc are all inventions of voluntary exchanges and agreements between individuals. But all these things are today thoroughly corrupted by the state and its laws.

Since all these things are directly derived from the simple barter situation and no force is added it cannot be any less ethical or moral than the original situation. If you find this development ethically offensive you are not considering the actions or behavior of the people involved--you only take the results into account. If you want to guarantee a certain result or rules of conduct in a society you will have to rely on the use of force. Relying on force simply cannot be anarchist.

What has really changed between the simple barter trade and this “advanced capitalist” society is that people get cheaper fish while the baker’s son earns a living and the old fisherman gets a profit (this profit is nothing but a small payment to make it worth his while to risk his justly achieved property). Also, the boat maker has sold two more boats. I am not able to find anything offensive in this. There is no force added, and people are better off. The reason this is possible is that prices and values are subjective, therefore each transaction means economic growth--all parties involved are [subjectively] better off.

State Capitalism
What truly is offensive is the so-called market of today, where all these voluntary actions leading to competition, productivity and capitalism have been set aside by the state through coercion, force, and fraud. There is no such thing as a market like the one described above existing today--the voluntary agreements of exchange between free people have been abolished by the use of guns of government. The closest there is is what is usually called the “black” market, but the prices in the black market are much higher than they should be because of the constant threat of state repression. And most of the so-called market instruments causing balance and consumer-power through the voluntary actions of individuals are set aside by the same threat of repression.

Of course, the above example is a simplified abstraction of the marketplace. It is much more advanced than this since there are many, many more actors involved. But the basis is exactly the same. The creation of money, competition etc actually happened in about the same way as in the example. With a little coercion added by the state, of course, which corrupted the results.

So as you probably see, the market is simply people coming together voluntarily to make exchanges, and what that eventually leads to. So what is the difference between this voluntary market with capitalism and anarchism? The answer is so obvious most anarchists do not find it: there is no difference. And there is no essential difference between the simple barter trade and global corporations.

Speculation
It is true that today’s “market” is somewhat oppressive and repressive, but it is not because of the market instruments competition, money or capitalism--it is because they have been corrupted by the state. For example, in such a free market as described here there could be no such thing as the speculation in currencies happening every day these days--making money doing really nothing. The currencies of today have no real value (such as pearls or gold, which are voluntarily accepted by everyone--and need to be voluntarily accepted as means of payment in each single exchange), but are simply pieces of paper and ink backed by the guns of government. What makes people think such “money” has a value is simply because the state forces people to use it. And because there is no identifiable value, people can through simple transactions make more “money” from speculating if the value placed in the “dollar” is really corresponding to the current exchange rate for the “euro.”

With a market not intervened by the state there would be no such fiat currencies. Instead people would trade in pearls, gold or whatever (and receipts of ownership of such; or barter). With such currencies there is no way of making a profit in speculation, since the currencies are simply products as anything else.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: article of the day (post 'em when you find 'em)

Post by henry quirk »

0B26AF53-553C-4D09-BC0B-810CA0FF07D0.jpeg
0B26AF53-553C-4D09-BC0B-810CA0FF07D0.jpeg (101.24 KiB) Viewed 642 times
Walker
Posts: 14245
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: article of the day (post 'em when you find 'em)

Post by Walker »

henry quirk wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 5:43 pm 0B26AF53-553C-4D09-BC0B-810CA0FF07D0.jpeg
Although unusual, it's typical of these times.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: article of the day (post 'em when you find 'em)

Post by henry quirk »

Walker wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 5:59 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 5:43 pm 0B26AF53-553C-4D09-BC0B-810CA0FF07D0.jpeg
Although unusual, it's typical of these times.
Not really, no. If more folks were like this guy these times would be better times.

Truth is, most folks have been well, though not completely, domesticated. There are damn few mavericks.
Walker
Posts: 14245
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: article of the day (post 'em when you find 'em)

Post by Walker »

henry quirk wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 6:05 pm
Not really, no. If more folks were like this guy these times would be better times.
Yes, the persecution is typical, Henry. The persecution.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: article of the day (post 'em when you find 'em)

Post by henry quirk »

Walker wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 6:07 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 6:05 pm
Not really, no. If more folks were like this guy these times would be better times.
Yes, the persecution is typical, Henry. The persecution.
Ah, got you, my mistake... 👍
Post Reply