First Look at Unifying Theory

page: 2
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by AdAbsurdum
 


yeah I think i just restated your political policy except tried to relate it to what is already existing and how we could form such 'councils' out of that through the pyramid process i was referring to.




posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by AdAbsurdum
 


I think communities should take on a more tribal approach, myself, with barter and trade(much like you stated except the "Tariffs" would be in product or labor, as the money is like you said bbaseless) If you read john titor ( regardless if he was really a time traveler or not is not important to this discussion) the model of what he explained communities to be like in the future, actually is a pretty good model. Also there should be no financial perks to being a government official. When you make it about money (or any other perks) people tend to not care about passing good policies as much as what they can get out of it for their bank accounts or whatever you know what I am getting at. When the native americans picked their chiefs they were always someone of great honor and they were chosen for the way they represented their tribe, not how many crops and hunted flesh animals and skins they'd recieve. And this is the major problem with our government you go into politics nowadays to make money, not to pass good policies on behalf of your people. Somewhere along the way we lost our capability of seeing that materialism causes corruption. We need to go back to a more basic and communal living. Of course I don't have all the answers to how we do that in the modern age. Gold and silver would be my guess, even diamonds and other rare gems I would reckon. I don't know. There has to be a way to make that kind of system work, and the biggest pay off would be closer knit communities.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
Ok, as you some of you know I was going to work on this over the weekend but after everything I've drawn up t
The centralization of wealth creates the centralization of power and vice versa.


The road to true equality, liberty, and freedom lies not in economic or political ideology, but in the destruction of fiat currencies and the reinterpretation of wealth. It is labor that is intrinsic to man and is inherent to ones own nature. It is labor that can not be stolen or devalued through taxation, speculation, and redistribution.

The Labor Dollar

Our currency, and therefore the nation, is controlled by private interests. There is no liberation to be found through more federal intervention as long as the concept of wealth is based on a flawed model.

Currency =/= Wealth.

Only by basing a currency on the action of creating the commodity, labor, are we able to hold true value in our hands.

One Labor dollar is produced for every hour of labor performed, as a standard. Although the exact rate of exchange for any given transaction can be decided by the parties themselves. Ensuring that only the very act of production is the only thing of intrinsic value.

Thus, the very need that exists in a market is the very point of job creation and the currency has true equality regardless of economic process across borders.

edit on 10-12-2010 by AdAbsurdum because: Spelling, grammar



There is one big problem in the economic model, in that you will either have, or quickly return to a fiat money system.

The basic concept of being compensated based mainly on labor contribution is the economic model used by communists. While you say that the rate would be up to the parties involved, in practice there will be a disincentive for people who have earned extra wealth to hire anyone else because this is the fastest way to loose money. It will make more sense for each person to work for themselves, and many people who would start a business will not, because it makes more sense to work for yourself. This causes government to want to come in and create inefficient centrally planned activity to replace what would normally be efficient private investment driven activity.

It would make more sense to base a currency on those physical commodities we still produce. Ideally there would be different types of money with different areas of acceptance and value. On the most common level would be money backed by food commodities. This would be used in day to day in small transactions by most people, and the physical money would be good for one year. It would slowly decrease in value during the year, maybe to about 88% of starting value. It is not to be saved, it is to be spent.

At the higher level would be money backed in both gold and silver. This money would be permanent wealth and used to save and build capital.

At the end of each year would be a period where the spending money people have left over could be converted to permanent money so that people could build savings. During the year, people would also be able to convert certain amounts, under certain circumstances.

There would also be more obscure types of money backed in things like, oil production, timber, energy production, etc, etc. These would have different areas and acceptance/conversion procedures to best fit promoting the industries where they apply. In theory, any group that was producing an item of value would be able to create money, if they could back the money in what they make. The terms of acceptance though, would be based on what the market would give.

While this may sound strange or unworkable, none of this is new. With computers, and information, this type of system is even easier.

