News & Analysis
Central Banks Won't Produce Natural Interest
The Bank of England should raise interest rates next week ... Most people that read finance columns have heard of the "natural rate of unemployment", and many will know that the term was introduced by Milton Friedman. But far fewer will know where he got the term. He said himself, in his Nobel Prize lecture, that "The 'natural rate of unemployment' [is] a term I introduced to parallel Knut Wicksell's 'natural rate of interest'". But who was Knut Wicksell and what is the "natural rate of interest" – and does it matter? We shall see that it does indeed matter, and tells us something important about current UK monetary policy and the outlook for the UK economy and George Osborne's chances of delivering his fiscal plans ...Three years, now, at 0.5 percent, and counting. That compares with a natural rate of interest that was about 5 percent when times were better and will be around 3-3.5 percent now. (Essentially, add the 2.5 per cent RPI inflation rate that's about the target to the 1 percent or so sustainable growth rate, and you get a decent guess at the natural rate.) Having interest rates so far below the natural rate damages the sustainable growth rate of the economy. – UK Telegraph/ Andrew Lilico
Dominant Social Theme: We just have to figure out what's natural and then fake it.
Free-Market Analysis: Here comes Andrew Lilico, an economist with Europe Economics, and a member of the Shadow Monetary Policy Committee, according to the UK Telegraph (see article above).
The gibberish contained in the above excerpt is only magnified throughout the article. It is really incredible. What is it about price fixing that such intelligent commentators don't understand?
If you artificially set a price by force – and this is what central banks do – then that price is almost bound to be incorrect. Only the market itself can generate a "natural" rate of interest or determine monetary volume.
That's because the market itself is competitive. The "Invisible Hand" of competition creates naturally fluctuating interest rates and the appropriate volume of money stuff.
This is why monetary competition historically yields up evermore efficient and healthy money. People voluntarily choose the kind of money they want and the volume of money as well.
Within this context, gold and silver have proven to be a historically popular money stuff. Used with each other, gold and silver provide a ratio. If the ratio becomes distorted, people can tell that someone is trying to manipulate the market. This called bi-metalism.
Greenbackerism has made a startling comeback of late, which we have long predicted, citing Ellen Brown's effective boosting of the idea that government ought to have the sole franchise to print money.
But regardless of whether a mercantilist public/private body like the Bank of England or Federal Reserve prints paper-fiat money, or a fully public enterprise, such as those found in India or China, the problem of the natural rate and volume remains. Once human beings arrogate to themselves such decisions, money itself cannot help but be distorted.
Both India and China are now suffering from vigorous price inflation. That's because when human beings have a monopoly of something, it will inevitably be abused. It is impossible to expect mere flesh and blood not to print too much money. Money buys all kinds of fun, especially for those in control of it.
Over time, even within a competitive monetary environment, government eventually prints too much paper money, eventually debasing it. As this paper money became cheapened, people seek not to hold it, and try to get rid of it.
This is why schemes like Greenbackerism tend to lead to government consolidation of money authority. As people reject government money, those in charge gradually mandate its use. Within historical contexts, there tends to be an expansion of force as people are compelled to use what they would otherwise reject.
There are arguments that certain kinds of government monopoly money have proven more effective than other kinds. Ellen Brown, Bill Still and others argue that tally sticks were a wonderfully effective government initiated money that helped England build an empire.
But from our point of view this is perhaps a misreading on several fronts. First of all, there is nothing all that admirable about an empire. Societies tend to flourish, as we have often pointed out, when they are separate and singular but gathered closely together.
This allows people to travel from one place to another nearby place if they are being oppressed. Gradually over time, a culture of freedom is established as governments compete with one another to provide environments that are attractive and laissez faire.
Many great cultures have been established within this context. Rome had its Seven Hills, the Greek Golden Age and the Renaissance had city states, the United States had "these" united States.
Over time, consolidation usually takes place and gradually what was free and innovative becomes less so. Eventually dirigisme and socialism may set in.
