What is the Objectivist alternative to the Federal Reserve?


Derek McGowan

Recommended Posts

I'm always surprised that some people think that the institution that is best able to guard against force and fraud is the one that ignores the safeguards of its own founding document and is financed by robbery.

That depends on them viewing taxation as robbery, which most people don't.

You might as well say that the number of justices currently serving on the Supreme Court depends on what the majority of people think.

I'm not saying that because most people taxation is theft makes that true. I'm saying you can't level the charge of irony at people who don't believe taxation is theft with the possible exception of some minarchists.

I'm not charging people with irony but with moral inconsistency. If I cannot legally force a man to give me a portion of his income, why should a government employee have that right?

Furthermore, I do not have any recent poll numbers on how many people do not regard taxation as theft. Therefore, before you go further with this argument, back up what you claim.

It's not inconsistent at all. If they don't believe taxation isn't theft and they believe that what we normally consider theft is theft, then there is absolutely no internal contradiction. You Rothbardians make try to exploit what you think might be inconsistency in your opponents positions, but it's nothing but an illusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 295
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm not charging people with irony but with moral inconsistency. If I cannot legally force a man to give me a portion of his income, why should a government employee have that right?

Furthermore, I do not have any recent poll numbers on how many people do not regard taxation as theft. Therefore, before you go further with this argument, back up what you claim.

For the same reason you can't punish someone else's kids, organize your own kangaroo courts, paint your neighbor's house, or pirate software: differing positions/roles in the social web. If we took "initiation of force" in the strictest sense, then we wouldn't be able to have property, public or private.

It's not inconsistent at all. If they don't believe taxation isn't theft and they believe that what we normally consider theft is theft, then there is absolutely no internal contradiction. You Rothbardians make try to exploit what you think might be inconsistency in your opponents positions, but it's nothing but an illusion.

Francisco:A certificate that entitles the bearer to receive a certain number of ounces of gold in a bank is not the same as a stock certificate, which does not warrant the return of the investment. The baker that gets robbed on his way to a wedding is not absolved of his fiduciary responsibility to the purchaser of the cake.

Actually, he is. Sane people don't punish people for things beyond their control. And besides, the contract certainly doesn't say he can be punished. Similarly, X can't be fraud if there is no intent to commit it. Oh, and you really ought to pick up a legal dictionary before you use legalese so haphazardly. It's an initiation of force against my sensibilities, don't you know?

If a teller embezzles from a bank, there is no inconsistency in his charging another with theft as long as the teller does not believe he himself has committed theft?

If a judge hangs another man for committing rape and then commits rape himself, there is no inconsistency as long as he thinks that he himself hasn't committed rape?

If Joe believes that 1 + 2 equals 3 and that 3 + 2 equals 5, but that 1 + 2 + 2 does not equal 5, there is "there is absolutely no internal contradiction," right?

We are never inconsistent as long as we convince ourselves we aren't, right? The world, according to this view, is exactly what each person chooses to believe it is.

Regarding the baker, you demonstrate an ignorance of current law. Unless a merchant declares bankruptcy, he is required to fill all outstanding contracts or make a full refund of any money tendered. If you order a Corvette, do you seriously believe the dealer gets to keep your down payment and not deliver the car if the truck carrying your vehicle wrecks on the way to the dealership?

Regarding use of language: kindly cite any term I've used incorrectly in my posts with reference to the correct definition.

In logic you don't make a case for something simply by asserting it. You have to prove it through rational argument and evidence, both of which you seem to have an aversion to.

Now, slowly, step by step, how does taking initiation of force strictly prevent us from having private property?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

brant, you can make your own money now and trade it among others who make their own money now (as shown by my example of local currencies) So why don't you? I'm thinking because it is simpler to use the standard dollar knowing that it will be excepted by nearly everyone and it has an agreed upon value. That won't change (that I see) if we don't have a Fed. You think it will?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baal,

you said that when governments make the standard unit they tend to over or underestimate the amount of money in circulation. First of all, the Fed is not being run by the government. Its a private bank that does its own thing and hardly reveals its reasons to the public. Second, while that still leads to inflation, are you saying that we wouldn't have those problems if there wasn't a government backed standard unit? I made this thread because I'm not seeing who we would avoid the exact same policies

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll drop the Constitution as an example of fraud and hypocrisy as soon as government and its defenders admit that it is merely the velvet glove that conceals the armored fist.