M



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum

Originally posted by asperetty



Two, the monetary system I propose has been proven to work. see: Ithica, New York.





Please be more specific about what you are talking about in Ithica, NY.

I guess my main concern with the concept of a labor dollar is that you are not clear about how these get issued. If you simply let it be up to each party involved, does this mean the hirer actually writes the note that becomes money for the person doing the labor, or is there suddenly a certain amount of money that we all have access to in which to pay each other for our labor.
Clearly you can't just let anyone make money, because what would prevent me from writing as much as I want to pay anyone for whatever I want done at whatever inflated price we agree on. Money would be worthless.
Could the paper an employer creates be convertible into labor on demand by the holder? It's possible, but then you have a currency that has only local value, but could still have faith issues even in it's area of value. What's to tell me that Joe who owes me 2 hours of labor could provide the labor if asked? It would be poorly convertible outside of a limited area, because if I get a note for 2 hours of labor from Joe in Minneapolis, and I live in Cleveland, I can't convert it directly even if Joe can provide the work. You would again need a central authority to convert the local monies in to something usable for trade, WHICH IS WHAT MAKES JOBS. While this may not be bad, if it is a type of public trading house. It would still be about the most inefficient method, and IMO, would never work, prone to devolve quickly, and would not create a strong economy, because everyone would want to work, but no one would want to create paying jobs.
Having a way to determine the "right" compensation for labor would be needed, and then you are basically back to the communist system.

I am interested in what you are talking about in Ithica, but you can always have a local economy created that is based on a soft money system, that works because it is backed and based in a hard money system. Having that same system function as a stand alone hard money system is different.
What I propose above would need to have some elements of a fiat system, in that the backing in production goods would in the common case not always equal the amount of the commodity you could get by buying the same item at the store. The value would be in that the common money would have value at the end to the trade groups that would issue the money backed by the government and it's food surplus store which would be the first thing to create, 1 years worth.

M



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Amazing, I have been writing a document on this very issue, I glad to see that someone out there see's the bigger picture.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
ok now looking in a future aspects.. how are we going to protect this from turning into exactly what we have today? what legislature would we have to put into action so that certain aspects can't return into the capitalist system we have today.
i know it's understood that some will be more successful than others, but how can we illegalize fiat currencies and the like.
what legislature can we put into action so that being a politician stays a service position and make lobbying illegal. in a way that it cannot be changed.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   
one more thing canibis should be legal.. not for the drug aspect, but for the benefits the plant itself has in production, such as plastics and papers, all of which would be biodegradable (sp?). it also is very good for pollution and the ozone layer. just some thoughts.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by AdAbsurdum
 


I think communities should take on a more tribal approach, myself, with barter and trade(much like you stated except the "Tariffs" would be in product or labor, as the money is like you said bbaseless)


This is a possible outcome, yes. I and others would agree. The the reason I have drawn up what I have in the way you've seen it is because It allows room for choice. It allows room for Americans to decide fr themselves the best way to live, work, and love.


Also there should be no financial perks to being a government official. When you make it about money (or any other perks) people tend to not care about passing good policies as much as what they can get out of it for their bank accounts or whatever you know what I am getting at.


I would agree and prefer a more communal society myself. Others, will disagree and that's ok, we have room for them too.


We need to go back to a more basic and communal living. Of course I don't have all the answers to how we do that in the modern age. Gold and silver would be my guess, even diamonds and other rare gems I would reckon. I don't know. There has to be a way to make that kind of system work, and the biggest pay off would be closer knit communities.


Closer knit communities is the end goal. We will have that when the States have true representation and we check against power mongers. The only true defense to tyranny, at the end of the day, is well armed and trained populace. All States would be required to have a militia and all citizens would have a civic duty to play watch dog.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by morefiber
There is one big problem in the economic model, in that you will either have, or quickly return to a fiat money system.


Potentially, yes.