Gradually the leaders of the consolidated country begin to become aggressive and to focus on outside threats to distract attention from an increasingly failed society. This is the empire phase.
It is unfortunate that most of history focuses on the "greatness" of empire when in fact, an "empire" is symptomatic of societal sickness not health.
During the tally stick era in Britain, Kings – having access to the money supply – apparently borrowed against the stock of tally sticks considerably for purposes of waging war. Not only that, but as tally sticks were generated to pay taxes, the volume of the money supply was seemingly artificially restricted.
This was great for those who controlled tally sticks – the ruling class – because an artificially restrained money deprived people of capital and likely had a retardant effect on social mobility and individual economic potential. Tally sticks were a perfect money for the elites.
There is seemingly no substitute for competitive money and for the Invisible Hand setting the volume and price of money. In economies that use gold and silver, hoarding and dishoarding sets the price of market money, along, perhaps, with the opening and closing of mines, depending on how much gold and silver is circulating. This is one reason why precious metals have been successful as money throughout history.
In the modern era, central banking has taken over the world – and the result is general catastrophe and ruin. This is only to be expected. It is in fact what those behind the system are intending to create.
The power elite that has seemingly installed modern monopoly fiat money – and the dollar reserve system itself – apparently seeks to build world government. It needs to foment economic turmoil and wars in order to move society toward one-world money.
Central banking is key to this strategy. The more monetary price fixing there is, the more economic chaos and catastrophe takes place. It is a closed loop, a virtuous circle from the power elite point of view.
The elites spend an enormous amount of time trying to justify central bank price fixing. It is one of their biggest dominant social themes – that only a handful of good, gray men can manage the economy and make decisions for everyone else.
Andrew Lilico wants us to believe that central banks ARE capable of mimicking natural rates of money production. In truth, there is no "natural interest rate" or rate of monetary production that human beings are EVER capable of creating.
Even if the top people at these monopoly money banks were capable of figuring out where the price and volume of money could be, there is no guarantee that they would generate the correct prices over time.
They would use their power for their OWN benefit. As indeed they have. We can see it clearly, even today. What misery there is in the world.
Conclusion: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Posted by amanfromMars on 04/03/12 02:05 PM
What to do, what to do? ... ... Posted by Agent Weebley on 04/02/12 11:58 PM
A rhetorical question, of course, AW ... ... .. http://youtu.be/5iJ6mLb8r00
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 04/03/12 01:52 PM
DB: 'We were going to make this point. If the dialectic is between Austrian economics and world ruled by elites, then Memehunter is offering interest-free greenbackerism as the "synthesis." You could make the argument therefore (we haven't) that this could be part of a larger manipulation ... '
Yeah, one COULD make this argument. However, although I did accuse memehunter of maybe being a government shill, I did it reluctantly, and only after reading much of his 'work' - I had/have a hard time believing they would hire a character who proclaims to be 'proud of his ignorance' of the very subject of his tirades.
But then again ... WHAT/WHOM DO 'THEY' HAVE TO OFFER ALTOGETHER, in the cold light of the day?
Reply from The Daily Bell
Absent cold proof, we give him the benefit of the doubt ...
We would also point out that in accusing us (and others focused on philosophies of freedom) of being virtual adherents of Satanism he has not done much to deserve it ...
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 04/03/12 12:25 PM
MH: 'I have simply (factually) shown that Austrianism is part of a dialectic engineered by the elites. As for an explanation, my articles are available for everyone to read.'
AA: Come to think of your articles, there's indeed a dialectic - 'freedom vs. slavery' - engineered by assorted greenbackers like yourself, Migchels and other self-appointed philanthropists.
Your proposed synthesis or 'solution': Free lunch for all (i.e., 'interest/debt'-free fiat-money) and a little help from our benevolent friends at government via a 'minimum of coercion' to keep us on the straight and narrow.
Thank your very much.
Reply from The Daily Bell
We were going to make this point. If the dialectic is between Austrian economics and world ruled by elites, then Memehunter is offering interest-free greenbackerism as the "synthesis." You could make the argument therefore (we haven't) that this could be part of a larger manipulation ...
