14

"The basic and crucial political issue of our age is: capitalism versus socialism... " - Ayn Rand

Posted by GaltsGulch 9 years ago to The Gulch: General
63 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

"The basic and crucial political issue of our age is: capitalism versus socialism, or freedom versus statism. For decades, this issue has been silenced, suppressed, evaded, and hidden under the foggy, undefined rubber-terms of 'conservatism' and 'liberalism' which had lost their original meaning and could be stretched to mean all things to all men." - Ayn Rand


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by DrZarkov99 9 years ago
    When AR used the term "capitalism," she was referring to the pure form of free market commerce as laid out in Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. The vision of capitalism today has been distorted to mean cronyism, which incorporates all of the most unpleasant elements of trusts, monopolies, nepotism, theft of intellectual property, and fascist partnership with statists.

    The distorted crony capitalism present in our world has an uncomfortable kinship with socialism, in that a powerful elite seek to control the markets to their own exclusive benefit. The constipated flow of wealth is characteristic of the delusion that somehow the "invisible hand" can be made to obey the wishes of power seekers without catastrophic damage to the free market.

    Nothing will change for the better until the forces that are inherent to a real free market are unfettered. Whether the oligarchy that seeks to rule calls itself socialist or not, the big state must be brought to an end.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 9 years ago
      Ayn Rand did not narrowly use the term 'capitalism' as a kind of commerce. "Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned." Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Chapter 1, "What is Capitalism?".

      It is important to understand how and why Ayn Rand advocated capitalism as a social system based on an ethics* of rationality and egoism. She was not a conservative. It is not enough to denounce "cronyism".

      In the August 1971 issue of _The Objectivist
      , she included the following three items in the regular feature "From The Special 'Horror File'":

      Martin Luther (1483-1546)
      "Cursed and condemned is every kind of life lived and sought for selfish profit and good; cursed are all works not done in love. But they are done in love when they are directed wholeheartedly, not toward selfish pleasure, profit, honor, and welfare but toward the profit, honor, and welfare of others." Cf. What Luther Says; An Anthology, ed. E. M. Plass (3 vols., St. Louis, Concordia, 1959), lii, 1282.

      Adam Smith (1723-1790)
      "The wise and virtuous man is at all times willing that his own private interest should be sacrificed to the public interest of his own particular order or society. He is at all times willing, too, that the interest of this order or society should be sacrificed to the greater interest of the state or sovereignty of which it is only a subordinate part: he should, therefore, be equally willing that all those inferior interests should be sacrificed to the greater interest of the universe, to the interest of that great society of all sensible and intelligent beings of which God himself is the immediate administrator and director." The Theory of Moral Sentiments, in Adam Smith's Moral and Political Philosophy, ed. H. W. Schneider (N.Y., Harper Torchbooks, 1970), p. 249.

      John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
      "It is as much a part of our scheme as of M. Comte's, that the direct cultivation of altruism, and the subordination of egoism to it, far beyond the point of absolute moral duty, should be one of the chief aims of education, both individual and collective .... every person who lives by any useful work, should be habituated to regard himself not as an individual working for his private benefit, but as a public functionary; and his wages, of whatever sort, not as the remuneration or purchase-money of his labour, which should be given freely, but as the provision made by society to enable him to carry it on..." Auguste Comte and Positivism (Ann Arbor, U. of Mich. Press, 1961 ), pp. 146-8.

      The "Horror File" was "documentation pertain[ing] to a special aspect of modern life: to the philosophical-journalistic level of events—i.e., to events and pronouncements which illustrated the intellectual state of our culture and reflected the influence of philosophy (of the mysticism-altruism-collectivism axis) on the daily political-cultural life of this country....

      "Our purpose is to illustrate the tie, ignored by too many people, between the present state of our culture and its philosophical roots—to demonstrate that today's intellectual trends are as bad as we charge (or worse)—to indicate the kind of ideas that have to be fought and to remind you that the battle lies in the field of ideas."
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by DrZarkov99 9 years ago
        It's important to remember that Adam Smith's other work, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, was predecessor to his more well known work. It laid the moral precepts on which his concept of the capitalist marketplace was based. Without moral bounds, Smith assumed, the marketplace couldn't work as it should. In that sense, he very much conceived of capitalism as a moral social system.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 9 years ago
          Much of Adam Smith's economic observations were correct. His moral theory contradicts a capitalist society.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by DrZarkov99 9 years ago
            Smith's moral theory is an interesting study. The son of a prominent minister, it would have been simple to base his ideas on constructive morality on biblical teachings. Instead, he presented a non-biblical view of life as transactional, building a logical case for positive outcomes resulting from ethical decisions in dealing with others. He was concerned that without a moral view, the benefits of a capitalist society would not be fulfilled.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by jetgraphics 9 years ago
        ...
        Adam Smith was a shill for usurers (abominations)

