Editorial
What is Fiat Money?
A Short Primer
The term "fiat money" − more correctly "fiat currency" − is becoming more wide-spread than it was seven years ago when we put out a movie called FIAT EMPIRE. I certainly didn't invent the term, so I am just going along with the economic jargon as best I can. But for anyone that doesn't understand what fiat currency is, it's reasonably simple. Here's a primer.
Fiat currency is PAPER currency that is issued by government "fiat" or decree. The reason it's issued by government decree, or fiat, is because ordinarily no one would accept or use it because it can no longer be REDEEMED for gold or silver. After all, it's just PAPER. "Redeem" simply means the act of taking your PAPER currency into your local bank and having them give you GOLD or SILVER in exchange for it. In other words, the bank will redeem specie as evidenced by your paper. They will give you the amount of gold or silver specie written on the FACE of your paper bill (its "face value"). If the face of your paper bill says "$10 Silver Certificate" (instead of 10 dollars or 10 Federal Reserve Notes) the bank will give you 10 "dollars" worth of silver.
So how much silver is this? Well, it depends on the current definition of the "dollar" when you try to redeem your silver.
What most people don't understand is a "dollar" is a unit of WEIGHT. So, once a "dollar" is defined (by some authority or the free market), the bank knows how much silver to trade/give/redeem you for your $10 Silver Certificate.
Pursuant to the Coinage Act of 1792, a dollar is defined as 371.25 grains of pure silver. Since 1 ounce = 437.5 grains, a dollar contains exactly .849 ounces of pure silver.
Thus when you go to the bank with your ten dollar ($10) Silver Certificate, the teller will give you 8.49 ounces of silver in COIN form. Since silver is a soft metal (gold as well) the coins are never 100% pure silver. So a COIN'S weight is always a composite of silver and some other hardening metal, as in this example. Thus the bank would redeem the $10 Silver Certificate most likely with a $10 Eagle, two Half Eagles or ten silver dollar coins.
But if any of this has confused you, the good news is this: YOU DON'T HAVE TO GET LOST IN ANY OF THESE DETAILS.
You can define a "DOLLAR" as whatever you want. The government can define a "DOLLAR" as whatever it wants. The free market can define a "DOLLAR" as whatever it wants. That last – the free market − is the ONLY valid definition.
But when we go back onto a Gold Standard (as many say we will), we will probably have a new Coinage Act passed by Congress to get things started. Just as there have been two other Federal Reserve Systems (central banks) over the years, there have been about six Coinage Acts. The earliest one I am aware of was the Coinage Act of 1792 and the most recent one was the Coinage Act of 1965.
The Coinage Act of 1792 established the original definition of what a dollar was to be, how much silver there was supposed to be IN a dollar COIN or redeemed for a PAPER dollar certificate. This is what we could go back to when the Gold Standard is reinstated.
But we all remember the infamous Coinage Act of 1965. At least, we should. That was the Act of a misguided Congress that turned our quarters, dimes and half dollars into clad tokens. On 23 July 1965 the Congress, operating in its own interest and in the interest of greedy New York bankers against the interest of WE THE PEOPLE, removed all the silver from DIMES and QUARTERS and debased the silver content in the HALF DOLLARS down to 40% from 90%. They then made up the weight and size of the coins with copper. Remember that ugly copper sandwich that suddenly appeared in the middle of all coins starting in 1965?
THIS WAS A SYMBOL THAT AMERICA WAS BEING CHEAPENED AND SHOULD HAVE ALARMED ALL CITIZENS.
It alarmed me. That VERY day I KNEW something was wrong in America. Just like the JFK assassination, I remember the exact place I was when I first saw the new quarters. I thought to myself: "What the hell? They took the silver out of these. Who did this? Who gave them permission to cheapen the quarters we all use?"
Well, the answer to this question is: the elite banks and the U.S. Congress. These two entities conspired to debase the currency, not only by lowering and removing the silver content, but by making none of the paper Silver Certificates redeemable in silver. They had already accomplished this with Gold Certificates long ago; now they were robbing U.S. citizens of their silver.
Why were they doing this?
If you go Wikipedia − which has become a dictionary of establishment propaganda − it says: "This act (the Coinage Act of 1965) was in response to coin shortages caused by the rising price of silver."