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 04/03/12 11:53 AM
MH: 'I said quite clearly that I disagree with Rothbard's claims that "parents should have a legal right not to feed their children"
Again, what's more likely to happen, 'taken to its logical extreme' (your words), memehunter? That in a free society significant numbers of humans all of a sudden will let their children starve to death, because legally, according to Murray Rothbard, they then might be free to do so, or that even the most well-intended 'minimal goverment and coercion' (your words, your insistence) will expand, grow, corrupt it's operators, and be(come) the natural tool of the elite of the day, as it has for thousands of years, apparently?
Posted by memehunter on 04/03/12 11:36 AM
You, of all people, are accusing me of obfuscation? I hope that this was intentionally ironic, otherwise I'm afraid you are slipping...
You always ask questions but never answer them. Maybe Bischoff is right about you...
I said quite clearly that I disagree with Rothbard's claims that "parents should have a legal right not to feed their children".
I quote again this part of Vieira's answer, since I agree with it:
"Admittedly, there is no socialist "right to life", no general right to demand that others supply the means of one's existence. But Rothbard is wrong to claim that no one can have a particular right to keep himself alive at someone else's expense or through someone else's actions."
So, according to Vieira (and I agree): in some specific cases (presumably including fetuses, babies, and infants), human beings can have a particular right to keep themselves alive at someone else's expense or through someone else's actions.
Whether this right is ultimately secured by the state, the community, or some other organization representing the community is irrelevant to this particular point.
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 04/03/12 11:34 AM
Well, Ingo, of course you are free to play dumb and entirely 'misread' the allegory ...
Posted by Bischoff on 04/03/12 11:33 AM
"Are you going to answer my question about child neglect and the role of the state?"
I gave you my condition in order for me to be able to give you an answer. If you don't meet my condition, I can't give you an answer.
WEEBLEY: "Why do you say these things: "gold does not earn interest." If I lent my gold to someone, then I would exepect it back at some pre-arranged future point . . . with interest!"
I was correct again. Weebley, your mind lacks agility. See, if you can follow me as I guide you through the argument step by step.
What is Gold... ??? Answer: Gold is Money.
What is Money... ??? Answer: Money is the commodity with constant marginal utility used as an intermediate to exchange goods and services. The only commodity fitting that description is gold.
What is interest... ??? Answer: Interest is the return to capital.
What is capital... ??? Answer: Capital is wealth used to produce more wealth.
Is Money (Gold) capital... ??? Answer: No Money (Gold) is Money and nothing else. It is an intermediate in the exchange of goods, i.e. capital.
Does gold earn interest... ??? Answer: No capital exchanged for gold earns interest. Gold doesn't earn interest.
Does gold have a price... ??? Answer: No. Gold is the standard of value against which the value of every other commodity and service is judged.
Get your mind around that, Weebley.
Posted by Agent Weebley on 04/03/12 11:20 AM
You didn't answer my question about child neglect and the role of the state; you used my question as a springboard into obfuscation.
Answer it directly.
I see right through you . . . to him. Say hi for me, will ya? Tell him . . .
Click to view link
I am currently on The Road To Wigan Pier . . . goin' fishin' toady. . .
Posted by Bischoff on 04/03/12 11:10 AM
"Freedom itself 'needs' Austrian Economics just as much as the stars are in 'need' of telescopes and calendars - or as much as planet earth 'needs to be saved'."
How banal can you get... ??? Next, you'll tell us "Austrian Economics" is God's word...
... but, I am ready to listen. Go ahead and make the case.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Ingo, why don't you try to come up with concepts as "banal" as human action and the business cycle. They are life changing for many and you would do the world a service.
Posted by memehunter on 04/03/12 11:01 AM
DB: In any event, we are sure that he is not threatening us in this thread as we point out factual errors.