        http://www.monetary.org/a-brief-histo...
        Adam Smith’s 1776 WEALTH OF NATIONS, capitalism’s “bible,” put aside these earlier rationales, and justified usury in economic terms:
        “- - - The interest or the use of money…is the compensation which the borrower pays to the lender, for the profit which he has an opportunity of making by the use of the money. Part of that profit naturally belongs to the borrower who runs the risk and takes the trouble of employing it; and part to the lender, who affords him the opportunity of making this profit.”

        This is how interest is popularly viewed today. But Smith overlooked that the lender gets his profit even when the enterprise loses [by confiscating collateral]; he ignored the successful business structures used by Venice for centuries, where the lender’s return was based on actual profits. Smith’s endorsement did not remove the stigma against usury; and the debate continued.

        Jeremy Bentham’s IN DEFENCE OF USURY (1787) created the present mis-definition of usury as: “The taking of a greater interest than the law allows… (or) the taking of greater interest than is usual.”
        He dismissed the harmful effects of usury on the common man: “Simple people will be robbed more in buying goods than in borrowing money.”
        ...
        These two influences among many were instrumental in eradicating public resistance to the abomination of usury.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by DrZarkov99 9 years ago
          There's a very good reason why I advise anyone to run like hell from limited partnerships, which work very much like the Venetian model. If the borrower risks nothing, keeping capital and assets if the venture fails, where's his share of the risk? Endless scams have been based on this con, bilking the gullible out of their hard-earned capital. You have a very distorted definition of usury.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by jetgraphics 9 years ago
            Usury is defined as any interest, not just excessive interest.

            Usury has been denounced for "only" 3500 years, and all religions (that I checked) condemn it.
            (Ezekiel 18:13 lists it as a capital offense)

            It is mathematically unsustainable in a finite money token system, and invariably causes a portion of debtors to default and lose collateral. Governments that protect and enforce contracts for usury are accessories to that crime.

            A Brief History of Interest | AMI (American Monetary Institute)
            http://www.monetary.org/a-brief-histo...

            In 1836 John Whipple, an American lawyer, showed the impossibility of sustaining long term metallic usury in this fashion:

            " If 5 English pennies... had been invested ... at 5 per cent compound interest from the beginning of the Christian era until the present time, it would amount in gold of standard fineness to 32,366,648,157 spheres of gold each eight thousand miles in diameter, or as large as the earth."

            To pay usury over the long term, would require THIRTY TWO BILLION EARTH SIZED SPHERES OF GOLD. (Is that impossible enough for you?)

            The exponential equation used for compound interest requires an infinite money supply to operate. Since this is obviously impossible, only fools contract with usurers.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by DrZarkov99 9 years ago
              In simple terms, the old saw, "Neither a lender nor borrower be" applies. You're addressing the dangers inherent in indebtedness, while I was referring to investor-based transactions. The investor is party to risk, gambling on project success, while a lender (usurer, if you prefer) expects payment regardless of outcome. I agree that avoidance of indebtedness is the preferred path. Slamming Adam Smith for recognizing such transactions take place seems a bit extreme.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by jetgraphics 9 years ago
                Slamming apologists for usury may appear extreme. But tolerance of evil is not merciful to the next victim.
                Any one who can do "Future Worth" calculations and not recognize the inherent insanity of usury is worthy of slamming.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by blackswan 9 years ago
                  So, maybe before going into that arena, you should know a little about finance and economics, and stop depending on a social umbrella of protection.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by jetgraphics 8 years, 12 months ago
                    eCONomics?

                    Usury is mathematically unsustainable in a finite money token system.
                    http://www.monetary.org/a-brief-histo...
                    In 1836 John Whipple, an American lawyer, showed the impossibility of sustaining long term metallic usury in this fashion:

                    " If 5 English pennies... had been invested ... at 5 per cent compound interest from the beginning of the Christian era until the present time, it would amount in gold of standard fineness to 32,366,648,157 spheres of gold each eight thousand miles in diameter, or as large as the earth."

                    To pay usury over the long term, would require THIRTY TWO BILLION EARTH SIZED SPHERES OF GOLD. (Is that impossible enough for you?)

