| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
dvide
United Kingdom287 Posts
On June 29 2010 05:41 Destro wrote: supporting anarchy is like being against civilization itself. annoying hippy students imo. It's not nearly the same thing. Being against civilization is called primitivism. Civilization is not "the government", it is generally defined as agricultural societies living in towns and cities and such. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 29 2010 05:31 Yurebis wrote: Banks can exist without a state. There has been and there still is such a thing as a private bank. Banks can settle issuances of different coins and checks not unlike international governments do. Interest is a function of time preference and not relevant to the state at all. One can't abolish time preference as much as one can't abolish chocolate-ice-cream-preference. I'm sad you think that way. So because there's always going to be a state, we need a state? Whether society "needs" a state is irrelevant. Because there will always be a state, the real issue is what type of state will there be. If anarchists are looking to take down the states in the West such as the USA, Canada, and the European democracies (and I don't think anyone will argue that anarchists do not seek to take down these states), what will emerge from the wreckage? More importantly, will something "better" or "worse" emerge? Historically, the successor states have always been worse (see Russia, China, Cuba, Cambodia, etc). Despite all the flaws and failings of the current governments and states, I don't think anyone will argue that we have now is inferior to what has existed before. Do we really want to roll the dice, especially considering the poor track record of anarchists' work? | ||
|
Yuljan
2196 Posts
On June 29 2010 05:46 dvide wrote: This is where you trip up. States want control of the money supply and interest rates for obvious reasons, so that they can print money without having to directly tax people. They get the full value of the currency before inflation kicks in and wipes out that proportional amount from everyone's savings. In effect it is a hidden regressive tax. But of course the state isn't required to have violent control over currency. For example, prior to 1913 this wasn't the case in the United States. With the creation of the Federal Reserve the value of the dollar has declined by over 95% because of expansion of the money supply. In a free and open market of competing currencies this doesn't tend to happen, and de facto standards do emerge naturally. Gold became one such de facto standard because it makes a good currency: you do know fixed gold standards were one of the main reasons for the great depression? And the "printed money" is only a real small part of actual money. States no longer create money banks do. Btw thats why we need states too. That guy should receive a noble price. What is money? is one of the biggest unsolved questions in modern macroeconomics. | ||
|
Not_Computer
Canada2277 Posts
On June 29 2010 04:16 Bibdy wrote: Weren't these just peaceful protests that ended up with a small group of assholes inciting violence and working up the crowd? Except the crowd didn't get worked up. The crowd was mostly people taking pictures and videos and watching, following around the assholes inciting violence but not engaging in any acts of violence themselves. Regarding Sunday's incident: -If you're going to aggressively protest you should be prepared to pay the consequences but chances are you won't because you are prepared. -If you're going to peacefully protest you should be prepared to pay the consequences and chances are you will because you aren't prepared. -If you're going to walk your dog because he's pissing all over your downtown apartment, you shouldn't be prepared to be harassed, arrested, and detained, because you didn't know that the riot police were closing in on your neighbourhood and you didn't get any warning to vacate the premises. -If you're going to go out for a jog on a Sunday afternoon you shouldn't be prepared to be harassed, arrested, and detained, because you didn't know jogging in an area blocks away from the designated safety zone was a crime and when you looked out the window before you set out it seemed like a normal uneventful day in your neighbourhood. -If you're going out for dinner with your girlfriend at a restaurant you regular at, you shouldn't be prepared to be harassed, arrested, and detained, because you didn't know that walking around in a city you've lived in for decades was a crime and nobody gave you any warning that you weren't allowed to eat out and had to either order take out or cook. -If you're getting off work because your boss told you to clean up yesterday's aftermath, you shouldn't be prepared to be harassed, arrested, and detained, because you didn't know that wanting to go home after a tiring day at work was a crime, and you didn't know you were supposed to stay at work against your will until nightfall. -If your friends invited you to hang out downtown (within allowed areas) because you all wanted to take a look at what happened yesterday, you shouldn't be prepared to be harassed, arrested, and detained, because you thought that the police would protect you against the black clad 'anarchists' and not assume that you, in your summer shorts and polo, were a potentially dangerous threat. I could go on, but these are just some of the scenarios I imagined after watching all the coverage from various sources. P.S. Why are we debating about political and religious ideals? I know they're relevant but aren't we missing the point? The point being the blatant abuse of power and excessive and unheeded pre-emptive strikes on compliant people; and also the misinformation spread by the media. One quote from the news I remember was from a Scottish woman saying, and I paraphrase, "We've fought for you Canadians in so many wars and this is how you repay us?" I find that statement quite unfair. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 29 2010 06:01 Yuljan wrote: you do know fixed gold standards were one of the main reasons for the great depression? And the "printed money" is only a real small part of actual money. States no longer create money banks do. Btw thats why we need states too. Just to be clear for those who do not understand what you said, banks aren't "creating money" by literally printing money. They create money by fostering and expanding credit markets. Basically, the banks make the limited amount of "actual money" that the state has created go further. For those that are familiar with economics, banks increase the "velocity" of money. That said, states still do create money. Just look at what the USA is doing now. | ||
|
ImAbstracT
519 Posts
On June 29 2010 04:37 Yuljan wrote: the state is necessary for the current capital system to function. Keep in mind how it came to be that money became our currency. These papers were convertibly into gold thats what gave them their value. As the trust in the currency and governments increased the guarantee to convert money into gold wasnt needed anymore. So basically nowadays money is only worth something because everyone believes its worth something. Capitalism and total freedom? Cant work. So therefore its incompatible. The State isnt necessary for capitalism to work but if people lose faith in the currency after an Anarchist revolution what do we trade for? States are needed for currency and without currency capitalism doesnt work. How do you charge interest in a barter economy? Or do you abolish interest? Dont even let me get started it cant work. Lol, so only the government can produce a stable currency? Us dollar purchasing power chart: ![[image loading]](http://www.wisdomfinancialinc.com/images/commentary/graph9.gif) | ||
|
puckstop101
Canada132 Posts
| ||
|
ImAbstracT
519 Posts
On June 29 2010 06:01 Yuljan wrote: you do know fixed gold standards were one of the main reasons for the great depression? And the "printed money" is only a real small part of actual money. States no longer create money banks do. Btw thats why we need states too. That guy should receive a noble price. What is money? is one of the biggest unsolved questions in modern macroeconomics. Lol the gold standard was the reason for the Great Depression? It wasn't massive expansionary policy by the Federal reserve? It wasnt the fact that banks now had the Fed as the "bank of last resort" and gambled with customer deposits? Then, when the market crash, the banks lost all their money too. People rushed to the banks to get their money out, but surprise it wasn't there! Thus came massive deflation. That is another problem with the Fed, it encourages bad lending and banking policies from lending institutions. | ||
|
ImAbstracT
519 Posts
On June 29 2010 06:25 puckstop101 wrote: people dont relize but these guys in the black go form summit to summit for the sole reason to incite violence, they dont protest anything they just wanna stir up trouble. Many of the peaceful protest have nothing to do with these anarcasit. In fact i think the Native Americans had it right, they went into a peaceful protest, they allowed no one to wear bandannas or anything to incite violence, heck they even brought their own security to keep their peace. so it was good on them to disaccosite form the idiots anarcists If your going to insult anarchist then at least learn how to spell the word correctly. | ||
|
ImAbstracT
519 Posts
On June 29 2010 06:15 xDaunt wrote: Just to be clear for those who do not understand what you said, banks aren't "creating money" by literally printing money. They create money by fostering and expanding credit markets. Basically, the banks make the limited amount of "actual money" that the state has created go further. For those that are familiar with economics, banks increase the "velocity" of money. That said, states still do create money. Just look at what the USA is doing now. Banks and the State can each create money. With these two institutions, who are known for their ability to correctly manage currencies and the economy, what do we have to fear? | ||
|
Yuljan
2196 Posts
On June 29 2010 06:24 EpiCenteR wrote: Lol, so only the government can produce a stable currency? Us dollar purchasing power chart: Inflation is not a bad thing. Notice when my graphic starts going back up(after depression) and yours start to go down? ![[image loading]](http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/long_14406_image001.gif) | ||
|
ImAbstracT
519 Posts