M: I have debunked the "factual errors" you ascribe to me on this thread (and many times in the past). On the other hand, the DB has not explained its claim, made repeatedly and emphatically, that the elites dislike Austrian economics - a claim which can be easily debunked as I have shown.
DB: and have never gone so far to call his views Satanic, as he has basically called ours and others who support free-market thinking.
M: I have shown that Libertarianism was influenced by Satanic influences in my article. The facts are there and they speak by themselves. My article did not mention the DB. It is the DB who brought up the issue of Satanism on this thread, whereas I initially commented on issues having to do with interest, gold, and related monetary matters (this can be verified easily by anyone interested).
DB: If he wants to provide a real service to readers let him explain (factually) his obsession with debunking Austrian economics and why the FACTS of Austrian economics - such as the business cycle and human action are held in such apparent contempt by him and others who seemingly wish to substitute government action for the marketplace.
M: I have not "debunked" the business cycle and human action. I have simply (factually) shown that Austrianism is part of a dialectic engineered by the elites. As for an explanation, my articles are available for everyone to read.
I repeat again that being against Money Power is not the same as being pro-government. Is this another DB dialectic?
Several writers on the blogosphere, many of them much more knowledgeable about Austrianism than I am, have explained in a detailed manner why Austrian economics is ultimately a tool of the plutarchy.
I also wrote this on the "Libertarian Truths and the Big Lie of Peak Oil":
"In conclusion, I note once again that we should not confuse 'freedom' with Libertarianism. I am not 'anti-freedom' (in fact, I am not even actively 'anti-Libertarian', at least no more than I am 'anti-Communist' - I simply felt compelled to contribute to an intellectual effort to disprove the DB's persistent claims that the elites dislike Austrian economics and, more generally, to denounce the alternative media's infatuation with Austrianism), but I do object to the concept of ultra-individualistic freedom as presented by some prominent Libertarian schools and factions."
Reply from The Daily Bell
Do you think it enhances whatever credibility you have to confuse Libertarianism (UC) with libertarianism (LC)? Are you attacking the Libertarian party? This is part of the larger confusion you have in treating Austrian economics and libertarianism as one cohesive whole when they are nothing of the sort. Since it appears you cannot define what you are attacking, you surely will have a hard time being taken seriously by anyone who follows these issues ...
Posted by memehunter on 04/03/12 10:40 AM
Well, I'm glad that you can see right through me (whatever you may be seeing).
I answered your questions about the dialectic and about Rothbard (and I spent some time on it). So, are you going to answer my questions about "paper gold" schemes and interest-bearing debt-based currencies?
Posted by Agent Weebley on 04/03/12 10:34 AM
Why do you say these things:
"gold does not earn interest."
If I lent my gold to someone, then I would exepect it back at some pre-arranged future point . . . with interest!
Are you going to answer my question about child neglect and the role of the state?
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 04/03/12 10:31 AM
DB: 'If he wants to provide a real service to readers let him explain (factually) his obsession with debunking Austrian economics and why the FACTS of Austrian economics - such as the business cycle and human action are held in such apparent contempt by him and others who seemingly wish to substitute government action for the marketplace.'
While I admire the profound work of von Mises, Rothbard, or, in particular, the lucid and fearless thinking through to the end of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, I think that, at the end of the day, Austrian Economics represents 'merely' a long overdue and reasonable formulation of what may seem self-evident to anyone who cares to take an unconditional look at human nature and consecutive history.
The case for freedom, as defined by Austrian economists, is a valuable instrument to further a broader, overall understanding of where we are, how we got here, and where we might be headed to - nothing more. A child can figure it out. In fact, children - yet in lack of authoritarian brainwashing - are doing just that, of course.
Freedom itself 'needs' Austrian Economics just as much as the stars are in 'need' of telescopes and calendars - or as much as planet earth 'needs to be saved'.
Freedom stands for itself.
Some people don't like and/or fear freedom, however ... for various reasons. Hence their 'need' to supervise fellow humans and their urge to smear proponents of freedom as 'evil', ultimately.
They will continue their quest for control - as they must, apparently - to complete their misery.