The basic concept of being compensated based mainly on labor contribution is the economic model used by communists.


This is also true. I started from there because I am a communist. I understand however, that others do not accept communism and so I attempted to create a system that would allow us to coexist. I am more than happy to be paid the same as everyone else, others will not and so we needed room for capitalist solutions as well.


While you say that the rate would be up to the parties involved, in practice there will be a disincentive for people who have earned extra wealth to hire anyone else because this is the fastest way to loose money. It will make more sense for each person to work for themselves, and many people who would start a business will not, because it makes more sense to work for yourself. This causes government to want to come in and create inefficient centrally planned activity to replace what would normally be efficient private investment driven activity.


The actual application is up to the individual communities collectivized and represented by the State. What I am saying is we could have a Communist California, Free Market Capitalist Oregon, and a Socialist Washington. Each has their merits and each has their failings. It is through this diversity that we insulate ourselves because we won't have to worry about one overreaching power structure attempting to take control. If the Communist system plays out as we have seen it do in the USSR, the capitalists revolt and reset the system. If the Capitalist system plays out as it did in America the Communists revolt and reset the system.

We are too diverse a nation to come together on one answer. This nation has room for everyone's different practices and ideas.


It would make more sense to base a currency on those physical commodities we still produce. Ideally there would be different types of money with different areas of acceptance and value. On the most common level would be money backed by food commodities. This would be used in day to day in small transactions by most people, and the physical money would be good for one year. It would slowly decrease in value during the year, maybe to about 88% of starting value. It is not to be saved, it is to be spent.


Yes, something akin to scrip. That is also a possible solution. We all have them, we all have ideas. What is best can not be decided and people will not march under a single flag. What I am attempting to do is create the Banner for which all flags can assemble under.


At the higher level would be money backed in both gold and silver. This money would be permanent wealth and used to save and build capital.


There would have to be a Supra-Currency in order for trade to exist trans-State. The labor dollar as I proposed it was the idea for that Supra-Currency. This wasn't to disallow the creation of the rich, if some states want that power structure, this was to insulate capitalist states from communist ones and vice versa.

All the ideas are good. My point is that the system that you are describing, some people may not wish to live in. Just as, I am sure, you would not want to live in mine. I needed a solution that we could both agree on and this is what you got.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Ok, as you some of you know I was going to work on this over the weekend but after everything I've drawn up today I am leaving out some important stuff I'm sure. So, what follows is what I have so far and of course I can answer any questions and we can build from this together.

Unifying Theory

The goal is the decentralization of power. Removing the control of our destinies from the hands of the Federal Government and placing it back in the jurisdiction of the individual.

Due to the Corporatocracy that is birthing the rise of Corporate State it has become impossible to wrest our destinies from it's hands with out intervention by the People.

We all currently struggle against two masters:
The Federal Government which relies on an economical model, be that capitalism or socialism, to operate accordingly with it's wishes.
The economic model that relies on the Federal Government for regulatory control and as a tool of violence to ensure future profits at the expense of the working American.

An Economic Model

Something that can be agreed upon by Red and Blue alike, is that fiat currencies do not create healthy, free societies.

The centralization of wealth creates the centralization of power and vice versa.

Some socialists will argue that the power can be restored to the people by redistributing that wealth equally by taking collective control of, and responsibility for, the means of production. Some capitalists, in turn, argue that Federal involvement leads to mismanagement and an erosion of civil liberties by the "Governing Committee" as it has been historically shown to do.

While not being able to sway either side in their economical beliefs, it is possible for both to coexist because of the geographical and sociological nature of this great country.

The road to true equality, liberty, and freedom lies not in economic or political ideology, but in the destruction of fiat currencies and the reinterpretation of wealth. It is labor that is intrinsic to man and is inherent to ones own nature. It is labor that can not be stolen or devalued through taxation, speculation, and redistribution.