It's not denied, but openly acknowledged, no fraud or hypocrisy involved. It's the law of the land, duly constituted, widely supported.

Quite the contrary. The government poses as the defender of rights. This, for example, is what the United States Senate says about the Constitution:

For over two centuries the Constitution has remained in force because its framers successfully separated and balanced governmental powers to safeguard the interests of majority rule and minority rights, of liberty and equality, and of the central and state governments.

I charge this is a lie. a fraud and an insult to the intelligence of anyone who has studied the decline of individual freedom in America. Those who believe that there is currently protection of the interests of the minority (or perhaps majority) who don't want to contribute to Obamacare or be regulated by the FDA or the EEOC or FEMA (or any other of the monstrosities created by modern statists) have swallowed too much state-manufactured propaganda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While enjoying reading this entertaining and informative discussion, it struck me that no one here (including me) has any power to change what is being discussed. There are some great suggestions for solutions and creative alternatives... and yet everyone here is utterly powerless to actually do anything that could effect banking policy even one whit.

Greg

The purpose of these discussions is to understand and integrate these things through topic classes. Education. As for what happens to ideas and how and if they make it into this culture--who knows? If you and I were two of 50 million sperm cells in the ejaculate heading for one egg, we could have the same conversation.

--Brant

and I'm having fun, until Michael takes the OL T-Bird away!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not charging people with irony but with moral inconsistency. If I cannot legally force a man to give me a portion of his income, why should a government employee have that right?

Furthermore, I do not have any recent poll numbers on how many people do not regard taxation as theft. Therefore, before you go further with this argument, back up what you claim.

For the same reason you can't punish someone else's kids, organize your own kangaroo courts, paint your neighbor's house, or pirate software: differing positions/roles in the social web. If we took "initiation of force" in the strictest sense, then we wouldn't be able to have property, public or private.

It's not inconsistent at all. If they don't believe taxation isn't theft and they believe that what we normally consider theft is theft, then there is absolutely no internal contradiction. You Rothbardians make try to exploit what you think might be inconsistency in your opponents positions, but it's nothing but an illusion.

If a teller embezzles from a bank, there is no inconsistency in his charging another with theft as long as the teller does not believe he himself has committed theft?

If a judge hangs another man for committing rape and then commits rape himself, there is no inconsistency as long as he thinks that he himself hasn't committed rape?

We are never inconsistent as long as we convince ourselves we aren't, right?

In logic you don't make a case for something simply by asserting it. You have to prove it through rational argument and evidence, both of which you seem to have an aversion to.

Now, slowly, step by step, how does taking initiation of force strictly prevent us from having private property?

Um,yeah. That's kind of what it means to be internally inconsistent. Were the Nazis evil? Hell yes. Were they contradicting themselves? No.

This is like trying to explain what the difference between 0 and 1 is. ("There are only 10 kinds of people in the world. Those that understand binary and those that don't.")

Well, force is used to maintain property just as it is used to maintain all rules. Sometimes it may consist of "initiating force", like booting out a peaceful trespasser or sit-in protesters. No force is involved in trespassing, pollution, soliciting children for sex, violating someone's privacy, criminally transmitting HIV, libel, and numerous other things. Showing your junk off to a child or a victim of sexual, while not using "force" can traumatize someone and mental and emotional damage is just as real as physical damage. If any of my political opinions have public force and you happen to run counter to them, then I fully expect the law come down on you. It's nothing personal, 'Cisco, it's just politics.

Your sophistical "arguments" that you put forward "proving" that FRB are about equal to the sovereign citizen movement and freemen on the land on the scam scale--you know, the people who claim British common law is the "true" law of the land and that signing your name on government documents a certain spears you of some fictitious collateral taken out in your name. FRB can't be fraud if there is no intent to defraud. You complained about the language banks use as not being clear enough. So what? Written word is subject to ambiguity and these disputes are unavoidable. If someone can't deliver because of circumstances beyond their control, then they're not at blameless and punishing them would be punishing the innocent. Sorry man, your idiosyncrasies just don't jive with the views of civilized justice e.