Okay...so our rgdp went up. Point? | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On June 29 2010 05:49 xDaunt wrote: Whether society "needs" a state is irrelevant. Because there will always be a state, the real issue is what type of state will there be. If anarchists are looking to take down the states in the West such as the USA, Canada, and the European democracies (and I don't think anyone will argue that anarchists do not seek to take down these states), what will emerge from the wreckage? More importantly, will something "better" or "worse" emerge? Historically, the successor states have always been worse (see Russia, China, Cuba, Cambodia, etc). Despite all the flaws and failings of the current governments and states, I don't think anyone will argue that we have now is inferior to what has existed before. Do we really want to roll the dice, especially considering the poor track record of anarchists' work? When you say "take down"... "wreckage"... I don't know if you're speaking figuratively but in case you're not... nothing has to be destroyed in the abolition of a state. What happens is, people stop paying taxes, government goes bankrupt (oh wait, it already is), then people inside government will have to find voluntary (by voluntary, I mean non-coercive) jobs like anyone else, and those government services who were being paid by theft (taxation) will also have to be provided voluntarily like any other service in the market. | ||
|
ImAbstracT
519 Posts
On June 29 2010 06:33 Yuljan wrote: Inflation is not a bad thing. Notice when my graphic starts going back up(after depression) and yours start to go down? So the loss of purchasing power is a good thing? That graph shows perfectly how well the State and its central banks manage a currency, they devalue it with no end. | ||
|
Yuljan
2196 Posts
| ||
|
Destro
Netherlands1206 Posts
On June 29 2010 05:49 dvide wrote: It's not nearly the same thing. Being against civilization is called primitivism. Civilization is not "the government", it is generally defined as agricultural societies living in towns and cities and such. and then no one runs the cities.... towns.... villages....tribes...caves. yea man, utopia would be pretty sweet deal but this is humanity we are talking about. i roll my eyes at this kinda thing... keep dreaming you little dream sailor. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 29 2010 06:41 Yurebis wrote: When you say "take down"... "wreckage"... I don't know if you're speaking figuratively but in case you're not... nothing has to be destroyed in the abolition of a state. What happens is, people stop paying taxes, government goes bankrupt (oh wait, it already is), then people inside government will have to find voluntary (by voluntary, I mean non-coercive) jobs like anyone else, and those government services who were being paid by theft (taxation) will also have to be provided voluntarily like any other service in the market. When has a state ever been peacefully abolished leaving anarchy? Better yet, when has a "peaceful" or "idealistic" anarchist state ever persisted following the abolition of a state? I'll answer those questions for you: Never. Anarchists have been and always will be bad news. | ||
|
Destro
Netherlands1206 Posts
[QUOTE]On June 29 2010 06:41 Yurebis wrote: I'll answer those questions for you: Never. Anarchists have been and always will be bad news. [/QUOTE] luckily for the world, no one takes them seriously but themselves. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On June 29 2010 06:52 xDaunt wrote: When has a state ever been peacefully abolished leaving anarchy? Better yet, when has a "peaceful" or "idealistic" anarchist state ever persisted following the abolition of a state? I'll answer those questions for you: Never. Anarchists have been and always will be bad news. That which is, will forever be so? So if we were both slaves in the dark ages, you'd be telling me to forget about a democratic government, because everyone who's tried to be free has failed? Don't let 'that which is' limit you on 'how it should be'. | ||
|
Kralic
Canada2628 Posts
Protestors have the right to protest peacefully. When the protestors start to smash windows and cause a ruckus(downplayed this) they are no longer protestors, they are a mob. It doesn't matter, you cannot let some people stay while others are forced to leave. Everyone is lumped into the same category. They have to be overly defensive or aggressive. What would happen if one person got through and decided to actually be a suicide bomber(no I do not think their would be one at this summit)? Well then the police would be criticised and the amount of money spent would be questioned as to why it failed. Either way no one will be happy with the police or government no matter what happens. Maybe if some of the police force got outnumbered and killed it would change your minds? Protesting is a right, but like most rights you abuse it and it is gone. | ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
The PondCast
PiG Sty Festival
Serral vs Lambo
SHIN vs Rogue
OSC
Replay Cast
Escore
PiG Sty Festival
ByuN vs HeRoMaRinE
ShoWTimE vs Zoun
CranKy Ducklings
PiG Sty Festival
herO vs Krystianer
Solar vs Cure
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