The rising price of silver, eh? What a bunch of horse. How can silver rise in "price" when "price" is DEFINED in silver. Point one. Point two: As G. Edward Griffin explains on page 141 of his book, The Creature from Jekyll Island, Wiki has used the old fallacy known as "the misleading theory of quantity" again. Thus, if there is NOTHING else you take away from reading these words, PLEASE come away with at least this one thing:
THE AMOUNT OF GOLD AND SILVER IN EXISTENCE IS IRRELEVANT TO THE ABILITY TO USE GOLD OR SILVER AS MONEY.
The fallacy of QUANTITY is the NUMBER ONE way apologists for FIAT CURRENCY (money NOT redeemable in silver or gold) attempt to INVALIDATE the Gold Standard. It's the number one way they attempt to BRAINWASH you into using PAPER currency, i.e., fiat currency.
The reason is simple. These people (elite bankers and corrupt congressmen) want us all using PAPER money BECAUSE THEY CAN ENDLESSLY PRINT PAPER MONEY − BUT THEY CAN'T PRINT UP GOLD OR SILVER.
By getting gold and silver out of the picture any way they can − removing it from coins, not redeeming paper bills for it, blatantly confiscating it as they did in 1934, defaulting on foreign redemptions as Nixon did in 1971, AND by making the false claim of "shortages" − they can literally print up (known as "monetizing debt" or "quantitative easing") as much currency as they want to expand the WELFARE-WARFARE state.
Again, the reason the QUANTITY of silver or gold available is of no concern is explained on page 141 of Mr. Griffin's book. If there is ever a shortage of silver, the definition of a silver dollar can be REDEFINED by Congress in the full light of day and after sufficient public debate (unlike the way the Federal Reserve Act was passed). For instance, I said above that, pursuant to the Coinage Act of 1792, a dollar is defined as 371.25 grains of pure silver. Well, if there were to be a "shortage" of silver and everyone was freaking out, a dollar COULD be redefined by an act of Congress as 300.00 grains of pure silver instead of 371.25 grains. BUT this would not even be necessary, for the market would automatically redefine the ratio of silver by weight to the number of paper certificates representing each ounce.
Thus, when one sees what is really going on, statements like − "This act was in response to coin shortages caused by the rising price of silver." – are revealed for what they are: ignorant or misleading pronouncements that serve the interests of a partnership between the banking elite and a rogue Congress that's attempting to confiscate the value of the nation's money supply. Thus, what an ignoramus of a statement like this is essentially saying is: "Oh, we can't make any more silver coins because the price of silver is too high." This may sound reasonable to the general public, but what the banking frauds who say things like this have failed to mention is: no more silver coins SHOULD be made. Why would anyone WANT to make more silver coins than the number of silver coins that have already established themselves in market circulation? Bear in mind that using silver coins PREVENTS fraudulent bankers and their rogue accomplices in Congress from INCREASING the money supply. Think about it. When the money supply is INCREASED, WHO GETS THE INCREASE OF MONEY? Well, that should not be hard to figure out. The GOVERNMENT and the BANKS get the increase. That's WHY they conspire to get control over coinage and printing of the nation's currency and eliminate GOLD and SILVER with whatever excuses they can dream up. This is also WHY the Framers of the U.S. Constitution stated in Article I, Sections 8 & 10 that money must be GOLD or SILVER COIN and no BILLS OF CREDIT are permitted.
What's a BILL OF CREDIT? It's essentially a Federal Reserve Note − what we use as "money" now that the banking frauds have extracted all the silver and gold out of our money supply. So technically, the "money" we are now using is illegal (unconstitutional), and the congressmen that played a part in effectuating the overt or covert transition to it are actually partners with the elite New York banks in a long-term criminal conspiracy. See the movie FIAT EMPIRE for details (http://www.MoviePubs.Net/singles).
Given these considerations − and the idea that you can fool some of the people some of the time but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time − is it any wonder millions are protesting (both through the Tea Party demonstrations and now the Occupy Wall Street Movement) across the country, and even the world, as fiat currency is also the source of the European debt crises as well?
The reason for the mass protests is because millions of people have had the VALUE sucked out of their lives in exactly the same way the Federal Reserve System and its rogue congressional partners sucked the SILVER out of our quarters back in 1965.