Posted by Agent Weebley on 04/03/12 07:29 AM
Dang. I guess I'm going to have to say it, then.
I can see right through you.
Who's picking the guitar here?
Click to view link
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 04/03/12 07:06 AM
DB: 'All this merely dresses up Memehunter's main contention that society must be forced to use one money or another, with or without interest. A list of Memehunter's mis-statements is available below, on this thread. He is apparently obsessed with discrediting freedom and free-market thinking. His motives are known only to him ... '
But didn't you read that he already, repeatedly, 'warned you to be careful in your attacks'.
If you go on, the brave knight might ... multiply his self-mutilation efforts, for Christ's sake!
Reply from The Daily Bell
We've not interfered with Memehunter's points or posts, despite what we consider occasionally extreme provocation. He continues to post here, even though he sometimes announces, without evidence, he is sure he will be banned.
In any event, we are sure that he is not threatening us in this thread as we point out factual errors - and have never gone so far to call his views Satanic, as he has basically called ours and others who support free-market thinking.
If he attacks DB immoderately, personally and without reason, we shall surely return the "favor." If he wants to provide a real service to readers let him explain (factually) his obsession with debunking Austrian economics and why the FACTS of Austrian economics - such as the business cycle and human action are held in such apparent contempt by him and others who seemingly wish to substitute government action for the marketplace.
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 04/03/12 05:58 AM
'If a parent chooses to not feed their child, should the state step in, or should human nature balance the wrong?'
One doesn't need to starve ones child to trigger 'well-meant' authoritarian intervention these days. Here's governments 'Responsibility to Protect' children from their parents, 'taken to its logical extreme'.
Read this and weep:
'Newborn Seized in Hospital by Police, Social Worker'
Click to view link
Posted by Bischoff on 04/03/12 04:29 AM
"'Aristotle understood that money is sterile; it doesn't beget more money the way cows beget more cows. He knew that 'Money exists not by nature but by law'"
I am not sure in what context Aristotle understood money to be sterile, but I do know Zarlenga was silly to repeat it. Zarlenga argues for "interest free" money, but he does not understand what money is. As the matter of fact, I personally argued the point with Zarlenga. His problem is that he confuses "Money" with "Currency".
If you know what "Money" is, you must know that Money is "interest free". But let's first investigate the contention that money exists by government edict.
Money is a natural phenomenon, not a matter of law. By virtue of the fact that untold numbers of people, both past and present, recognize that gold is the BEST commodity to store value, gold thereby attains objective value vis-a-vis the subjective value of any other commodity. This makes gold the standard and ultimate intermediate commodity in the exchange of goods. IOW, it renders gold to be money. That's exactly what J. P. Morgan told the 1912 congressional Pujo Commission, "Gold is Money, and nothing else."
There is nothing that any government can do to change it. Government can outlaw the use of gold, but it cannot outlaw the fact that people will continue to consider gold to be the BEST commodity to store value.
The definition of money is: "A commodity with constant marginal utility". Only gold fits that definition. The decision that gold be money is a voluntary decision by millions and billions of people from all sorts of cultures and across any number of regions on earth. Therefore, Gold = Money is a natural phenomenon, and not at all a decison imposed by government. It is for that reason there exist 160,000 tons or eighty years worth of annual production of gold in above ground inventory.
If you understand that Gold = Money, you should know that gold does not earn interest. IOW, money is "interest free". "Money" doesn't pay interest, it is "Capital" that pays interest. Money is Money. It is the intermediate.
When the use of Gold is outlawed, money is outlawed. "Legal tender" FRNs is de facto outlawing gold as money. If you invest de-monetized, debt based currency in capital, distortions of all kinds are the result. Business schools teach investing de-monetized, or negative value currency ala Keynes and Friedman. You see where that has led.
If you can let go of your preconceived notions, you might understand my argument about animate and inanimate capital setting the "natural interest rate". It does not mean that an industrial lathe, bought with a debenture issue, has to have a cow to earn interest for the investor.