Edited by Samson Corwell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

brant, you can make your own money now and trade it among others who make their own money now (as shown by my example of local currencies) So why don't you? I'm thinking because it is simpler to use the standard dollar knowing that it will be excepted by nearly everyone and it has an agreed upon value. That won't change (that I see) if we don't have a Fed. You think it will?

The entire economy is based on fractional reserve banking controlled by the US government, especially since WWII. Essentially credit proceeds production and production is used to repay the bank loans which were the real money creators (money as debt) to be lent out again. Gross mal investments eventually lead to major corrections suffusing the economy. Changing the system would mean the capital used to create wealth would have a real asset base and savings would proceed production and consumption would follow savings. You cannot change what is going on unless you are a dictator of the USA for the deflationary-depressionary hit would dislocate the economy to such an extent the politicians would be immediately voted out of office. To start with you'd need a debt jubilee* in which all or most debts are forgiven such as a trillion bucks of student loans and a trillion bucks of credit card debt. Etc. That would only be to hasten the transition. However, a major way to help the economy right now would be to make student loans dischargeable in bankruptcy so young people could get on with their economic lives.

Just imagine buying your next car or home for cash.

Reducing the size and function--drastically--of the Federal government needs to come before the radical change of doing away with central banking, which will likely be with us the rest of this century. In the meantime, do like Greg does, be your own banker; don't spend what you don't actually have.

As for your "why don't you" question? Personal sacrifice. I'd rather do something else. Come October all my debt obligations except one will be wiped out (by me). I will then try to preserve and expand my capital base.

--Brant

*the inevitable de facto "debt jubilee" is the inflating away of debts, especially the debts of the Feds by inflation for if that debt is dollars--it is--they can just print all the bucks they need to pay it off so the destruction of the dollar is all but guaranteed (the one thing you must not do is bury your dollars and come back for them 50 years from now--in 1920 there was a circulating 1,000 dollar bill; to equal that buying power today you'd need a 30-50,000 dollar bill and if you had that bill today you could exchange it for ten 100 dollar bills at a bank or go to a collector who would give you up to ten times as much depending on type and condition; don't count for much of a numismatic repeat)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...merely the velvet glove that conceals the armored fist.

It's not denied, but openly acknowledged, no fraud or hypocrisy involved. It's the law of the land, duly constituted, widely supported.

The government poses as the defender of rights. This, for example, is what the United States Senate says...

The mild claim you quoted, widely taught and widely accepted as true across the country, was not an Act of Congress (although it could have been I suppose). It was attributed to "the Office of the Secretary of the Senate with the assistance of Johnny H. Killian of the Library of Congress." What do you suppose US bureaucrats or legislators or school teachers should say? That the U.S. Constitution, every voter and every state and Federal employee is evil? -- which is an infinitely worse form of distortion.

By and large, we do a pretty good job of electing people who more or less exhibit the basic values on which there is a broad consensus... American society is tolerant, sensitive to minority rights, quite wonderful when it comes to even-handed treatment of our neighbors... The case for anarchy turns on whether no government is better than good government... [Laissez Faire Law, p.29]

It is not wrong to be an American patriot, if your love of country pertains, not to the present, but to the historic achievement of the Founding Fathers, who fought for justice and freed themselves from tyranny. I am humbled to be an American patriot, and I hope I have the wit and courage that patriotism requires, because Jefferson and Madison were animated by a lifelong passion for justice. [COGIGG, p.98]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Constitution has failed the citizens of the United States it's because the citizens have failed the Constitution. This won't change with a better constitution, Ayn Rand de jure and Wolf DeVoon de facto not-withstanding (Utopia requires Utopians as heaven requires saints and hell requires evil-doers, or better government comes from better people [in the aggregate])

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Constitution has failed the citizens of the United States it's because the citizens have failed the Constitution. This won't change with a better constitution, Ayn Rand de jure and Wolf DeVoon de facto not-withstanding (Utopia requires Utopians as heaven requires saints and hell requires evil-doers, or better government comes from better people [in the aggregate])

I think you're right, Brant. Miss Rand was playing for long-term, diffuse enlightenment. Maybe it's happening in slow motion. Being far less talented, I dealt with concrete exegencies and tried to wrangle a passel of anarchists into a corral of reasonable conduct for their own good, like herding feral tomcats. How smart was that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While enjoying reading this entertaining and informative discussion, it struck me that no one here (including me) has any power to change what is being discussed. There are some great suggestions for solutions and creative alternatives... and yet everyone here is utterly powerless to actually do anything that could effect banking policy even one whit.