Wake up. It's time to put value back into our money and remove from power the bankers and government officials that played a part in this worldwide monetary scam. It's also time to end the unjust enrichment of the corporations that surround these banks, as Jefferson once warned there would be.
Latest Daily Bell Articles
Feedback


![]() |
Posted by Bischoff on 01/26/12 06:18 PM
And then about the Quantity of Gold and Silver.
It does matter.
Gold and Silver are too scarce, and because world output of them is less than economic growth, this scarcity will get worse over time.
So the amount of Specie is dwindling, compared to the amount of goods.
That means that the price of money is rising.
JAEGER WROTE:
This is the oldest misunderstanding in the book. G. Edward Griffin covers "the misunderstood theory of quantity" in THE CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND; I forget what page, but I have referred hundreds of people to this page over the years.
]This implies structural deflation.
There is nothing wrong with structural deflation, otherwise how are we as a civilization going to evolve the obsolescence of money and debt? If you don't know what I mean, see my article entitled NON-MONETARY CIVILIZATION at Click to view link
The shortage problem of gold and silver available for use as currency was solved several hundreds of years ago. Ever heard of Adam Smith and the "Real Bills Doctrine"... ??? In North America, and in the United States, "redeemable" currency was created under the "Real Bills Doctrine" from 1750 until 1933.
Except for bankers purposely violating their bank charters under the RBD, the RBD created currency worked just fine, until the Banking Act of 1935 instituted currency creation by monetizing sovereign debt.
To turn from an irredeemable central bank currency to a monetary system of the Middle Ages, is not progess. The prescription of "structural deflation" using 100% gold and silver backed currency is simply nonsensical in light of the past experience with the clearly superior RBD currency. Gold and silver currency will not work in a modern economy. Structural deflation is an academic fantasy.
![]() |
Posted by James Jaeger on 01/14/12 09:58 AM
And then about the Quantity of Gold and Silver.
It does matter.
Gold and Silver are too scarce, and because world output of them is less than economic growth, this scarcity will get worse over time.
So the amount of Specie is dwindling, compared to the amount of goods.
That means that the price of money is rising.
JAEGER WROTE:
This is the oldest misunderstanding in the book. G. Edward Griffin covers "the misunderstood theory of quantity" in THE CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND; I forget what page, but I have referred hundreds of people to this page over the years.
]This implies structural deflation.
There is nothing wrong with structural deflation, otherwise how are we as a civilization going to evolve the obsolescence of money and debt? If you don't know what I mean, see my article entitled NON-MONETARY CIVILIZATION at Click to view link
![]() |
Posted by Chasvoice on 12/23/11 09:55 PM
Audio mp3 of Mr. Willie, go here:
Click to view link
Posted by Agent Weebley on 12/22/11 11:22 PM
Thanks, I'm working hard to get a decent grasp of the language.
I need it to discuss interest.
Your feedback helps.
Hi Anthony,
I like it! Agent "Toni" Weebley . . . I never had a first name . . . until now.
Thanks!
Your language is great . . . I had no idea you were Dutch.
Go here now Click to view link
Posted by Anthony Migchels on 12/22/11 06:56 PM
If you remove the premise that Governments and the Power Elite, are, in any way shape or form, valid representatives of people, then you too could use an excessive number of commas in your sentences.
Thanks, I'm working hard to get a decent grasp of the language.
I need it to discuss interest.
Your feedback helps.
Posted by Agent Weebley on 12/22/11 04:12 PM
It's a good thing DB wants Gold to win in a free market for currencies.
It's a bad thing they'll probably settle for the next best in their view: a state mandated Gold Standard.
-----
"You keep making statements regarding our positions that are untrue. We've been very consistent for years. We want to see a privately initiated system of free-banking ... competitive monies/currencies.
We believe history shows a private standard of bimetallism has been preferred probably for thousands of years. Human nature doesn't change. Nowhere, ever at any time for the decade we've been writing publicly on these issues have we favored a state-run standard of any sort. State run standards are a form of price fixing. "
I try hard to be factual DB, I'm sorry if I failed.
We're discussing serious matters here, but only because I appreciate your powerful thinking, otherwise I would not waste my time.
Like I said:
It's a good thing DB wants Gold to win in a free market for currencies.
It is true that I then speculated:
It's a bad thing they'll probably settle for the next best in their view: a state mandated Gold Standard.