As regards the term "Money Power", it is BS. As a matter of fact, it leaves the impression that money has power in and of itself. However, such impression of money directly flies into the face of the Aristotle quote by Zarlenga, to which you seem to subscribe.
Posted by memehunter on 04/03/12 02:10 AM
Bischoff: Does that mean that inanimate capital cannot demand interest? Of course not. The animate and the inanimate capital are in competition. It's this competition that sets the "natural interest rate".
M: From Stephen Zarlenga's talk "The Usury Problem Remains":
Click to view link
'Aristotle understood that money is sterile; it doesn't beget more money the way cows beget more cows. He knew that 'Money exists not by nature but by law':
'The most hated sort (of wealth getting) and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange but not to increase at interest. And this term interest (tokos), which means the birth of money from money is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of all modes of getting wealth, this is the most unnatural.' (1258b, POLITICS)'
Bischoff: The idea of having a "decaying" currency is foolish. I know what Gesell tries to do.
M: Well, as I wrote, Gesell's idea may not be the ultimate solution. However, what I appreciate about Gesell's idea, from a philosophical perspective, is that he understands that it is unnatural for money/currency, which is basically a symbol, a mental construct for "stored value", to dominate and control the "real world". Money should ideally be a secondary construct to help us with our transactions in the real world, but it should not be the main driver of our actions.
Although I don't necessarily see the entire Bible as being the "word of God" (especially some parts of the Old Testament), I agree with the following:
"For the love of money is the root of all evil" (Timothy 6:10).
Some people go even further and even advocate living in a society with no money. See here:
Click to view link
A very interesting quote from this website:
"This is the very principle of living moneyless: stop manipulating the balance, the balance between credit and debt, and credit and debt perfectly balance themselves out. If you want wavy water to calm down, get your hands out of it. This is also the principle of meditation: if you want your thoughts calm, you can't do it with thought. If you want the natural environment to balance out, stop managing it.
This is the laissez-faire economic principle that many Libertarians and Randians think they are practicing. However, true laissez-faire doesn't work in a money system, because the very nature of money itself is control of credit and debt, a lack of faith in nature's perfect balance of credit and debt. Free means no money, and "free market" is an oxymoron. Your philosophy must be consistent across the board or it won't work. This is why mega-corporations adore so-called "Libertarian" principles, because they appear to be about giving up control, and this is what makes them so deeply deceptive. The corporate greed-head adores the idea of you or any government giving up control over the corporation, under "free market" principles, that the corporation may then turn the tables and have total control over you and over government, using a slight twist to Libertarian-speak to promote its deception!"
Of course, Money Power is dominant even in the current society, but his point (which I also made previously on the DB) is that it will not get better under "free market" principles.
Short of living in a completely moneyless society, one way to ensure that money/currency remains a tool and not an end-point is to use a decaying currency that people would see no reason to hoard and which cannot be used as an exploitative device to illegitimately redirect or acquire the labor and productivity of others.
Posted by memehunter on 04/03/12 01:19 AM
W: "From my vantage point, anyone who tries really hard to create a dialectic where I can't see one, and grasps at straws for even the tiniest turn of a phrase to glean some meagre gription to justify their contrived dialectic, gets my radar spinning."
M: Well, I'm happy if I can get your radar spinning as you said. As for "grasping at straws for even the tiniest turn of a phrase to glean some meagre gription to justify their contrived dialectic", here is some more on the Libertarian-Comunist dialectic (all this is explained in detail in the series of articles that Migchels and I wrote for Makow and for Migchels' blog):
a) The same elite families, Rockefeller, Rothschild (via their agents like Bernard Baruch), and their allies (Morgan,Schiff, etc... ) financed the Bolshevik Revolution and the Communist regime in Russia, while on the other hand supporting Austrian economists and the Libertarian movement in the United States.
Click to view link
b) The same Jesuits were behind the Communist ideology (reductions in Paraguay, Marx taught by Jesuits) and Libertarianism/Austrianism (the Salamancan Jesuits).
