Saffire

Well Social Security isn't real savings. Think about why people save money, rather than spend it immediately - they know they get a return (interest). Other people borrow the money and use it to start businesses, hire people, buy equipment, etc. Savings are used to increase production. Social Security, on the other hand, is used to buy US Treasury notes - government debt. Government doesn't produce anything with the money it borrows (except wars, poor educational systems, prisons, etc). So savings incentivizes production, Social Security incentivizes waste. The solution will be to return to the original, "blank slate" economy - no legal tender laws. People will choose which currency they want to accept as payment. Some people will choose dollars, but eventually the most stable currency will win - whether it be Swiss Francs or Silver or anything in between. The US people used to use Spanish coins as currency. You don't hear about that much in history books, though. The government will attempt to salvage its dollar-system, though. They'll claim it is necessary to move forward, when in fact it's a ball-and-chain holding production back. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvBKR5GPCWc]YouTube - ‪Alan Watts - Money‬‏[/ame] [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gizetn5VuA0]YouTube - ‪What Is Money?‬‏[/ame] Skip to 7:26 on the second video to see some detailed explanations by an Austrian economist on the possible outcomes of the current economic credit expansion.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NblhUrcdrSc]YouTube - ‪Economic Armageddon and You‬‏[/ame]

Chuck, I would never ask you to sacrifice for me, because sacrifice is never necessary! Think about what the word "sacrifice" means from the perspective of an egoist (which is what I am) - you are voluntarily giving something you own to another person/cause. Why would you do this? Because it makes you happy! So it is an economic calculation - the trade isn't in money or physical wealth, but VALUE. And the value is happiness. So from an egoist perspective (Austrian economics) there is no such thing as "sacrifice". There are only trades and thefts. And this is why we are against taxation/regulation. True, each individual doesn't live entirely independently of others - but this gives him no right to steal!

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/t-minus-two-months-500-billion-ticking-timebomb ... And their commentary, which recaps what we said 14 months ago: Treasury must “roll over” almost $500 b in debt that matures during August 2011 New debt is issued and the proceeds are used to repay the maturing debt plus interest due Treasury will require market access throughout August to avoid defaulting on maturing debt About $380 b in short-term T-Bills maturing, plus $90 b in long-term securities Quarterly refunding auction on August 15 And that's not it. On a Net basis, there is in addition another $134.3 billion in deficit that must be satisfied somehow. Alas, after August 3rd it will become impossible to plunder savings accounts going forward which means a game over in the kick the can down the road game. Here we go... the US government must finally cut spending or suffer collapse. And I couldn't be happier!

This is what the system currently teaches. The meme is: "Sure, we've made mistakes in the past. But they are eventually corrected via the miracle of Democracy!", the implication being that liberalization of society and increased wealth is due to government, rather than hindered by it. The free market is always portrayed as regressive, cruel, and unfair, while the evils of the State are glossed over as "ends justifying the means" (see: Civil War). There are numerous examples of the US government ignoring the Bill of Rights, so more amendments wouldn't change anything. The purpose of Constitutions is to distract the public - it gives them the impression of some peaceful, voluntary logic backing State violence.

Depends on what mood I'm in. When I'm feeling cheery and fun, I'll listen to more female vocalists. But most of the time I prefer male.

In economics, the only thing that matters is the production of goods and services that people want - cars, houses, HDTVs, computers, clothes, food, etc. Banks produce nothing. They only exist to keep accounts/records and to facilitate loans. When the price of something is too high (houses, debt, education, stocks, etc), the market will correct it, and the price will fall. It is natural for owners of these things to complain and blame other people (in this case, blame the young people). Defaulting on debt is sometimes an intelligent, wise thing to do. Why pay interest for the rest of your life, when you get nothing in return? The Spanish and Greeks would be wise to learn the history of Romania, and what happened to the president there in 1989... after he added too much debt to the country, and tried to force the people to pay for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceau%C8%99escu National debt is a very dangerous thing.

Oh those police will do whatever is necessary to keep their paychecks flowing! ;)

*tempted*

We have this here in the US, it's called "Habeus Corpus". The government doesn't always follow it though (it's for decoration - like all other constitutions, laws, treaties, etc)

Wasn't this in the Magna Carta? Something about the house being a man's castle.

If public sector workers actually provide value to society, people will voluntarily trade money for their services. And they will no longer be "public". ;) I wonder what Britain pays in interest on its national debt each year... Oh look: http://www.debtbombshell.com/ Hm, maybe THAT'S where all your money is going? Interest to bankers! Iceland had it right - default now, or forever be slaves to the banking elite. They will try to scare you with stories of chaos and starvation, but that's just a story to keep you paying for nothing. They provide nothing of value to society.

They already have this stuff today, Turkey. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. :dozey: No, what I'm telling you is that the market incentivizes increased production of things poor people need while force doesn't. So when the provision of food, housing, healthcare, and education isn't monopolized/paid for with stolen funds, the price of these things naturally falls over time (because entrepreneurs have an incentive to discover ways to lower their price so the maximum # of people can buy them). Governments have no incentive to reduce prices. They also have no incentive to provide the service at all - they just do it for cultural reasons, on occasion. There are many news stories about cops ignoring people who need their help, teachers not giving a crap about their students, firefighters allowing houses to burn down, and presidents starting unnecessary wars in the Middle East. Government is a mechanism to transfer money from the productive class to the parasitical class. The parasitical class uses the media and the monopolized school system to propagandize in its favor (claiming the poor would starve and the rich would eat all the food or whatever. Or maybe we won't have roads because only Obama knows the secret recipe to make asphault). EDIT: No I'm talking about rent seeking behavior. Nobody likes competition.

