A new nation with no government. What would you suggest?

Discussion in 'Political Science' started by NaturalBorn, Apr 15, 2011.

  1. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL I happen to be the former janitor, homeless person, and person that worked "day labor" jobs to get by. Through a high work ethic I managed to rise to the top over time and so I have a more than comfortable income today. No one gave me a dime. I received no food stanps, rent assistance or any other government welfare during my entire lifetime and yet I found no problems with rising to the top. All it took was hard work and dedication.

    Of course it's the average person that drove up home prices, not the wealthy, but that seems to be missed in this rant against capitalism.

    It also fails to note that the diminishing real wages of workers are directly caused by the printing of fiat currency by the government which causes real wages to decline. Rarely has anyone taken a "pay cut" but instead they work for the same wages while the fiat currency they're paid with loses purchasing power. In the United States Federal Reserve notes have lost over 97% of their purchasing power since inception. This cannot happen when money, not currency, is the foundation of the economy. Money is a commodity whereas currency is not. Commodities always retain an exchange value related to other commodities.
     
  2. RevAnarchist

    RevAnarchist New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,848
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Dang I happen to agree with that one Shiva. Well, most of it anyway. I think as you said Fiat currency etc is not a good thing! It allows way too much hanky panky by those that control the currency. Nixon almost caused a major international incident when he removed the last vestiges of gold from our currency. At that time we owed a lot of debt to international concerns, just like today*. Ha ha~ Tricky dick and the fed just printed up enough funny money and paid off the loan which went over like the turd in a punch bowl…

    I don’t think man has the will to can himself for any real length of time. I feel the cause of that is due in large part to our lineage being a non sentient animal. We are too primitive of a species to govern ourselves successfully, because of greed ruining the whole shumuck for the entire species (for the most part). We are scared pooless right now because of the fear of Armageddon, as we should be! Maybe our stint on earth is to evolve or learn to overcome that little hang up that we do so well, war with an genocidal zeal. If I did not believe I would not have a shred of hope for us as a species.

    I believe that bands of hunter gathers such as the first humans would be the best way to live until we learn how to play with nukes. Maybe a million people on earth dispersed all over would be enough to keep an extinction level event wiping all of us out. That actually happened according to our DNA! A BFR or massive volcanism destroyed all but several thousand humans world wide!

    Anyway even though it sounds like a comedy I would rather see us with spears and rocks instead of nuclear weapons some single devices that have had the explosive power of 50 MILLION tons of HE. For comparison the A bomb that destroyed Hiroshima had a puny yield in the low kiloton range (thousands of tons). We would have to rely on each other and would be too tired to fight. Another possibility would be to leave earth on a space ark. We very nearly have the technology today for a 10%> 15% light speed vessel. However some nut would probably screw that up too. I have pretty much given up on our ability to govern ourselves, or even our ability not to gleefully kill each other off with plain old high explosives and conventional military devices. Its one reason I am a pepper. I only venture out to help others and to educate those that want to know about what I am doing.

    Rev A
     
  3. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Many misinterprete what President Nixon did in his executive order. He did not remove the United States from the Gold Standard but did withdraw the United States from the Bretton Woods agreement that required the international redemption of Federal Reserve notes in gold at $35/oz. US citizens were already being denied redemption under FDR's Emergency Banking Act from 1933 when Nixon withdrew the US from the Bretton Woods agreement and he did not address that at all in 1972. In 1974 the US Congress under President Ford repealed the 1933 Emergency Banking act once again allowing the US ownership of gold and in 1977 the Congress also reinstated the "gold clause" for contracts. As a final note the Congress once again exercised it's Constitutional authority to "coin money and regulate the value thereof" by passing the Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985. Title 12 still requires the Federal Reserve to redeem Federal Reserve notes in "lawful money" which has always been gold and silver coins according the the Supreme Court (Julliard v Greenman) but the law is not being enforced.