This is indeed speculation, but an educated one: when I read your definition of Gold Standard, I read you assumed a new Gold Standard was coming, in whatever form.
I think you would prefer a state run gold standard over the current situation? But please correct me if I'm wrong.
To my mind this is the only time I risked 'making statements about your positions which are not true'. Again: please correct me if I'm wrong.
I appreciate the fact that you want a free currency market, that's where we meet, I just don't think it would see Gold prevail.
If you remove the premise that Governments and the Power Elite, are, in any way shape or form, valid representatives of people, then you too could use an excessive number of commas in your sentences.
Posted by Anthony Migchels on 12/22/11 12:30 PM
It's a good thing DB wants Gold to win in a free market for currencies.
It's a bad thing they'll probably settle for the next best in their view: a state mandated Gold Standard.
-----
"You keep making statements regarding our positions that are untrue. We've been very consistent for years. We want to see a privately initiated system of free-banking ... competitive monies/currencies.
We believe history shows a private standard of bimetallism has been preferred probably for thousands of years. Human nature doesn't change. Nowhere, ever at any time for the decade we've been writing publicly on these issues have we favored a state-run standard of any sort. State run standards are a form of price fixing. "
I try hard to be factual DB, I'm sorry if I failed.
We're discussing serious matters here, but only because I appreciate your powerful thinking, otherwise I would not waste my time.
Like I said:
It's a good thing DB wants Gold to win in a free market for currencies.
It is true that I then speculated:
It's a bad thing they'll probably settle for the next best in their view: a state mandated Gold Standard.
This is indeed speculation, but an educated one: when I read your definition of Gold Standard, I read you assumed a new Gold Standard was coming, in whatever form.
I think you would prefer a state run gold standard over the current situation? But please correct me if I'm wrong.
To my mind this is the only time I risked 'making statements about your positions which are not true'. Again: please correct me if I'm wrong.
I appreciate the fact that you want a free currency market, that's where we meet, I just don't think it would see Gold prevail.
Reply from The Daily Bell
I think you would prefer a state run gold standard over the current situation? But please correct me if I'm wrong.
You are wrong. Every law is a price fix, and every price fix distorts the market. The only way to increase the quality of life and prosperity is by REDUCING the amount of laws and regulation. A state-mandated gold standard would not be much better than the current fiat system in our view.Though it would, likely, be better.
Posted by Anthony Migchels on 12/22/11 12:22 PM
It does matter.
Gold and Silver are too scarce, and because world output of them is less than economic growth, this scarcity will get worse over time.
So the amount of Specie is dwindling, compared to the amount of goods.
That means that the price of money is rising.
This implies structural deflation.
Deflation is bad for growth. It inhibits investments, because there is an incentive to hoard the specie.
That's what the anti Gold crowd is concerned about and that is what is not being addressed by this writer.
Posted by Anthony Migchels on 12/22/11 12:16 PM
He's screaming so hard, he'll probably never find out why a gold standard is just as bad as paper.
Which is because they are both taxed with interest.
And since the average Joe loses 50% of his income to interest to the richest 10%, this not acceptable for real currency.
Click to view link
It's a shame that many well meaning people are clamoring for reinstating the Gold Standard. They are against the vultures, but can't see the vultures love Gold.
It's a good thing DB wants Gold to win in a free market for currencies.
It's a bad thing they'll probably settle for the next best in their view: a state mandated Gold Standard.
All this ado about Fiat is nothing.
We should be worried about what they do with the currency: rake in interest and create boom bust cycles.
Fiat has nothing to do with that, as the Gold Standards of the past show.
Reply from The Daily Bell
It's a good thing DB wants Gold to win in a free market for currencies.
It's a bad thing they'll probably settle for the next best in their view: a state mandated Gold Standard.
-----
You keep making statements regarding our positions that are untrue. We've been very consistent for years. We want to see a privately initiated system of free-banking ... competitive monies/currencies.
We believe history shows a private standard of bimetallism has been preferred probably for thousands of years. Human nature doesn't change. Nowhere, ever at any time for the decade we've been writing publicly on these issues have we favored a state-run standard of any sort. State run standards are a form of price fixing.