The Labor Dollar

Our currency, and therefore the nation, is controlled by private interests. There is no liberation to be found through more federal intervention as long as the concept of wealth is based on a flawed model.

Currency =/= Wealth.

Only by basing a currency on the action of creating the commodity, labor, are we able to hold true value in our hands.

One Labor dollar is produced for every hour of labor performed, as a standard. Although the exact rate of exchange for any given transaction can be decided by the parties themselves. Ensuring that only the very act of production is the only thing of intrinsic value.

Thus, the very need that exists in a market is the very point of job creation and the currency has true equality regardless of economic process across borders.

The Political System

- The Federal Government should only exist for Military and Foreign Policy needs.

- State level government is all that is required as a governing body.
-- Individual communities, themselves, determine the purposes warranted for the existence of the State level governing body as every State has different needs.
--- This Council will consist of elected members placed in a pool of available candidates to ensure representation and a check against power centralization that leads to tyranny of the minority.
-- All other circumstances requiring an appeal to higher governing authority are decided upon buy a council created via a raffle.

-Taxation is a necessary evil that must be collected to fund the operation of the State council and potential councils created as courts to hear grievances; however, all tax dollars gathered that remain in surplus must be returned to the tax payers at the end of the fiscal year in direct proportion to what was paid.
-- All tax payers have a right to withhold tax dollars from their governing bodies. They can not then engage in use of and tax dollar funded program, utility, or infrastructure without first paying an upkeep toll decided upon by that particular business or entity.

-The people, through their elected representatives, have the right to prevent the formation of monopolies and cap buy outs by any means possible to include violent action if necessary.
-- All corporate entities of bordering States and Internationally are considered foreign entities and subject to a punitive import tariff, be it the will of the people, to inhibit growth of monopolies, prevent outsourcing, and to ensure that all business is performed ethically, for the benefit of the people.
--- All monies generated by the punitive import tariff will be distributed to the people in which the business is operating to ensure the people at large maintain their buying power locally and can engage businesses of their choosing.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by morefiber
Please be more specific about what you are talking about in Ithica, NY.


That Ithica has been operating for years using a local monetary and banking system and is doing a fine job. This proves that we can decentralize and allow individual communities to function as they see fit.


I guess my main concern with the concept of a labor dollar is that you are not clear about how these get issued.


Again, this is something that is decided locally not Federally. All communities are different and will have different needs. I can not decide what is best for all any more than you can.


Money would be worthless.


In my opinion it is regardless of what people claim to back it with. I don't even need to get paid to work. I'm so far left I'm touching right. You are going to have completely different ideas and most probably have no desire to live in the community that I want to. The issues surrounding the monetary system are dependent upon local and State needs.



Could the paper an employer creates be convertible into labor on demand by the holder? It's possible, but then you have a currency that has only local value, but could still have faith issues even in it's area of value. What's to tell me that Joe who owes me 2 hours of labor could provide the labor if asked? It would be poorly convertible outside of a limited area, because if I get a note for 2 hours of labor from Joe in Minneapolis, and I live in Cleveland, I can't convert it directly even if Joe can provide the work. You would again need a central authority to convert the local monies in to something usable for trade, WHICH IS WHAT MAKES JOBS. While this may not be bad, if it is a type of public trading house. It would still be about the most inefficient method, and IMO, would never work, prone to devolve quickly, and would not create a strong economy, because everyone would want to work, but no one would want to create paying jobs.


Like I said, it's a lot like scrip in some respects. The idea isn't a strong National Economy. The Idea is for States to have their own economies. As far as trade making jobs you are correct, because the need exists.... We are saying the same thing.


Having a way to determine the "right" compensation for labor would be needed, and then you are basically back to the communist system.


This is check to insulate collectivists against capitalists.


I am interested in what you are talking about in Ithica, but you can always have a local economy created that is based on a soft money system, that works because it is backed and based in a hard money system.