                    ....
                    To further illustrate unsustainability of usury:
                    Future Worth (FV), based on Present Value (PV)
                    FV = PV x (1+ interest)^time
                    Let N = total sum of money tokens
                    Let PV = 0.1N = 10% of N, the amount invested at 6% per annum, compounded daily
                    How long does it take for the investment to match whole sum of money tokens?
                    (N/0.1N) = (1 + .06/365)^ time units
                    Solving for time units
                    time units = log (N/0.1N) / log (1 + .06/365)
                    time units = log (1/0.1)/ log (1 + .06/365)
                    14008.54 days
                    38.37 years
                    After this point, the outstanding obligation will exceed the whole set of money tokens, making repayment IMPOSSIBLE.

                    In other words, if all the people invested 10% of their money at 6% APR, they’d go bust in 38.37 years, owing (or being owed) all the money that exists. Any further investment past that period cannot be repaid. That is the scam of usury.

                    In the short term, a portion of debtors will default simply because enough money never existed for them to repay. They will lose their pledged collateral, blaming themselves or their bad luck not realizing that usury was the reason.
                    That is also why “privatizing” Socialist InSecurity would not be viable. Any widespread “investment” at usury could not be sustained, since the money token supply is finite.

                    The whole “free World” economic system is based upon a mathematically unsustainable system of investment.

                    Big Badda Boom !
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago
      It isn't capitalism but more similar to State Economics or Fascist Economics in that the control is always present and the controllers are the same people. Socialist Statists, Socialist Corporatists and their third leg Labor Leaders. At least that's the face presented to the public. In truth i would call them the neo-aristocracy and the present form of feudalism revived - if it ever went away. .
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by roneida 9 years ago
    Some things never change. Thank God for Ayn Rand. The USA needs her now more than ever.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 9 years ago
      what else would she say or do now that she hadnt already done. The unwashed will have to undergo the Venezuela experience before they will think enough to see what happened.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by roneida 9 years ago
        term2,, she could not say or do more than she already did by leaving us her thoughts... it's up to us to expand them where we are able..one can lead a horse to water ...... . many will never hear or want to hear...survival of the fittest will always win...but when is the question.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 9 years ago
          Even Ayn Rand ran the AS story all the way to essentially the Venezuelan experience. Its like she knew it would take that to change people to think about things. What she thought also was that the picture she was painting would be enough to effect change- when in fact it appears that it will require the reality of it to make a difference. Too bad, really. It amazes me that the people of Venezuela still seem to accept socialism in spite of whats happened.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 9 years ago
            It shouldn't amaze you. The Venezuelan culture still accepts the collectivist ethics of sacrifice of the individual that led to the first round of socialism. People are doing this all over the world. They keep promoting collectivism-statism as a moral ideal and when it fails, again and again, they keep pursuing it, again and again. The collectivists still regard the Soviet Union as moral ideal that was only beaten down by the "capitalists". If people do not reject the mystic-altruist ethics they will keep making the same destructive mistake. Mistakes of that magnitude are not made innocently. They ask for it.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 9 years ago
              I think what surprises me is the depth of their belief in socialism in the face of the overwhelming evidence of the complete failure of it. The country is sitting in the dark this week because there is no electricity and Maduro still is alive !. Although I hope it doesn't have to get that bad here before people reject socialism, but I fear it will
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 8 years, 11 months ago
                Don't count on them rejecting socialism just because they see failure all around them. With the invalid moral premises of altruism and collectivism they continue to pursue socialism while blaming their misery on those who don't.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by term2 8 years, 11 months ago
                  Doesn't this make you wonder just what it would take for people to actually reject the moral premises of altruism? Was the formation of the US just an accident brought about by reaction to some terrible actions of an oppressive monarchy? Was it due to being in essentially inhospitable and unforgiving lands that made people feel independent? Is it the very success of the USA that breeds the unthinking desire for socialism ? Ayn Rand thought that AS would wake people up, but that wasn't right. It didn't wake people up to the horrors of collectivism, or by the time many people read it their minds were already corrupted. Interesting questions, the answers to which will affect the world for a long time
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by roneida 9 years ago
            term2..sadly, stupidity, greed and laziness are pretty much universal and nearly unbeatable. One has to do what one can and move on with those of fairminded behavior and good will. You can't save them all..maybe not any. Don't forget to vote...sad as it seems, it is the only answer .
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jetgraphics 9 years ago
    AMERICA VERSUS THE WORLD
    ...
    Property rights
    ...
    The world’s view of private property :
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_...
    “....Private property is a legal designation of the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities. Private property is distinguishable from public property, which is owned by a state entity; and collective property, which is owned by a group of non-governmental entities.”

    A non-government legal entity can own “private property,” as distinguished from government ownership of “public property.”