Posted by amanfromMars on 12/21/11 02:05 AM
And when a worm turns, does it morph into a viral plague or computer mole or virtually invisible trojan, able and enabled to phish and phorm intelligence with information presented to spooky agencies rather than be thought to have any interest in deep packet inspection metadatamining to plunder with exploitation of vulnerabilities discovered and uncovered in past treasure troves of juicy, down and dirty dark secrets for uncompetitive advantage and guilty leverage?
Posted by amanfromMars on 12/21/11 12:03 AM
Wow, a paper tiger roaring impotence. Who needs to use force to mess with the Constitution, Bischoff, whenever you and your "buddies" are so easily rendered irrelevant and powerless by Executive Office Orders/Presidential Decrees.
Posted by amanfromMars on 12/20/11 11:53 PM
"That you know so definitely how individuals would behave if free is a lie. Are you telling me that you're a prophet and can see the future, so you know for sure what's possible?"
No, but I am telling you that there is Natural Law which is discovered through feedback. What works, survives. Given human nature, liberty is only possible with limited government. Looking back in history, that is the lesson.
You on the other hand, seem to be the prophet. You chase these ideologies, these schools of thought, which are like a man who talked to himself for a hundred years, and who is impressed with the brilliance of his own mind, no matter how stupid it is.
Believe anything you want to believe. Try anything you want to try. Just DO NOT use force to mess with the Constitution, or "my buddies" and I will come after you.
Persuade people to follow your idiocy all you want. Who knows, the present generation might be dumb enough to follow some stupid ideology, as did the generation which allowed the ratification of the 16th, 17th and 18th Amendments. Until then, you will just have to be oppressed by the Constitution. You might bear this oppression more easily in a hippie community, than in a thugacracy, such as Chicago. The Constitution does give you a fairly wide choice.
I disagree fundamentally with your statement, ... .. "Given human nature, liberty is only possible with limited government. Looking back in history, that is the lesson." ... . and would proclaim that it is cynically wrong and, in extremes, doggedly expounded to try and brainwash impressionable minds to accept without critical thinking, the false premise.
The statement fails miserably to consider that human nature evolves rapidly, and humanity is not as it used to be, ignorant and alone and without the means of instant communication with smarter beings which would have knowledge of facts and intelligence beyond your imagination even in fiction, to share and advise upon so that the future is rapidly prepared for what is being delivered for Future Being. And the nature of humans/virtual machines may now very easily be sublimely remotely virtual computer controlled and neuro-linguistically programmed, with base root understandings/working RAMemory being constantly reprogrammed for the natural evolution and changing cycles/universal growth of everything [with binary/ternary/quantum control system manipulation of Basic Input/Intelligent Output Codes in such computerised case scenarios*]
And looking back in history, is the lesson that freedom is not possible with limited government ... ... for is that not what the past has, and the present is providing. and is there not conflict and division and is not man enslaved to systems of governance that would control his existence to benefit from his every thought and action.
* Does not dismiss that information as being untruthful for the RAND Corporation and its Center for Global Risk and Security would not be able to wholeheartedly agree with you.
Posted by Agent Weebley on 12/20/11 05:17 PM
You've made me very happy, because all I've wanted for weeks is to see the real Ingo. You have arrived, and I thank you.
Interesting.
Continued here later tonight . . . if you are into bleating and babbling, that is.
Click to view link
But don't click the link until midnight, since it doesn't exist right now!
. . . you know you wanna
Posted by Lamb on 12/19/11 01:09 AM
You've made me very happy, because all I've wanted for weeks is to see the real Ingo. You have arrived, and I thank you.
![]() |
Posted by Bischoff on 12/18/11 09:09 PM
I understand your fear that you can't be free without government to oppress you. You have the right to have government for yourself and anyone else who wants to join you. You don't have the right to force your government on me, regardless of whether or not you think your way is better than mine. You relentlessly argue for coercion of everyone, and then twist reason inside-out to argue that we can't be free unless we're living under coercion. Funny one, Ingo...
What you're arguing is the standard liberal defense of the current empire. You don't know me, or most everyone else, even a little bit, yet you judge that I and everyone else needs coercion, devised by people like yourself, to protect us from freedom, all based on your view of mob history. That you know so definitely how individuals would behave if free is a lie. Are you telling me that you're a prophet and can see the future, so you know for sure what's possible?
I have no argument with your suggestion that, in the past, if we ignore the individual and consider humanity as a collective, it appears that people have needed government, as they create it and make it bigger every chance they get, and that speaks to their past willingness to oppress each other for the promise of something for nothing.