Greg

The purpose of these discussions is to understand and integrate these things through topic classes. Education.

What good does that do when there's not a f***ing thing you or me or anyone else can do to change it? This is why my attention is on what I do within my sphere of personal influence in response to the way the world is right now...

...because that is there where all of the personal responsibility and control is. :smile:

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Constitution has failed the citizens of the United States it's because the citizens have failed the Constitution. This won't change with a better constitution, Ayn Rand de jure and Wolf DeVoon de facto not-withstanding (Utopia requires Utopians as heaven requires saints and hell requires evil-doers, or better government comes from better people [in the aggregate])

--Brant

Bullseye. :smile:

The Constitution was designed only for decent people.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While enjoying reading this entertaining and informative discussion, it struck me that no one here (including me) has any power to change what is being discussed. There are some great suggestions for solutions and creative alternatives... and yet everyone here is utterly powerless to actually do anything that could effect banking policy even one whit.

Greg

The purpose of these discussions is to understand and integrate these things through topic classes. Education.

What good does that do when there's not a f***ing thing you or me or anyone else can do to change it? This is why my attention is on what I do within my sphere of personal influence in response to the way the world is right now...

...because that is there where all of the personal responsibility and control is. :smile:

Greg

We, Sir Greg, maybe somebody will learn enough to think of writing an important book that will change things for the better or maybe start a specialized Web Site that will effect the same thing. All you're doing is wondering why you're here, it would seem.

--Brant

my mind has been working like this since I was 2 1/2 and I suspect you have a similar tale for what you're into

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Constitution has failed the citizens of the United States it's because the citizens have failed the Constitution. This won't change with a better constitution, Ayn Rand de jure and Wolf DeVoon de facto not-withstanding (Utopia requires Utopians as heaven requires saints and hell requires evil-doers, or better government comes from better people [in the aggregate])

--Brant

Bullseye. :smile:

The Constitution was designed only for decent people.

Greg

Yep, when it comes to Greg take the best and leave the rest (the same for road kill)

--Brant the chef

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While enjoying reading this entertaining and informative discussion, it struck me that no one here (including me) has any power to change what is being discussed. There are some great suggestions for solutions and creative alternatives... and yet everyone here is utterly powerless to actually do anything that could effect banking policy even one whit.

Greg

The purpose of these discussions is to understand and integrate these things through topic classes. Education.

What good does that do when there's not a f***ing thing you or me or anyone else can do to change it? This is why my attention is on what I do within my sphere of personal influence in response to the way the world is right now...

...because that is there where all of the personal responsibility and control is. :smile:

Greg

We, Sir Greg, maybe somebody will learn enough to think of writing an important book that will change things for the better or maybe start a specialized Web Site that will effect the same thing. All you're doing is wondering why you're here, it would seem.

--Brant

my mind has been working like this since I was 2 1/2 and I suspect you have a similar tale for what you're into

Dream on, buddy...

...no freaking book or website will ever change the banking system. Only bankers can change the banking system... either them... or a total collapse of the system altogether.

I'm here to offer, only as a suggestion, an alternative personal approach to world problems, as just one possible outside-the-box way to live a good life in this world...

...just as it is right now. :smile:

No one can change the economic system of this world... however everyone can change how they respond to it.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Constitution has failed the citizens of the United States it's because the citizens have failed the Constitution. This won't change with a better constitution, Ayn Rand de jure and Wolf DeVoon de facto not-withstanding (Utopia requires Utopians as heaven requires saints and hell requires evil-doers, or better government comes from better people [in the aggregate])

--Brant

Bullseye. :smile:

The Constitution was designed only for decent people.