My point about Ithica was that you can have local economies that utilize their own forms of currency and get along just fine. You do not need an incredibly robust bureaucracy stealing from you in order to live happily and securely.


Having that same system function as a stand alone hard money system is different.
What I propose above would need to have some elements of a fiat system, in that the backing in production goods would in the common case not always equal the amount of the commodity you could get by buying the same item at the store. The value would be in that the common money would have value at the end to the trade groups that would issue the money backed by the government and it's food surplus store which would be the first thing to create, 1 years worth.


If we are successful than you can propose this to your State, become elected, and implement it. Is this becoming clearer now?



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by stuncrazy
 


The check against what we have today and any future interpretations of Power is a well armed, well educated, and well organized citizenry.

We watch each others backs. I am also wary of overt abuses of capitalist power just as capitalists are wary of overt communists abuses. We are each others watchdogs and help our brothers and sisters if and when their governing bodies become corrupt or abusive.

As for drugs, again, that will be decided by local communities and at most the State level.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by asperetty
Because our government is a corporate fascist state, unless we can abolish the laws that are in favor of companies such as GE and Monsanto or Pfiezer, we will be jumping right into hell, because the government may not be there, but the companies will be, and so will the laws that restrict us from our freedoms and grants it all to them, and the law enforcement agencies whose duties are to uphold those laws, no matter how ridiculous they may be.


Those companies would have to pick a State to do business in, because if I understand this model correctly, multinationals and multistate companies would be "Foreign Entities" every where if they didn't pick a place to roost, subject to the Punitive Import Tariffs.

Laws follow Government, so if the government "isn't there", then neither are the laws. The companies would still be there, but subject to local laws, which would ultimately come down from the local people, and you can probably see how a bunch of folks with pitchforks and torches (figuratively, of course. First choice would be assault rifles) could cramp their business model if they chose to kick up a fuss instead of get with the program.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by asperetty
 


Great post! I'm down with it, with only two caveats: I am dead set against Federal level involvement with education internal to the States. No Federal funding, and no Federal regulation, "guidelines", etc. The reasoning for that is DC can't even figure out what's good for students in DC, much less Montana or Oregon. I wouldn't allow education to be a Federal level concern at all - it's too important.

Secondly, the graduated tax thing, 3% at one income level, 6% at another is a bad idea. It leaves the door open for OTHER inequities at law as well, and I'm all for equal representation under the law. I think a better solution would be to figure out what would be required to operate, then tax at the same percentage rate for all. to cover that. Of course, if that's the way a particular State wanted to run it - the graduated tax - the Federals wouldn't be allowed to say "boo!" about it.

Edit to add: This model doesn't allow for corporations to act as individual humans, only the individual humans within them can be "persons". Because of that, I can get on board with different tax rates for corporations and the like than would be assessed on humans. So the CEO would be taxed at the same ate as you, or I, or anyone else, but the corporation could be taxed at corporate rates different from individual rates.
edit on 2010/12/11 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by asperetty

Im afraid what we need most though, is judiciary reform, and I don't really know how to go about that unless we literally throw them out with our own hands. Supreme Court Justices are like the real gods of this country.


The Supreme court should be limited to deciding cases against the law present, strict interpretation, not "legislating from the bench" with free and easy interpretation. The Constitution is written in plain English, and doesn't need to be "interpreted" unless one's first language is other than English, and his grasp of English is thereby faulty. Thus my requirement for a "strict interpretation", going by what it actually says, rather than allowing "free interpretations" which include what activist judges would LIKE for it to say.



And also communications reforms are necessary, such as reinstating this one act, i forget the name, but it required equal representation on both sides of a debate when an issue is represented or discussed on radio or TV. That is a very important policy that should never have been removed. Because it had been, we have news channels like Fox, CNN, and NBC, which all lean in different directions.