But I also consider the fact that government has taught them well, and that maybe without the constant example of universal plunder, many people would flourish far beyond what's happened in the past.
For the present and future, the "history" argument is nonsense, simply because history is the past, and what's been done in the past will surely be surpassed. It is only the fear of change, and the resultant irrationality, that holds us to the dysfunction of the past.
Thanks for the tip. I didn't know that Chicago and hippie communes were free places, beyond the reach of government thugs. I'll check into that idea. I've heard that MetaPhoria is free too, so maybe I'll go there...
"That you know so definitely how individuals would behave if free is a lie. Are you telling me that you're a prophet and can see the future, so you know for sure what's possible?"
No, but I am telling you that there is Natural Law which is discovered through feedback. What works, survives. Given human nature, liberty is only possible with limited government. Looking back in history, that is the lesson.
You on the other hand, seem to be the prophet. You chase these ideologies, these schools of thought, which are like a man who talked to himself for a hundred years, and who is impressed with the brilliance of his own mind, no matter how stupid it is.
Believe anything you want to believe. Try anything you want to try. Just DO NOT use force to mess with the Constitution, or "my buddies" and I will come after you.
Persuade people to follow your idiocy all you want. Who knows, the present generation might be dumb enough to follow some stupid ideology, as did the generation which allowed the ratification of the 16th, 17th and 18th Amendments. Until then, you will just have to be oppressed by the Constitution. You might bear this oppression more easily in a hippie community, than in a thugacracy, such as Chicago. The Constitution does give you a fairly wide choice.
Posted by Lamb on 12/18/11 02:55 PM
"Based upon everything you've said, you have no intention of leaving me out of your scheme; rather, you have every intention of imposing your ideas about government on me and everyone else, by force."
You are totally ridiculous in making this statement, and you know it. I pursue no scheme, unless standing up for the original U.S. Constitution is a scheme in your mind.
You do not understand that without government there CANNOT exist liberty in a civilized society. Yet, at the same time, let me make it clear that the biggest threat to liberty is GOVERNMENT. Study history, and you will find it is so.
The founding fathers studied history. Based on their understanding, they crafted a Constitution which provided for a federal Republic and a government with specified and limited powers. The power within the federal government was checked by separate and independent branches. The federal government is devoid of central powers, except those specifically given to it by the States which founded the federal Republic. All other powers were reserved to the States or to the people.
With the creation of the U.S. Constitution, the powers of governments for the first time in world history were checked and balanced effectively. The establishment of checks and balances to limit the power of governments gave us the greatest amount of liberty.
Not until the States and the people threw caution to the wind by ratifying the 16th and 17th Amendments, did the U.S. Constitution become less than what the founders had intended. The interpretation given by the Supreme Court to the "general welfare" and the "interstate commerce" clauses, are another example of how the intent of the original Constitution was undermined. I see where the problem lies with the present form and power of the federal government. You DO NOT.
The problem with government is not GOVERNMENT. The problem with government is that its powers are not properly checked to allow for the greatest amount of liberty. I accept that the provisions in the original U.S. Constitution are the best way yet devised to check the powers between the branches of state and federal governments.
As I have tried to point out to you numerous times, the original U.S. Constitution has been perverted. The 16th and 17th Amendment, as was the 18th Amendment, repealed by the 21st Amendment, are entirely contrary to the spirit and the intent of the original U.S. Constitution. They give power to the federal government it was never intended to have. To return to a federal government with limited powers, means to return to the original Constitution sans the 16th and 17th Amendments, and by revisiting some of the Supreme Court decisions.
Ideologues like you, who see government as the problem no matter what, have an enemy in me when they advocate to overthrow U.S. constitutional government. If the Constitution needs to be changed, there is the amendment process.
Your contention that I force you, or anyone else, to live under the Constitution is ludicrous. I said that I gave an oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies foreign or domestic, and that I still feel bound by this oath.
As long as you are not an enemy of the U.S. Constitution, i.e. you do not advocate to change it, or to do away with it by violent means, you have nothing to fear from me, nor my "buddies".
Who cares, if you want to go off to live in some hippie commune, or to live in a structured city like Chicago... ??? That is your business. I could care less what you do.