Hot and stinky. There's a paper factory a few miles up the street from me. But it'll blow through after tomorrow.

Gah, you're only 17. I was going to suggest we make thousands of libertarian babies together. Wait, maybe it's legal in your state or mine. I can't keep track of all these friggin laws.

Yes, the only way anyone will ever learn math is if there's a violent monopolist in charge of teaching it. And the teachers must be paid 70k a year because, well... it's for the children!

http://www.news4jax.com/news/28373245/detail.html I guess I'm the only one here not surprised. :dozey:

The same way everything else is paid for - voluntarily. You want food? Pay for it. You want an education? Pay for it. You want healthcare? Pay for it. You want security? Pay for it. You want clothes? Pay for them. House? Pay. Space ship? Pay. In any market, the production of goods and services is maximized and directed by the profit motive. Governments make the claim that the profit motive is a bad thing - that it is selfish and hurts the poor. But governments are comprised of humans (just as corporations are). And as such, Governments are subject to the EXACT same greed, malice, and imperfections corporations are - only they have a violently enforced monopoly. Monopolies are bad. Over time, the quality of their goods/services falls, while the prices go up.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. 1. Ron Paul has no problem with immigrants, legal or illegal. He would eliminate laws making it difficult to become a US citizen. 2. There's nothing inherently wrong with a small government. You want big government? Move to North Korea. 3. Taxation is theft. It is a non-voluntary transfer of wealth from those who aren't politically well-connected to those who ARE. 4. Ron Paul supports the privatization of all schools. If you want to go to a religious school, you can go pray all day that God will help you learn math. If you want to go to a secular school, you can study math normally. It's all about choice, not force. 5. You know who's for gun rights? Obama. Clinton. Jimmy Carter. Except they only support gun rights for their friends - the police. You know, the guys who protect them when they make overwhelmingly unpopular things laws that YOU MUST obey or be killed. The police also regularly break into peaceful peoples' houses and shoot them and their family. So yeah, all politicians LOVE guns. They just want their buddies to have them, not you. 6. The Federal Government does a terrible job at protecting the environment. The market does a better job (because owners of land have an incentive to keep their property value high). 7. 50 states? What is that? It's called FREEDOM to CHOOSE. You don't like a law? You can go somewhere else. Right now we have 195 countries in the world. Using your logic, this is madness, and we should only have one. Then, when you don't like a global law or tax, you can go to Mars. Decentralization of power is the goal because it allows for systemic resiliency, rather than authoritarian regimes that eventually collapse and kill/impoverish many millions of people. 8. He doesn't support taxpayer funding of stem cell research. He'd just make it legal. __________________________________________ If you want to understand Ron Paul, just ask yourself this simple question: Is it voluntary? If it's not voluntary, Ron Paul is against it. If it is, he's fine with it.

If this relationship makes it past 5 years, the US will pull troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Japan, and Germany. I'm not holding my breath.

Oh Darlene, I could kiss you now! :D You are absolutely right, and this is what all governments are saying to their people - "If you don't save the banks, the economy will become so bad that you will starve and everyone will lose their job!" This is one of the biggest lies in history. That's like saying "If GM goes bankrupt, there won't be any cars for us to drive!"

A part of me hopes Ron Paul doesn't win, because whoever the next president is... it's probably going to be when the economy totally collapses. I don't want people blaming that on Ron Paul or libertarians.

I thought you were talking about your legal name, I came in here to offer you moral support! Some people get stuck with horrible names.

*sigh* Reilly, you're just being disagreeable for the lulz. 1. I never claimed to have scientific data that contradicts conviction rates. I was simply pointing out that conviction rates aren't by any means scientific. They are regularly falsified, and I can link you to evidence that many rape claims against men are shown to be false. Women understand that shrieking "rape" is one golden bullet society has given them to totally destroy a man's life, regardless of evidence. 2. Reason for "massive cover up" - men (especially cops who already have low self esteem to begin with) tend to play "white knight". No, it's not a scientific claim. But it's something I think most neutral observers can agree occurs. Cops do the "guilty until proven innocent" thing when it comes to claims of sexual abuse by men. Sexual abuse cases by women aren't taken as seriously, and victims are told to "man up". 3. You're doing it now. The thematic nature of your posts in this thread has been nothing but "herp derp men are arrested more often for sexual abuse therefore the guy in this video is a total sexual pervert and should be locked up and shot, oh wait nevermind, not locked up and shot. I'm not really sure what the punishment should be. Herp derp." 4. All I know is that you people are afraid of men. It's a little funny when you think about it. Maybe you should get out the house more and go meet some more people with XY chromosomes. You might be pleasantly surprised. If you're still scurred, you can go join the team at Fox News and talk about how Pedophile Terrorists are Raping Amurrka. Again, you ignored my question: What would you do to this man, for kissing some children on the lips? Give me a detailed answer, I can't wait to hear it. Would you fine him? Shoot him? Hang him? What if everyone stood around watching you do it? Would you feel a bit awkward?

You seriously need a pirate outfit here. So awesome.