Straight news should be reported "as is", but opinion is opinion. One thing necessary is a clear statement that what is being said is one or the other, either news reporting or opinion commentary. The Fairness Doctrine was being taken to ridiculous extremes, and had the potential to be taken to even further extremes. Most people are able to decide for themselves what they want to hear, and requiring them to listen to equal amounts of what they don't want to hear will usually result in a channel change, or simply turning the damned thing off and going for a walk. Opinion shows are self-regulating, in that most folks are like that. This is one of the reasons Air America failed - loss of revenue because they couldn't generate enough listeners.



Im not too well versed in this, but I have spoken to someone briefly that insisted that the Commerce Clause was necessary to abolish if states want their freedoms back.

en.wikipedia.org...

www.law.umkc.edu...


The Commerce Clause has been terribly abused by a Federal Government run amok, and has been used to justify all sorts of interference and intrusion in local affairs that it was not meant to abuse. It quite clearly says "among the several States", and not "among the individual entities within those States" In other words, it places a bridle on what States can do regarding legal powers, and was not intended to micromanage the individual economic activity within them. It has even been used to federally legislate at the local level things not having anything to do at all with commerce, such as violations of the 2nd Amendment, Civil Rights in Mississippi, I believe, and what an individual farmer may and may not grow, and how much - I believe that last was in the Dakotas - based on the notion that someone else, somewhere else, was growing something, too. It needs to be severely curtailed and delimited, if not abolished altogether. It was a good thing in the hands of a benevolent government, but a fearful sword in the hands of a destructive, power grabbing government.




edit on 2010/12/11 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity

Also there should be no financial perks to being a government official. When you make it about money (or any other perks) people tend to not care about passing good policies as much as what they can get out of it for their bank accounts or whatever you know what I am getting at.


I addressed that in another place at ATS with these words proposed as an addition to any sort of Federal Constitution:



Plus: no man shall be compelled or allowed to serve terms less than 8 years separated one from another; all such selectees are to receive the average wage prevalent in their own constituency, no more nor less, during the term served; and acceptance of gifts in any form from other than immediate family members, including gifts by proxy through such family members, during the term so served shall be punishable by death by hanging, to be meted out immediately, and a suitable replacement congressman selected at that time.


I might add here that salaries for such people should be paid out of their local taxes, from the people they actually represent, and not Federal coffers - but within federally mandated limits as outlined above.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Thanks to you sir. Like I said, this 'tax' is to be set by either the federal government or state government or whichever government where it will be adopted.If it is implemented federally then obviously it becomes national policy. If state, then state policy. It would be great to have it as state policy, that way this education system adds to the attractiveness to the state that chose to implement it, increasing the rate of immigration to that state, and helping its general economy. You'll get interstate competition as well as institutional, and the greatest part is that the student will always benefit, and that is the only goal. Other than determining the tax, the state/fed government is responsible for the R&D grants, no more, no less. There will be no issue with student debt, or even state/fed debt in context of education, because no one has to borrow money anymore.

On 'tax' per income bracket, just look at Austin, Texas model. A lot of stores have this same system, where you pay accordingly to how much you can easily afford. The higher the income, the higher the amount. We have the same system, well, not so much anymore, where the richer demographic pays a higher tax than the poorer. THat's why I added that a change in values is necessary. The rich have to be able to see the importance of equal education for the poor.

Still, you are right, values won't change, and it does look unfair to 'tax' the rich with higher rates. I'd say a 3% is perfect. For a family making 20k, the education costs 600$, and that is education in the ranks of ivy league colleges, except for your 1st grader! at least in theory, if the system did work. For a family making 100k, the tuition is 3000$. Thats not bad at all. That 100k family would be paying thrice as much for the same education that i believe would a result of my system if they chose to stick with the current private institution system. But now look at this, say the average family made 40k and were 'txed' 3%, and say there were 500 students attending one of these schools, that is 600k to the institution. Now take a healthy classroom with 1 teacher for about every 20 kids, that means you need 25 teachers. That means out of that 600k, you have to pay those teachers, and the maximum you could pay each is 24k, and with that, the institution has no more money. Now of course if the education proves extraordinary, you may get more students, but the ratio remains the same of students to teachers, meaning that the salary never increases. THat is the purpose of a higher rate for the rich.