Greg

Yep, when it comes to Greg take the best and leave the rest (the same for road kill)

--Brant the chef

In America you have to earn the right to the best, by living a life deserving of it, and if you don't you have no one else to blame but yourself, because nothing prevents everyone from enjoying the same blessings of America.

America is not zero sum Marxism.

That's just an excuse for failures.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um,yeah. That's kind of what it means to be internally inconsistent. Were the Nazis evil? Hell yes. Were they contradicting themselves? No.

This is like trying to explain what the difference between 0 and 1 is. ("There are only 10 kinds of people in the world. Those that understand binary and those that don't.")

Well, force is used to maintain property just as it is used to maintain all rules. Sometimes it may consist of "initiating force", like booting out a peaceful trespasser or sit-in protesters. No force is involved in trespassing, pollution, soliciting children for sex, violating someone's privacy, criminally transmitting HIV, libel, and numerous other things. Showing your junk off to a child or a victim of sexual, while not using "force" can traumatize someone and mental and emotional damage is just as real as physical damage. If any of my political opinions have public force and you happen to run counter to them, then I fully expect the law come down on you. It's nothing personal, 'Cisco, it's just politics.

Your sophistical "arguments" that you put forward "proving" that FRB are about equal to the sovereign citizen movement and freemen on the land on the scam scale--you know, the people who claim British common law is the "true" law of the land and that signing your name on government documents a certain spears you of some fictitious collateral taken out in your name. FRB can't be fraud if there is no intent to defraud. You complained about the language banks use as not being clear enough. So what? Written word is subject to ambiguity and these disputes are unavoidable. If someone can't deliver because of circumstances beyond their control, then they're not at blameless and punishing them would be punishing the innocent. Sorry man, your idiosyncrasies just don't jive with the views of civilized justice e.

Nazi ideology was inconsistent with reality inasmuch as there is 1. No proof of the existence of an "Aryan" race, and 2. No proof that the supposed members of this race were intellectually or physically superior to the members of other races.

Nazis were also internally inconsistent in that to promote the interests of the race they brought on collectivism and war, which led directly to the deaths, rapes, and impoverishment of millions of their vaunted "Aryans" and the quick demise of their Third Reich, which was supposed to last 1,000 years.

As for taxes, one can, of course, pretend that they are not theft, but thinking so doesn't make it so. Taking another man's treasure by force or threat thereof is theft ("the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it"), whether the taker is Barack Obama, Jesus Christ, or the head of the IRS.

Similarly, if a man forces sex on a woman, we don't have to know or care whether or not the man thinks he's a rapist to call his action rape.

Defensive force is in an entirely different moral category than the initiation of force. The man who breaks into a woman's home and kills her is a murderer. The woman who shoots the invader first is a hero.

Force has not been initiated against a trespasser who is manhandled off someone's land, since the trespasser does not enjoy the right not to be manhandled while on someone else's property.

We have covered pollution before. I have shown that is is an actionable offense if damage can be shown. One may not use children for sex because they are not of the age of consent; therefore their involvement is not voluntary. Invasions or privacy may or may not be actionable depending on whether or not there is trespass. Mr. X may stand in his yard and take photos of Ms. Y in her yard sunbathing. No rights violation. Similarly, if Mr. X takes off his clothes in his own yard, Ms. Y has no case against him. Traumatized? Some people are traumatized by seeing African-Americans. (Unfortunately, I've met a some backward adults who seethe whenever a black man comes into view.) Should blacks then be forbidden to buy certain residential properties? Criminally transmitting HIV is the initiation of force (assault). Libel is not.

The rest of your post is a fruitless attempt to associate me with a set of beliefs I do not subscribe to. There is nothing ambiguous about a certificate showing ownership of 1/10 of an ounce of gold in a bank vault. You might as well say that all titles to all property are ambiguous and therefore the government can seize it all and reapportion it according to a new Marxist order.

As for a merchant not delivering a purchased item, read the Uniform Commercial Code, which has been adopted by most states:

If a seller fails to make a delivery, or the seller makes a defective delivery, the buyer may reject the goods, cancel the contract and: (1) obtain "cover" goods (substitute materials) or (2) recover damages for the non-delivery. The buyer also can recover damages for the defects in any accepted goods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

live a good life in this world...just as it is right now. :smile:  No one can change the economic system of this world.

 

Good evidence that the world economic system is changing.

 

May 20, 2013 - Russia’s second biggest financial institution, VTB, signed a deal with the Bank of China to bypass the dollar and pay each other in domestic currencies. The so-called Agreement on Cooperation — signed in the presence of Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is on a visit to Shanghai — was followed by the long-awaited announcement on Wednesday of a massive natural gas deal 10 years in the making. “Our countries have done a huge job to reach a new historic landmark,” Putin said.

 

May 21, 2014 - Russia and China have at long last signed a natural gas supply contract valued at over $400 billion, in the first major deal signaling Russia's defiance of isolation by the West since the crisis in Ukraine unfolded. Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping witnessed the deal in Shanghai, where Putin was on a visit to forge ties as part of a gradual rapprochement between the two Eastern powers.

 

road-to-recovery.jpg20140906_white.jpg

I hope you think "living a good life" means less economic opportunity and higher cost of living, especially in California.

gdpmonbase.png2014%20cost%20of%20living-house.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bullseye. :smile:

The Constitution was designed only for decent people.

Greg

Like the decent folks who whupped their Negro slaves?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nazi ideology was inconsistent with reality inasmuch as there is 1. No proof of the existence of an "Aryan" race, and 2. No proof that the supposed members of this race were intellectually or physically superior to the members of other races.

Being wrong still isn't necessarily the same thing as self-contradictory and they're not contradicting themselves in any of that.

Nazis were also internally inconsistent in that to promote the interests of the race they brought on collectivism and war, which led directly to the deaths, rapes, and impoverishment of millions of their vaunted "Aryans" and the quick demise of their Third Reich, which was supposed to last 1,000 years.

Then they failed to achieve what they wanted to achieve. Again, no internally inconsistent beliefs.

As for taxes, one can, of course, pretend that they are not theft, but thinking so doesn't make it so.

No disagreement here, but for someone to be guilty of theft, then they have to be aware that taking it is wrong. If I mistakenly take your yearbook instead of mine, then I haven't stolen it from you.

Taking another man's treasure by force or threat thereof is theft ("the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it"), whether the taker is Barack Obama, Jesus Christ, or the head of the IRS.

Keyword: rightful. If it doesn't rightfully belong to you, then the taxes you pay aren't theft. And theft doesn't require force to be theft.

Similarly, if a man forces sex on a woman, we don't have to know or care whether or not the man thinks he's a rapist to call his action rape.

A case of two drunk lovers I think blows this apart. Though I think exceptions to this are very rare.

Defensive force is in an entirely different moral category than the initiation of force. The man who breaks into a woman's home and kills her is a murderer. The woman who shoots the invader first is a hero.

Calling it "defensive force" is just an attempt to sneak your conclusions in unnoticed.

Force has not been initiated against a trespasser who is manhandled off someone's land, since the trespasser does not enjoy the right not to be manhandled while on someone else's property.

Fine, the trespasser may not have the right to be on that property, but they still aren't using force.

We have covered pollution before. I have shown that is is an actionable offense if damage can be shown.

Right, damage. Not necessarily force.

One may not use children for sex because they are not of the age of consent; therefore their involvement is not voluntary.

I'm not so sure it's accurate to say that they're involvement is not voluntary, but rather that they simply are incapable of understanding what they're doing. If they're younger, then it might be appropriate to say that, but I still think voluntary/coercive is the wrong way to describe it.

Invasions or privacy may or may not be actionable depending on whether or not there is trespass. Mr. X may stand in his yard and take photos of Ms. Y in her yard sunbathing. No rights violation. Similarly, if Mr. X takes off his clothes in his own yard, Ms. Y has no case against him.

And I disagree with you. I don't that they should be able to do either.

Traumatized? Some people are traumatized by seeing African-Americans. (Unfortunately, I've met a some backward adults who seethe whenever a black man comes into view.) Should blacks then be forbidden to buy certain residential properties?