    America’s view of private property:

    "PRIVATE PROPERTY - As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels."
    - - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217.

    "OWNERSHIP - ... Ownership of property is either absolute or qualified. The ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the absolute dominion over it... The ownership is qualified when it is shared with one or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is deferred or limited, or when the use is restricted. "
    - - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 1106

    LAND. ... The land is one thing, and the ESTATE in land is another thing, for an ESTATE in land is a time in land or land for a time.
    - - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.877
    . . .
    Land held with qualified ownership is estate (aka "real estate").
    Land absolutely owned by an individual is private property.

    NOTE: Only in American law is private property absolutely owned.
    In other nations, "private property" only refers to property not owned by government.

    Restating: Qualified ownership aka "estate" is not constitutionally protected, as is private property.

    Since 1933, private property has not existed for most Americans due to the STATE OF EMERGENCY and confiscation of all lawful money by St. Roosevelt and his glorious socialist minions.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years ago
    I'd call her a prophet but she probably would have slapped me for saying it. Once clearly defined, the inevitability of the conflict between socialism and capitalism is easy to recognize. The cyclical theory of history may have some validity inasmuch as civilization seems to grow from a form of collectivism, to dictatorship, to such great privation that there is a rebellion and some form of freedom prevails and manifests capitalism which once again deteriorates to collectivism, socialism, dictatorship, etc.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago
    Socialism as a financial system among other things is unable to support itself. As apolitical system it is unable to exist with the primary tool of fascism ' completed control by any means needed' including twisted definitions.

    It's government over people.

    Capitalism is a financial system not a social or political system. It is very successful when used properly and monitored by the population and the populations employees - government.

    One of it's basic premises is honesty and a way of putting it is must have a social conscience which does not mean socialism.

    An example is re-stating the old leftist slogan ' means of production' to include ALL workers. CEO to Janitor. Second to treat each as a necessary part of the system.

    You see some of that in the Scandanavian countries, NZ and Switzerland.

    Short version is Citizens Over Government.

    As Ayn Rand stated the others are terms of propagandists...

    Treating the Constitution as the center of political discourse instead of crowning the center of the left as the center and then actually using it instead of ignoring was the way to go...

    instead we get the Patriot Act. A Marxist document with a thin patina of red, white and blue.

    For Shame....
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 9 years ago
      Socialism lasts only until the other guy's money runs out.

      I wonder how far Sanders would get if he openly said that his socialism requires taking all the money from people who earn it and giving it to the ones who dont earn it. I wonder if Romney was right in that 47% of the voters in america would be OK with that statement now.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 11 months ago
    Lexicon has it coming from several sources following is one part of that.


    Politics



    The answers given by ethics determine how man should treat other men, and this determines the fourth branch of philosophy: politics, which defines the principles of a proper social system. As an example of philosophy’s function, political philosophy will not tell you how much rationed gas you should be given and on which day of the week—it will tell you whether the government has the right to impose any rationing on anything.

    Philosophy: Who Needs It

    “Philosophy: Who Needs It,”
    Philosophy: Who Needs It, 4



    The basic and crucial political issue of our age is: capitalism versus socialism, or freedom versus statism. For decades, this issue has been silenced, suppressed, evaded, and hidden under the foggy, undefined rubber-terms of “conservatism” and “liberalism” which had lost their original meaning and could be stretched to mean all things to all men.

    by putting the basic sentence into google it sends you a page in :Lexicon marked Politics
    the rest follows
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 11 months ago
    I can't improve on AR statement but I can put in the context of the times specifically today.

    For You Republicans it's how to get Cruz elected and if you are bright enough - and I doubt that or you wouldn't be still stuck on this little issue and that but focused on the job - it would be how to use the opportunity to best advantage...Most of you haven't a clue and are still in the route step follow the RINOs category. You'll find the center of their political universe way out to the left.

    Some of you do have a clue and that is take over the party and re-instate it as a separate entity instead of the puppy chow posse roll of right wing OF the left. Your main job is re-establish credibility as a party, decide to support Cruz or looz and get a viable VP for carry on purposes and to gain maximum votes. But as Republicans you are by your own actions in the past still not trusted.

    For the rest of us figure out how to glue the bits pieces, shards, and shreds of a severely divided yet very large disenfranchised into some sort of working coalition and cease the bickering which serves no one's purpose except the left. Retreating into a cave of fruitless philosophical discussion and endlessly dissecting the same points gets you where?

    Wasting a lot of time on endlessly dissecting the same points. Useful in training the new people or upgrading the rest of us. but then what? To what purpose?

