 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
All the oratory of the advocates of government omnipotence cannot annul the fact that there is but one system that makes for durable peace: A free market economy. Government control leads to economic nationalism and thus results in conflict.
Note: A split occurs in 'capitalism' between those who support 'the state' and those who do not support 'the state'. I am not making this up.
Here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north512.html
One solution is free banking. This was Ludwig von Mises’ suggestion. There would be no bank regulation, no central bank monopolies, no bank licensing, and no legal barriers to entry. Let the most efficient banks win! In other words, the solution is a free market in money.
Another solution is 100% reserve banking. Banks would not be allowed to issue more receipts for gold or silver than they have on deposit. Anything else is fraud. There would be regulation and supervision to make sure deposits matched loans. This was Murray Rothbard’s solution. The question is: Regulation by whom? With what authority?
If a person can step back and view the conflict from a truce perspective where the viewer no longer has a stake in the outcome of the conflict, then, that can be called a disinterested viewpoint. Put down your guns and your words awhile; long enough to see clearly what will happen as the conflict continues to build.
If the ‘side’ of capitalism, for example, that supports 100% reserve banking decided to step back and give the other side one day, one week, one month, and one year from Christmas to Christmas a chance to ‘give peace a chance’ and call off the dogs of war, then, the conflict would be a voluntary one. The conflict would then be a competitive race to see who can fill in the vacuum left when ‘the state’ no longer enforced the SYSTEM.
If (after one year) the ‘free banking’ experiment didn’t work, then, the truce can be called off and the dogs of war unleashed again.
There are many more unintended consequences associated with this type of truce called during a summit during a conflict. People may actually find agreement rather than focus upon disagreement. The removal of the enforced monopolies, for example, could inspire the counter revolutionary reactionaries to lose their target protagonist. Put more simply, for those who may as yet not see this clearly, the involuntary version of capitalism actually creates the involuntary version of socialism or visa versa. The common denominator is, and always will be, force. When ‘the planners’ of capitalism and socialism don’t get their way, then, they turn to involuntary means. Violence alone is bad enough. It is, in fact, evil when it is forced upon the innocent. The twin sister of falsehood creates that ever so ominous choice between the lesser evil.
See this?
If someone were to step back and look at the reasons why ‘freedom’ can’t work without deception and violence against the enemy, then, they may need to look in the mirror first. The enemy may be reacting to the ‘first strike’ ordered by your leaders many past Christmases ago. That first strike created the involuntary nature of Capitalism/Socialism, Right/Left, Conservative/Liberal, Tory/Whig, Capital/Labor, 100% reserve banking/free banking.
Take a look around and find the real enemy first before pointing the finger at them. Do you really fear freedom yourself? Are the ‘socialists’ the enemy always? Have you ever actually heard one speak or did you merely jerk a knee in reaction to the color of the uniform?
Last edited on Tue Jan 1st, 2008 01:19 pm by Joe Kelley