No, but I don't think that invalidates criminalizing/tortifying traumatizing someone in other circumstances.

Criminally transmitting HIV is the initiation of force (assault).

There is no force involved and it's not assault. It is its own separate charge. You're getting really desperate trying to cast criminal transmission of HIV as assault.

Libel is not.

So?

The rest of your post is a fruitless attempt to associate me with a set of beliefs I do not subscribe to. There is nothing ambiguous about a certificate showing ownership of 1/10 of an ounce of gold in a bank vault. You might as well say that all titles to all property are ambiguous and therefore the government can seize it all and reapportion it according to a new Marxist order.

:rolleyes:

As for a merchant not delivering a purchased item, read the Uniform Commercial Code, which has been adopted by most states:

If a seller fails to make a delivery, or the seller makes a defective delivery, the buyer may reject the goods, cancel the contract and: (1) obtain "cover" goods (substitute materials) or (2) recover damages for the non-delivery. The buyer also can recover damages for the defects in any accepted goods.

I'm sure there are exceptions. If there aren't, then it needs to be changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nazi ideology was inconsistent with reality inasmuch as there is 1. No proof of the existence of an "Aryan" race, and 2. No proof that the supposed members of this race were intellectually or physically superior to the members of other races.

Being wrong still isn't necessarily the same thing as self-contradictory and they're not contradicting themselves in any of that.

Yes.

A person's behavior can be reasonable and logical and efficient, and yet they can still operate on a foundation of lies of an immoral ideology.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... no one here (including me) has any power to change what is being discussed. ... everyone here is utterly powerless to actually do anything that could effect banking policy even one whit.

Greg

Greg, self-liberation is a significant rubric among "objectivish" innovators. Do you not hold silver and gold coins? That is your response and your anticipation in creating for yourself "the Objectivist alternative to the Federal Reserve." Have you never bought or sold goods or services for hard money? Many of us have and do. As for the service of a "clearinghouse" do you not know providers by their reputation. Liberty Coin Service in Lansing, Michigan, is highly regarded. They are award-winning numismatists and longtime friends of freedom known to many.

You should articulate for us just what it is you expect of an "objectivist federal reserve." Then explain why you do not want to go into just that business. Of course, your aversion to the work does not prevent someone else from doing it.

Truth to tell, you are singing an old song...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aahtK6W7l78

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A person's behavior can be reasonable and logical and efficient, and yet they can still operate on a foundation of lies of an immoral ideology.

Greg

That is absolutely not true. You have fallen into the error of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy as applied to ethics. No distinction exists between the moral and the practical. You grant to the looters the "practical" ends of taking someone else's productive effort, but deny the foundation from which that lootable stuff derives.

First of all, just with individuals making personal choices, it is historically true that when looters dominate, producers go into hiding. Everyone knows the "Dark Ages". Similar events are known from the long history of China. It is not "practical" (beyond the range of the moment) to loot from producers.

Secondarily, as Ayn Rand quipped, the definition of "practical" depends on what it is you intend to practice. That speaks to your deeper assumption - perhaps your personal deepest. You seem to accept Machiavelli's The Prince and Plato's The Republic. Do you really think that such constructs are workable in the real world? How long could you get away with killing the friends and relatives of the previous ruler (The Prince) or forcing everyone to eat at the same table and allowing sons to anonymously have sexual relations with their own fathers? (The Republic)?

The specifics do not matter. The broad theory that you apparently accept is that you can get away with anything. Objectivism teaches that ideas have consequences and that actions have consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nazi ideology was inconsistent with reality inasmuch as there is 1. No proof of the existence of an "Aryan" race, and 2. No proof that the supposed members of this race were intellectually or physically superior to the members of other races.

Being wrong still isn't necessarily the same thing as self-contradictory and they're not contradicting themselves in any of that.

Yes.

A person's behavior can be reasonable and logical and efficient, and yet they can still operate on a foundation of lies of an immoral ideology.

Greg

The Nazis were far from reasonable. Although you are correct about efficiency. It is absurd, for instance, to believe that only freedom can bring prosperity. China's authoritarianism is making them wealthier (that this only happened after abandoning Maoism is irrelevant), but I would not give up my freedom for riches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now