ALso to AbAdsurdum,

Are you suggesting that states/communities can have their own individual currency, but all backed by a national commodity? That could potentially be a very devisive program, in fact, that is one reason why the articles of confederation were abolished. Originally this type of system was in place in the US, until they realized how the state could abuse this system and create imbalances in interstate trade. And to think that it would not happen this time around like it did then, well, it might be a bit too optimistic, and the only way you would be able to control it, would be create more federal regulation, which is what you don't want. Even when backing a currency with gold there is a high probability of corruption in manipulating the gold rates and the availability of gold, no different from what is happening with our silver now, and of course the international market for diamonds.

How would the gold be distributed between each state? because if there wasn't an equal amount of gold distributed initially, that would be putting some states at a large imbalance, some currencies would be worth more than others. That goes for food as a commodity as well. The state that produces the most would have a stronger currency, another trade imbalance. That is not something you want inside a single nation. Also, the value of the currency would be at the mercy of the weather, and the weather has never been too reliable an ally, so a state's currency would constantly increase and decrease in value, and that is not good for the residents of that state who will not be able to make any more money than what they already make. Should they have to work harder to purchase chocolate imported from NY just because grain harvests struggled that year? What if milk production in NY fell? That would make chocolate even more expensive. If you are going to have state currencies backed by one central currency which is backed by a commodity, you might as well stick to that single currency, but still allow, just as we do now, for states or communities to base their trade off of a local currency. If you mean promoting that right, then sure. But if it grew to be the system, you will see a lot of problems. Rather than having rich and poor communities, you will have rich and poor states. That's not a society you want to foster.

But what to do with the central currency? That is the real question. Yes we give the power back to congress, and back it with gold or something. But what happens in the time of war? Every other country on the planet, just as every kingdom throughout time, always placed themselves in debt in order to win a war, expecting that by winning they would gain capital. If we limit our war budget based off of how much gold we have, we are guaranteed to be invaded and conquered one day, because other countries won't share the same 'fiscal responsibility' as us. Unless there is something else with which we can have either an equally or even more valuable reserve of other than gold, or have some strong leverage in international trade, then our country will be weak. Once again if you choose to back your money off of degradable food, you are setting yourself and your state up for huge problems in the event of a natural disaster, or a hot summer, or a broken fridge.

How do you build up a state's reserve? How would a state ever have a surplus of money to be distributed? The state never produces anything. How does it purchase from the producers within the state, so that it has something to back the state currency or to purchase/trade their state currency for federal commodity backed currency?

I am assuming that there will be some type of federal tax on the states as well, and that the federal government will be able to invest in things with state legislature approval? Otherwise if not, the country won't survive in the international forum, and we will just have the USSR again. Or we can just break up the United States and allow each state to be its own country, and we can have the North American Union of North American Countries, like we already have the EU. Both of these models have failed.
edit on 11-12-2010 by asperetty because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by asperetty
 


I'll let AdAbsurdum answer most of that since it was addressed to him, but a couple of things stood out high enough to trigger a response with me.

First, I'm not even a little bit worried about a foreign country invading the US because we don't have enough gold. It would either have to be Canada or Mexico doing the invading, since all others would have to approach by sea or air, and in either of those cases they would find themselves in a dangerous bottleneck, with a rifle pointed at them from behind every pebble. 300 million odd armed and angry citizens are an invader's worst nightmare. Why risk it if we don't have enough gold for them to steal in the first place?