Click to view link
c) Satanism infected and corrupted both Communism (Marx and Engels were initiated into Satanism by proto-Zionist Moses Hess) and Libertarianism (Mandeville's ideas were hugely influential on Mises and especially Hayek; more generally, you can see the parallel between the "Do what thou wilt" Satanic precept and the extreme focus on individualistic freedom that is associated with extreme Libertarianism).
Click to view link
To conclude, our series of articles show how Communism and Austrianism were promoted by the same elite groups (Money Power, Jesuits, Zionists, and Illuminati) and how they themselves were aware of this dialectic.
Here is a quote from the founder of the Pan-Europe movement, Black nobility member Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi:
"Mises' collaborator, the arch-Zionist, Jesuit-trained, high-ranking Freemason Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi summarized the Illuminati dialectic thusly:
'The fight between Capitalism and Communism over the inheritance of the beseeched blood aristocracy is a fratricidal war of the victorious brain aristocracy, a fight between individualistic and socialist, egoist and altruist, heathen and Christian spirit.
The general staff of both parties is recruited from Europe's spiritual leader race [Führerrasse] the Jews.'
And you think I am "trying hard to create a dialectic"? Well, maybe you simply need to open your eyes and you will see it.
W: "It's actually a big deal, since you are slamming a great thinker, Rothbard; twisting what he said into something else."
M: I'm not twisting what he said. Rothbard said that parents should have a legal right not to feed their children and promoted a free market in children. Rothbard also wrote, to justify his pro-abortion stance, that a fetus was "an unwanted parasite" within his mother's body.
Even Libertarian Edwin Vieira strongly objected to Rothbard's words. See here:
Click to view link
W: "Your answer will determine whether you are a promoter of the state or not"
M: Here is Edwin Vieira's answer to Rothbard:
"Admittedly, there is no socialist "right to life", no general right to demand that others supply the means of one's existence. But Rothbard is wrong to claim that no one can have a particular right to keep himself alive at someone else's expense or through someone else's actions. Such rights would be enforced every day in any libertarian society. For example, if through negligence a motorist seriously injured a pedestrian, the law would require the motorist to pay money damages measured by the medical bills incurred, to keep the injured person alive. Or, if the motorist were a medical doctor, the law would require him to perform appropriate emergency actions at the accident scene to save the life of the person he injured. Or, the law might require motorists not to use their property in certain ways, such as moving at high velocity through school zones, so as to protect the lives of others. Each of these cases, however, involves a situation in which one person is kept alive or protected from fatal injury at someone else's expense or through someone else's involuntary actions. In terms of the legal principles involved, then, there is nothing radical in the position of those opposed to abortion who argue against any privilege in a woman to take actions that will necessarily result in fatal consequences to her unborn child."
W: "It seems to me that your currency, like Ingo's, demands involvement by the state."
M: There are successful interest-free currencies that do not demand involvement by the state. Migchels' currency is one such example. I have mentioned this several times, Weebley.
Since you criticize interest-free currencies, what do you have to say about "paper gold" schemes or interest-bearing, debt-based currencies (whether they are made up of gold, paper, or tally sticks)?
Reply from The Daily Bell
All this merely dresses up Memehunter's main contention that society must be forced to use one money or another, with or without interest. A list of Memehunter's mis-statements is available below, on this thread. He is apparently obsessed with discrediting freedom and free-market thinking. His motives are known only to him ...
Posted by Agent Weebley on 04/03/12 12:22 AM
If a parent chooses to not feed their child, should the state step in, or should human nature balance the wrong?
What say YOU?
Oh, and I just loved the oxymoron:
"Pulling up data does not mean that to act or to speak from conviction. That's why I never bother to click on the links presented in these feedbacks, unless they specifically indicate to contain statistical data to prove a point."
Me pulling up data means I speak with no conviction, but you use data to prove a point.
And your last sentence was not factual, but emotional. But if that's how you feel . . . driver, brother . . . . no . . . who's picking the banjo here?
Click to view link