However, when you agitate to do away with government under the U.S. Constitution, you put into jeopardy the little protection left afforded me by the present Constitution. You also squash the chance to have the Constitution returned to its original intent.
Why is it so hard for you to understand that you get my ire up when you trash the U.S. Constitution by following your twisted ideology... ???
"Too bad that you think so little of humanity that you think civilization would dissolve into chaos without government to collectively oppress."
Your statement simply portrays ignorance of history. You seem to find comfort in this weird ideology that claims liberty can be had without government. It CANNOT. The big task is to prevent government created to "establish liberty" from deteriorating into a "liberty destroying" monster.
I normally do not cite links to make my point. However, I am making an exception in this instance. A picture is worth thousand words.
Click to view link
I understand your fear that you can't be free without government to oppress you. You have the right to have government for yourself and anyone else who wants to join you. You don't have the right to force your government on me, regardless of whether or not you think your way is better than mine. You relentlessly argue for coercion of everyone, and then twist reason inside-out to argue that we can't be free unless we're living under coercion. Funny one, Ingo...
What you're arguing is the standard liberal defense of the current empire. You don't know me, or most everyone else, even a little bit, yet you judge that I and everyone else needs coercion, devised by people like yourself, to protect us from freedom, all based on your view of mob history. That you know so definitely how individuals would behave if free is a lie. Are you telling me that you're a prophet and can see the future, so you know for sure what's possible?
I have no argument with your suggestion that, in the past, if we ignore the individual and consider humanity as a collective, it appears that people have needed government, as they create it and make it bigger every chance they get, and that speaks to their past willingness to oppress each other for the promise of something for nothing.
But I also consider the fact that government has taught them well, and that maybe without the constant example of universal plunder, many people would flourish far beyond what's happened in the past.
For the present and future, the "history" argument is nonsense, simply because history is the past, and what's been done in the past will surely be surpassed. It is only the fear of change, and the resultant irrationality, that holds us to the dysfunction of the past.
Thanks for the tip. I didn't know that Chicago and hippie communes were free places, beyond the reach of government thugs. I'll check into that idea. I've heard that MetaPhoria is free too, so maybe I'll go there...
![]() |
Posted by Bischoff on 12/18/11 02:35 AM
"Based upon everything you've said, you have no intention of leaving me out of your scheme; rather, you have every intention of imposing your ideas about government on me and everyone else, by force."
You are totally ridiculous in making this statement, and you know it. I pursue no scheme, unless standing up for the original U.S. Constitution is a scheme in your mind.
You do not understand that without government there CANNOT exist liberty in a civilized society. Yet, at the same time, let me make it clear that the biggest threat to liberty is GOVERNMENT. Study history, and you will find it is so.
The founding fathers studied history. Based on their understanding, they crafted a Constitution which provided for a federal Republic and a government with specified and limited powers. The power within the federal government was checked by separate and independent branches. The federal government is devoid of central powers, except those specifically given to it by the States which founded the federal Republic. All other powers were reserved to the States or to the people.
With the creation of the U.S. Constitution, the powers of governments for the first time in world history were checked and balanced effectively. The establishment of checks and balances to limit the power of governments gave us the greatest amount of liberty.
Not until the States and the people threw caution to the wind by ratifying the 16th and 17th Amendments, did the U.S. Constitution become less than what the founders had intended. The interpretation given by the Supreme Court to the "general welfare" and the "interstate commerce" clauses, are another example of how the intent of the original Constitution was undermined. I see where the problem lies with the present form and power of the federal government. You DO NOT.
The problem with government is not GOVERNMENT. The problem with government is that its powers are not properly checked to allow for the greatest amount of liberty. I accept that the provisions in the original U.S. Constitution are the best way yet devised to check the powers between the branches of state and federal governments.
As I have tried to point out to you numerous times, the original U.S. Constitution has been perverted. The 16th and 17th Amendment, as was the 18th Amendment, repealed by the 21st Amendment, are entirely contrary to the spirit and the intent of the original U.S. Constitution. They give power to the federal government it was never intended to have. To return to a federal government with limited powers, means to return to the original Constitution sans the 16th and 17th Amendments, and by revisiting some of the Supreme Court decisions.
Ideologues like you, who see government as the problem no matter what, have an enemy in me when they advocate to overthrow U.S. constitutional government. If the Constitution needs to be changed, there is the amendment process.