    Technically we're still on the gold standard but because the law isn't being enforced it has resulted in the creation of far more Federal Reserve notes than the US could redeem in hundreds of years. That why Federal Reserve notes are discounted so much in the free market. It is the ability to redeem a promissory note that determines its discount value in the free market. We refer to it as "inflation" but in reality it is really the discounting of a promissory note that results in the promissory note being worth less than face value.

    The United States government will still accept American Gold Eagles at face value for the payment of taxed and they are still legal tender under US law. A person must also accept gold and silver American Eagle coins in commerce as payment for goods and services under the law.

    I recently did that when I sold an RV when I accepted the true exchange value of the lawful money and not the discounted value of Federal Reserve notes in the sale (i.e. I was going to sell it for $3000 in Federal Reserve notes but instead accepted $100 in American Gold Eagles). I'm currently selling a commercial property for $9,400 but payment must be made in American Gold Eagles (i.e. I'm imposing the gold clause on the sale which is legal under US law since 1977). The property is worth $9,400 in American Gold Eagles (about $300K in Federal Reserve notes) but I will enjoy a huge tax advantage in selling it for only $9,400 in American Gold Eagles because the US government has to treat a $50 Federal Reserve note and a $50 American Gold Eagle identically under the law and I will show a "loss" of over $250K on the property when I sell it. The purchaser can also realize a tax advantage because they can appeal the property taxes based upon the sale price of the property greatly lowering their property taxes.
     
  4. frodly

    frodly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    17,989
    Likes Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    83


    When your corporation does well, you do the same. I don't mean to say you are hurt, clearly you aren't, but they don't say "hey we had a great quarter, bonuses for all the employees!!" Of course not. The money goes to bondholders and stockholders. Now to be fair, when your corporation suffers, you most likely will bear the brunt of that suffering, but you will likely not receive the benefits of any success.


    As far as my perfect government. I am confused about the concept. Is this supposed to be a utopian opportunity, or a money making opportunity to create a new Vegas?


    If it is the former, then I would set up a parliamentary system with proportional representation, publicly funded elections, and a bill of rights similar to the universal declaration of human rights.

    I would then set up a libertarian socialist economy. So I would significantly limit the ability of government to wield power, make all the vices people mentioned legal by constitutional mandate, and limit governments role to basic regulation, protecting basic rights, etc. Then I would ensure that all companies started in my island would be owned collectively. That way, the success or failure of company equates to the success or failure of it's workers, and the success won't just translate to the executives and bond/stock holders.

    Last of all, I would have no corporate tax rate, and a simple low rate VAT tax. The tax would go to funding a basic military/police, and for setting up a basic social safety net for people whose companies failed.


    PS. I am not a socialist in general, because I believe it is practically impossible to implement in normal societies without extreme violence. That extreme violence sets a precedent for all future action by that original socialist revolutionary cadre. That means there will not only be incredible injustices done in the name of creating socialism, but they will almost certainly continue in the name of "defending socialism." If you have no economy set up yet, you could practically create socialism, without those problems. It may not work, but it would be worth a try.
     
  5. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Libertarian socialism threw me for a loop so I had to look it up. It does support minimal government close to anarchy but it denies the Right of Proprerty. How can someone be consider to be a "libertarian" that opposes the natural Rights of the Individual? It is sort of like the Constitution Party in the United States that only endorses those parts of the Constitution which agree with their religious beliefs.

    A Libertarian supports the natural Rights of the Individual and cannot pick and choose which natural Rights it will endorse and deny others. It would be my conclustion that a "libertarian socialist" is not a libertarian at all but has instead subverted the term libertarian. They are socialists that predominately endorse local level government that has the authority to violate the Rights of the Individual. I could not support such a regime as I would find it tyrannical and, indeed, it would be tyrannical if it could violate the Right of Property of the individual which is what it proposes.
     
  6. DominorVobis

    DominorVobis Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2011
    Messages:
    3,931
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Perfect example of the problem. What makes you think you have a natural right to own property. What distinguishes you from any other inhabitant of this planet.