    A case in point is the idiotic three times now go round over whose eligible and it will happen again when the next misinformed true believer delivers a righteous but futile and now laughable sermon or worse another go round of scoring debate points to no further purpose.

    Take your pick to quote Rand There are three answers Right, Wrong and Compromise which makes two wrong and one right answer.

    Forming a coalition of key points of agreement is not compromise and not only points of agreement but what to do what action to take.

    Until then I'm going to keep building that 46% disenfranchised into higher numbers instead of assisting the 29% Socialist and 24% what should I call them ah yes the right wing of the left.) puppy chow posse of RINOS who constantly cave on command. Arf Arf.

    At all levels and in all precincts.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years ago
    Where is this quote from? I don't remember it AS? I like it. Rubber terms that could mean all things to all people work for politicians and hide the issue of freedom vs statism.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years ago
      The Ayn Rand Lexicon says it is from "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal".

      Source: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/pol...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by wiggys 9 years ago
        It has been obvious for some time now that many of the contributors to the forum have read very little of AR beyond AS or the Fountainhead.
        roneida, god did not bring AR into this world, however, when AR was here she was not appreciated and as a matter she was hated by the people who run the country. If she were still here nothing would have changed. If you or others were to read the essays in the other books that she published one would find that she covered everything that has been unhealthy for the country years ago and that has not changed. Actually it has things have gotten worse. And based upon those wanting to lead (I say that in jest, since none is capable) the speed at which thing will get worse(er) will increase. welcome to the new america!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by roneida 9 years ago
          Inever said God did.bring AR into the world,.I simply use that old human well wishing phrase. and unless you are better connected than the Pope and I am. don't be so sure of your omnipotence.. there may possibly be some things you have no way of being smugly certain about. God Bless.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by wiggys 9 years ago
            I once listened to Bill Buckley interview an older man who was an Athiest. Buckley in his smug manner said when you die and meet st. peter and he asks why you did not believe; what would you say; "you never gave me any proof"; Buckley shut his mouth, and that was amazing.

            I await proof. Also, how can the unknown be known and by whom?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by roneida 9 years ago
              wiggys...the unknown by definition is not knowable. that's the beauty of it... Those who know everything, can have no surprises or questions and are probably bored...,nothing new will ever happen to them. Omnipotence is a lonely bitch...no equals.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ TomB666 9 years ago
                Did you mean to say that "the unknown is by definition that which is not yet known?" There are things which I call 'unknowable' because the means to know them is not available to me, i.e. "which planet with life forms like us is closest to our own planet?" That is unknowable now because we do not have the means to find out, but if/when we find a way to travel the universe and check all the existing planets, we may have an answer.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ TomB666 9 years ago
                Did you mean to say that "the unknown is by definition that which is not yet known?" There are things which I call 'unknowable' because the means to know them is not available to me, i.e. "which planet with life forms like us is closest to our own planet?" That is unknowable now because we do not have the means to find out, but if/when we find a way to travel the universe and check all the existing planets, we may have an answer.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jetgraphics 9 years ago
    Contrary to popular belief and deliberate misunderstanding, the issue is not capitalism (usury) versus socialism (collectivism).
    Since 1933, the collectivists have allied with the usurers to rule America.
    . . .
    The REAL issue is :
    [] Absolute ownership by sovereign people
    versus
    [] Qualified ownership by subject citizens.
    . . .
    And to implement qualified ownership, those who have a superior claim (creditors, governments) utilize fraud, constructive fraud, withholding of material facts, and intimidation to insure “voluntary compliance” with self-enslavement, compulsory charity, and expropriation of property for the benefit of another.
    . . .
    To further augment their power, they rely on money madness, the belief that money has value, while disregarding the reality of the marketplace of property, goods and services. Thus people are distracted by the illusion of money, and ignore the continuous skim they endure.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 9 years ago
      I am allowed to build my own house, but only if it meets their ideas of what a house should look like. I can pay for it and live in it, but only if I obey the various laws and dont use or sell drugs and pay the taxes on it that they assess. Thats NOT ownership.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by jetgraphics 9 years ago
        You are referring to qualified ownership of estate - not absolute ownership of private property. Since 1933, the presumption has fallen to estate and not private property.

        Go check your own state constitution and note that while private property is protected, estate (real and personal property ownership) is subject to ad valorem taxation and regulation.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 9 years ago
          I was actually thinking of private property in general, like bank accounts, any property thats subject to asset seizures, as well as real estate. There is no more "protected private property" in the USA. You get to think you own it, you get to pay to keep it up, and then when the various governents want it, they take it.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo