Thread: This is what you get, America, for submitting to the globalists.

Originally Posted by Alric

Okay, I really need to correct you on this point. Historically money always had value because it was made of something with inherit value, such as gold or silver. If you have gold or silver coins, then it doesn't matter who makes it at all, an ounce of gold is an ounce of gold.

If a group has the resources they could theoretically print their own money, but no one would accept it, unless it was reliable. If they are shown to be reliable, then people will use it, if they are not then they won't. And even then they have to back up their money, such as saying each dollar is worth so much gold.

The problem with the US government, is that the government prints money way to fast, and is not backing their money. The dollar is unreliable, and in a normal system, no one would use it. However congress passed laws, forcing people to accept the US dollar, as payment. So no one has a choice.

You can say what you want about an anarchy, and a lot of it really is just opinion and stuff. However, an anarchy would have a superior currency system, than we have to do. It has been proven throughout history, that bad governments run good currency out of the market with their bad currency. Under a total free market, and anarchy, no one would force you to accept bad money, and so the end result is good money.

Also anarchy, would rid us of inflation. Inflation is caused directly by the government printing money. No one printing money out of nothing, then there is no inflation. Simple as that.

Ah so there are some who do read Austrian economics here [ other then Blue and myself ]

I read Austrian economics, but you dont have to be an anarchist to believe in a free market.

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

I read Austrian economics, but you dont have to be an anarchist to believe in a free market.

Maybe not, but it certainly helps. Typically believing in some form of government while at the same time believing in a free market is contradictory. That's what I think, anyway.

Well, having a national defense, fire departments, courts of justice, etc is not really impeding on a free market.

however, i believe we should allow competition to compete with the fire dept and the hospitals, and the post office, etc.

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

Well, having a national defense, fire departments, courts of justice, etc is not really impeding on a free market.

however, i believe we should allow competition to compete with the fire dept and the hospitals, and the post office, etc.

Under a monopoly, you do not have any rational knowledge of prices since there is no competitors. Economic calculation is impossible under monopoly.

i never called for a monopoly

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

i never called for a monopoly

Government is a monopoly.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Ah so there are some who do read Austrian economics here [ other then Blue and myself ]

Forgetting me?

I'm for austrian economics too, but with a constitutional republic.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Maybe not, but it certainly helps. Typically believing in some form of government while at the same time believing in a free market is contradictory. That's what I think, anyway.

You can have a free market, just get the government out of it, and prohibit them from doing so, you don't have to entirely abandon all government just to make the markets free.

Plus, say a dangerous country invades this one, how would an anarchist society declare and fight and win a war? or prevent a war?

Who becomes in charge of the nuclear weapons?

You must realise we do need a military force backed by a government.

Originally Posted by guerilla

Forgetting me?

I'm for austrian economics too, but with a constitutional republic.

You are for Austrian economics? What is your theory concerning monopoly? Is it Misesian or Rothbardian?

Originally Posted by guerilla

You can have a free market, just get the government out of it, and prohibit them from doing so, you don't have to entirely abandon all government just to make the markets free.

Plus, say a dangerous country invades this one, how would an anarchist society declare and fight and win a war? or prevent a war?

Who becomes in charge of the nuclear weapons?

You must realise we do need a military force backed by a government.

The government by its very nature affects the economy. How are you going to support government without taxation? Are you going to allow legal tender laws? Interstate regulation? National debt?

Concerning national defense, Hans-Hoppe has a wonderful book that completely blows this myth out of the water.

The Myth of National Defense

Rothbardian I agree with most, its more of a laissez faire type economy.

Not like todays 'lets stick my greasy federal hands in the economy, economy'

I see where your going with that national defense thing, I'm on the fence, I think perhaps we could defend ourselves if we had militias and every person had guns and such.

But in terms of an aerial war, how could a militia or citizens deal with that?

Maybe there would have to be an aerial militia and a navy militia or something...


I sort of see where your coming from though, I was born in a world of government, as most are...and we have never had no government so we cannot possibly envision or picture a world without it...its like a world without rules it seems to the common man.

In a sense we have all been brainwashed to not accept a anarchy or near anarchy.

No matter how much i try to be a freethinker i realize im still to a certain degree pre-programmed, by tv...by everything really all these years I was in the dark as a child.

Oh btw heres a cool snippet from Russia Today with Max Kaiser (sp?)

He speaks the raw unfiltered unbiased truth about the future of the US Dollar and America as a nation.



I personally agree with Max, and I think he is dead accurate.

Look at gold, it surpassed 1,000 an ounce!

Dollar = dead/dying/hanging on by a string

Originally Posted by guerilla

Rothbardian I agree with most, its more of a laissez faire type economy.

Ok so you agree that monopolies are not natural phenomenon that result from a free market, that the only monopolies are those created by government. Do you agree that monopolies can not rationally calculate their effectiveness of their product due to the lack of competition and the ability to arbitrarily set their prices? How do you feel about Mises' Socialist Calculation critique? Do you not agree that the socialist economy cannot economically calculate due to the lack in prices from the restriction on both trade and money and therefore naturally falls upon itself due to the fact that it cannot organize and specifically define if what they are making is done in the most effective and profitable way? If so then why do you not apply this socialist calculation critique to the state itself which is the institution of socialism?

Yeah guerilla i basically quit watching tv a few months ago, unless some important guest like Ron Paul or peter schiff or someone is on.

Edit: and that video was brilliant