    I am all for freedom, just you try and take away my freedom you will have a fight on your hands. It is exactly that which you take away when you want the right to own property. If you are rich enough, you can deny the rights of thousands by restricting access to necessary resources, like food and shelter and manipulate markets to even further restrict my freedom.

    Previously someone said that they are a "Self made man" that they needed no handouts from the government of anyone else and I say great, but not EVERYONE can do the same. Besides, abilities and opportunities there needs to be availability. Capitalism as has been stated and stated over and over again is a hierarchy. A few at the top, many thousands that support them.

    Here is an example of how capitalism works.

    Qantas, you all know them, had industrial relations problems. Workers felt they were underpaid and that the company was cutting jobs and opportunities so they have a board meeting. Even tough the companies profits were lower and industrial unrest was costing them, the board voted on two things (among others one would presume).
    1) To lock out the workers.
    2) To give the CEO a pay rise of 1.7 million dollars.

    You got to love capitalism .... not
     
  7. frodly

    frodly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    17,989
    Likes Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    83

    Under these circumstances, what property rights are you talking about? On an uninhabited island, no one would own any of the land yet. Therefore no one would have a "right" to it. People would then actually own their labor, and could own the right to use any land they saw fit. What they could not own was the land itself, nor the labor of others. I don't see the problem here.
     
  8. DominorVobis

    DominorVobis Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2011
    Messages:
    3,931
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree, good post
     
  9. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The original post referred to "property" of all kinds but we can address land ownership.

    Land ownership is established by labor just as the ownership of any property is established by labor. Real estate is a commodity just like any other commodity and is acquired by an exchange of labor or by the exchange of other commodities that were originally produced by labor. For example, on the island a person may take "unowned" land and build a house on it or establish the use of the land for farming or raising of live stock. The borders of land use are established by the labor of the individual in this instance. From a more pragmatic perspective someone already owns the island by initially purchasing it to establish this new country.

    Some can argue that the individual doesn't literally own the land but instead owns the right to use the land. The end result is the same because they can trade that right to use the land to others for commodities. They own title for the land or the use of the land and they have acquired this either through labor or by the exchange of commodities for the land or the use thereof and have a Right of Property related to it.

    Some would argue that the Right of Property is not a natural right but once again any property is owned by the individual either because they expended labor for it or exchanged other commodities for it. All commodities are ultimately created through labor either related to something that is mined or grown. If I prospect in a river for gold, find enough gold and make a ring then I own that ring and have a right to exchange it for other commodities whether it's food or land. Or I can exchange the gold I've found for other commodities and someone else can make a ring from the gold. In any case the commodity, gold, was originally obtained from nature by labor and that labor established ownership.

    In an economy based upon commodities and labor there isn't fiat currency as money is a common commodity used in the barter system. All transactions relate to either the exchange of commodities for commodities or the exchange of labor for commodities or in rare instances the exchange of labor for labor. This is where soclialism fails because it often violates this right of property.

    If a person exchanges 100 oz of gold for 1/10th ownership in a company (i.e. buys stock) they have obtained that gold either through the exchange of commodities or by labor and they have exchanged it for that 1/10th ownership in the company. That company might grow over time and someone else might be willing to exchange 200 oz of gold for that same 1/10th ownership. Once agian the new purchaser acquired those 200 oz of gold either through labor or through the exchange of other commodies. That company cannot be taked away from the owners that have acquired ownership either through their labor or the exchange of commodities which allowed them to purchase the ownership of the company. The company itself is a commodity which can be bought and sold based upon voluntary exchanges.

    The key to all of this is the elimination of fiat currency and instead the use of commodities as a monetary system. There is no corruption related to using commodities as money because true money is always a commodity. There is only corruption when the "government" or any entity is allowed to produce fiat currency that is declared to be "legal tender" that must be accepted in exchanges. Fiat currency robs the labor of the individual because it is not a commodity.
     

Share This Page