| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] | | Date: | , August 2, 2005 12:45:40 (+0200) | | From: | cymric <cymric @.......nz>
|
| In reply to: | Message 2344 (written by Joe Thomson) |
The definition of liberty/freedom is easily debated once one looks twice at any
attempt at defining it. The definition given by Dan could suggest that mentals
are the freest people on earth, closely followed by Crime Bosses and those above
govts that cant be made accountable. Yet on face value we know what Dan is
getting at. How free is Tiger Woods? How free was Elvis Presley?
The Douglas definition isnt a universal definition, its context was
politics/democracy and in particular showed how anti-freedom party politics is.
However the critique of Austrian economics still stands in my view. The
'invasion' of gold as God against persons and their property is an obsession
unfounded in history. People created and traded long before gold came on the
scene which shows it isnt necessary at all let along absolutely
essential. Salt had its day as well.
We should all be aware of the sequence that unfolded in the history of money.
Those who owned/created wealth had the tokens ( money ) which they were
represented by. Then by fraud the golfsmiths were able to capture others wealth
until the money system was dominated not by wealth creaters but the
fraudulent accountants through gold, a commodity not created by them or largely
owned by them.
The obsession with gold is a parallel of the obsession with Labour to create all
wealth. It is the same delusion to believe it fair to have to create in order to
buy gold in order to create and trade, and being under the same
bind (invasion) to borrow credit from those ( banks) who dont have the credit
themselves. Those who didnt have the goods and services obtained control of the
money system off those who created the goods and services. To return to gold
merely turns back the same system in time only, not in nature.
S.C. returns the control of money back to the society of creaters of goods and
services without denying the heritage property of all citizens, plus no taxes.
Are we not getting closer to the situation of the least invasion of persons and
their property?
If all money in circulation is backed by goods and services, and all the money
is circulated fairly and all inclusively but certainly not evenly, since we all
cnnot ever be equal, then why do we also back the money with gold as well as
goods and services, which is then effectively a 200% reserve?
The discussion made about gold and how loose it can be ( convenient when it is
lacking in quanity) makes it all the more amusing given its alleged right to
dictatorship.
My experience in debating with the Austrian view is that one continually goes
around and around in circles and essentially its all turning on the psychological
and propoganda words "sound money".
The same ploy certain churches use to say if one isnt baptised by their priests
they are not saved. Which is cultish.
Money can only be sound when it represents a sound economic system. A major
problem with the existing finance system is that is it outside and ruling over
the economic system. S.C. puts the money system inside and part of the economic
system, serving it and making it fulfill its role to provide goods and service
as required and materially possible and distribute them ( without debt on the
children). The Austrian argument hasnt discovered this yet. The centralisation
under an arbitrary determinant (gold) is supposedly the balm for all ills. This
is more akin to socialism or fascism.
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message