I can't quite follow the need for the Federal government to tax and invest. Sine their role is minimized to just a couple of necessary staples, what would they need all that money for? If congress critters are paid by their constituents, because, after all, THAT is who they work for, and even at that all they handle is mediation between states, military levies, and foreign policy, their operating expenses will be drastically less than is currently the case.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Great OP. I'm on board. It puts things back to where they were supposed to be to begin with, and adds a new twist or two that wasn't available as a philosophical basis back then. Variety is the spice of life, and options + liberty can't be a bad thing. It's certain that if SOMETHING isn't done, what we have now can only get worse on both of those counts.

I withheld comment on the OP until I'd gotten to the current end of the thread, to see what else was brewing, and will set forth the notes I jotted down on it here.

Notes:

These notes pertain to the Federal or Confederation level, as the People of any one State ought to be able to determine how best to run their State.

One function I would add at the Federal or Confederation level which you limit to military and foreign relations policy (perhaps I read that wrong and those are just examples) would be mediating disputes between the States. Not REGULATING them, mind you, but mediating them. That could help head off some nasty little brushfire conflicts.

In the representative pool, I'd emplace term limits, say four years per, limit terms to only one, disallowing two consecutive terms, and enforce "downtime" between terms of at least 8 years (2 terms worth) to prevent representatives form making a lifetime career of corruption. and getting any one person too firmly entrenched in the body politic.

In the matter of taxes and budget, I would add a requirement to operate within available funds, NEVER running to deficit. Federal governments should not be allowed to run a bar tab and potentially break or bankrupt the populace.

Some of what I've seen here seems to assume that States would stay at their current level of servitude and helplessness, which would not be the case. They would re-take their rightful powers that have been eroded by the Federal Government over the years, so such things as military expenditures would be taken over by them, rather than evaporate into weakness and lethargy. I submit that the military would actually be strengthened, AND remain under the control of the people, since the view I'm getting here is along the lines of an armed and trained militia setup, which is by definition made OF the people, not a potential overlord for them, and is made up of all the arms bearing populace. Numbers ought not to be a problem. Foreign adventurism is eliminated, and that curtails a whole lot of military expenditure right there.

The rest of the world can then do as it pleases, but trying to do it on MY dirt is suicidal with 300 million guns pointed at them.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by asperetty
 


I'll let AdAbsurdum answer most of that since it was addressed to him, but a couple of things stood out high enough to trigger a response with me.

First, I'm not even a little bit worried about a foreign country invading the US because we don't have enough gold. It would either have to be Canada or Mexico doing the invading, since all others would have to approach by sea or air, and in either of those cases they would find themselves in a dangerous bottleneck, with a rifle pointed at them from behind every pebble. 300 million odd armed and angry citizens are an invader's worst nightmare. Why risk it if we don't have enough gold for them to steal in the first place?

I can't quite follow the need for the Federal government to tax and invest. Sine their role is minimized to just a couple of necessary staples, what would they need all that money for? If congress critters are paid by their constituents, because, after all, THAT is who they work for, and even at that all they handle is mediation between states, military levies, and foreign policy, their operating expenses will be drastically less than is currently the case.


The problem is that wars can be fought in more places than behind rocks. We have planes and warships now. Somehow that is going to need to be defended against, and a militia of men with m16s still won't take down a single apache heli. And wars are fought over more than gold. This isn't like Napoleon invading Russia with cannons and 4 armies equipped with swords and muskets. Defense is sadly a real issue that needs to be addressed, and is why the federal or state governments need to invest in something that can bring more tax revenue than what is created by the citizens themselves. And its not just for defense/war, fed/state's need to provide infrastructure. The country has to be able to obtain more value than what it currently has as a whole.

Fed taxes are for investing or purchasing or trading in the international market. Unless the entire US becomes completely sustainable on itself, you are going to need states and/or a federal government making money for the ones who aren't producing, and to enable production to grow. Middle-Age reforms just cannot work in this world. You would have to get the entire world to follow such a system, and if that is the case, we might as well let the country fail and become a state under the UN.





top topics
 
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join