Your contention that I force you, or anyone else, to live under the Constitution is ludicrous. I said that I gave an oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies foreign or domestic, and that I still feel bound by this oath.
As long as you are not an enemy of the U.S. Constitution, i.e. you do not advocate to change it, or to do away with it by violent means, you have nothing to fear from me, nor my "buddies".
Who cares, if you want to go off to live in some hippie commune, or to live in a structured city like Chicago... ??? That is your business. I could care less what you do.
However, when you agitate to do away with government under the U.S. Constitution, you put into jeopardy the little protection left afforded me by the present Constitution. You also squash the chance to have the Constitution returned to its original intent.
Why is it so hard for you to understand that you get my ire up when you trash the U.S. Constitution by following your twisted ideology... ???
"Too bad that you think so little of humanity that you think civilization would dissolve into chaos without government to collectively oppress."
Your statement simply portrays ignorance of history. You seem to find comfort in this weird ideology that claims liberty can be had without government. It CANNOT. The big task is to prevent government created to "establish liberty" from deteriorating into a "liberty destroying" monster.
I normally do not cite links to make my point. However, I am making an exception in this instance. A picture is worth thousand words.
Click to view link
![]() |
Posted by James Jaeger on 12/12/11 12:54 AM
Thank you for the primer. I and I am sure many others understand much more.
I voted for Perot, and felt guilty for having given us Clinton.
I didn't think that he would be a good president, but just choosing anyone at random might give us better than we have gotten for a long time.
People hold to their prejudices, and the states to their impossible requirements. Still, this far down the rabbit hole, who knows?
What if you come to the conclusion that there is truly no difference between the two entrenched political parties IN EFFECT. Both the Dems and GOP are moving us towards totalitarianism because both are relentlessly expanding the welfare or warfare state. If that is REALLY true and you REALLY believe it -- why would you worry about whether a Democrat or Republican got in? What is there to spoil if both are doing basicaly the same damage? At least you voted your conscience and the third party guy got some of the vote, proving that a third party CAN get some of the vote. Then the next election you vote your conscience again, and yes one of the two entrenched parties gets in, BUT your third party guy gets still MORE of the vote. This continues and in two or three election cycles your third party gets elected. But you say, look at all the damage the Dems or GOP will cause on the way to a third party win. Two points: One, remember you have decided that both are doing the same damage IN EFFECT so why are you concerned. And two, the Dems and GOP will not even be ABLE to do that much damage because they will be mostly in grid lock due to the over diversity in the nation as Pat Buchanan discusses in his new book, SUICIDE OF A SUPERPOWER.
Also, remember this, a third party candidate like Ron Paul could win in even this election. If Dr. Paul went third party at the right time, he could take 12% from the GOP, 15% from the Independents and 11% from the Democrats (on the foreign policy and Fed issues) giving him 38% -- enough to win in a 3-man race.
Posted by Lamb on 12/11/11 09:05 PM
"Please, just leave the rest of us out of your ego-maniacal scheme."
That's not hard to do. The pot who calls the kettle black, is best ignored.
That's the fundamental difference between you and I. I believe anyone has a right to live under the Constitution if they like, and they have a right to not live under the Constitution if they like. You would not give me, or anyone else, an individual choice. If I don't surrender my will to the collective, then f*** me, in your book.
You will take my sovereignty and my freedom, using government as your proxy, yet I do not wish to take anything from you. You consider me and everyone a subject of government, and I consider no one a subject unless they want to be.
Too bad that you think so little of humanity that you think civilization would dissolve into chaos without government to collectively oppress. Your story is of the Dark Ages. Too many are waking up now and will not be kept there.
So keep on with the propaganda you use to twist the truth and promote your enslaving, collectivist ideology. I don't think many on this site are buying it.
Posted by Agent Weebley on 12/10/11 04:31 PM
What do you see,
Ingot, you're laughing at me?
You see some dorks spinning round your head,
We're wound by the key.
How can you tell,
We're under a spell,
We're waiting for LOVE's first gift.
or do na shun ya ya ya ya
You cannot see,
How much we show we are free,
Spinning around on this interweb that's part of the key.
Yearning
Learning
While
We're
Spinning around and around . . .
[cue Agent Weebley, an agent of peace, for some light hearted diversion]
Click to view link
|
|

l 




