(Joe Thomson wrote:-) Their proposition is that the
government must 'spend'
it into circulation, and it will only be available
'on terms'.
To those chosen to 'work' for it. Their 'reforms',
well
intentioned though they may seem to be to many, are
not really
much in the way of reforms at all.
---------------------------
(John
Hermann replied:-) It will save the taxpayer immense sums in
(unnecessary) interest
payments.
-------------------------------------
(Bill Ryan commented:-)
A better way for government to save immense
sums in interest
payments is to stop borrowing.
(John Hermann respnded:-) I agree that governments should
not
borrow from the private sector, nor do they need
to.
(Bill Ryan continued:-) If they need to
spend they can tax. A government that
can spend without taxing is a
government unchecked
by the people.
------
(John Hermann continued:-) There are many
checks and balances
in a democratic society. One such check is known
as
regular elections for the executive and legislature.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOU are able to
vote for what YOU want in Australia in a completely meaningful way,
John? And 'check' what your 'executive' and 'legislature' are able
to do to you, once elected, in between elections? In your
'ballot-box' democracy do you, as an individual, have the opportunity
there to ''choose, or refuse, one thing at a time"? In
regards to not only deciding issues important to you, but also just WHAT
issues are important to you? Or are the only 'choices' you can
make on election day fairly narrow, all lumped together in the form of a Party
'platform', and just from a list pre-determined for you? Is a true 'democratic
society' the ''rule of the majority'', or is it an association encompassing
the means of ''making the policy of the individual effective in relation
to himself''?
How, if a 'democratic society' is the
latter, do the individuals within that society sanction which government
'policies' THEY want made 'effective unto themselves' ? Especially if their
most effective 'vote', their 'money' vote (through taxation), is
removed from them?
'.(John Hermann:-) Also, a
major basis on which high-powered money is
issued by the central bank to
government lies in the
ability and willingness of that government to
impose
a social obligation called taxation upon its citizens.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The operative word here seems to be
'impose'. And various Governments have certainly shown that they are all
too willing and able to 'impose' such a 'social obligation' on its
citizens in the limited number of experiments we've had with 'high-powered'
money being created this way so far. Are we not back to the 'individual'
existing to serve the 'system', John? Rather than the 'system' to
serve the 'individual'?
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
