It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Beck's "A Small World"

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by mnemeth1
 





Ultimately fiat currencies always fail because they require VIOLENCE to impose upon an unwilling public.


And there was no violence before the introduction of the current system...riiiiiiight


What a hogwash argument...


There was no violence used to impose money before the federal government monopolized it.

People used all manner of gold coins from around the world in America as money, and bank notes were privately issued and voluntarily used.

No violence was necessary.

Fiat money requires violence to impose, otherwise no one would use it.

In fact other commodities besides gold were used as money frequently in America.

In the south they used tobacco as currency, and in the midwest they used beaver pelts.


edit on 3-2-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Do the reasons matter?? It doesn't change the fact that it's slavery. It's also a system that's easily abused by greedy, ruthless people who will take care of the unfortunate fate of others.

Slavery in the US, really? Wow, and here I thought freedom and equality were some of its core concepts...guess not all agree.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Do the reasons matter?? It doesn't change the fact that it's slavery. It's also a system that's easily abused by greedy, ruthless people who will take care of the unfortunate fate of others.

Slavery in the US, really? Wow, and here I thought freedom and equality were some of its core concepts...guess not all agree.


A voluntary agreement vs. violent kidnapping is a pretty damn big difference.

If I sell myself into bondage for a year for a set sum of money in return, that is something I decided to do on my own, and you have no right to use violence against me to prevent me from doing so.




edit on 3-2-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


What violence are you talking about??? They created a unitary monetary system because it makes trade A LOT easier...if we still lived in the past like you, all using beaver pelts, various non-standardized gold coins, and slaves, do you have any idea how difficult global trade would be in today's globalized economy?

Stop living the past for crying out loud



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Do the reasons matter?? It doesn't change the fact that it's slavery. It's also a system that's easily abused by greedy, ruthless people who will take care of the unfortunate fate of others.

Slavery in the US, really? Wow, and here I thought freedom and equality were some of its core concepts...guess not all agree.


A voluntary agreement vs. violent kidnapping is a pretty damn big difference.



You'd still create second class citizens



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


What violence are you talking about??? They created a unitary monetary system because it makes trade A LOT easier...if we still lived in the past like you, all using beaver pelts, various non-standardized gold coins, and slaves, do you have any idea how difficult global trade would be in today's globalized economy?

Stop living the past for crying out loud


Fiat currency requires violence to impose.

If a private mint attempted to issue a private gold backed currency, the federal government would raid them with guns and seize their property, as we witnessed quite clearly with the Liberty Dollar.

Fiat currency can not exist without government weapons imposing it on the public.

When people are free to chose, they chose gold.


edit on 3-2-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Do the reasons matter?? It doesn't change the fact that it's slavery. It's also a system that's easily abused by greedy, ruthless people who will take care of the unfortunate fate of others.

Slavery in the US, really? Wow, and here I thought freedom and equality were some of its core concepts...guess not all agree.


A voluntary agreement vs. violent kidnapping is a pretty damn big difference.



You'd still create second class citizens


So me voluntarily selling myself into bondage for a set sum of money would create a second class of citizens?

I fail to see how this would occur.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


1) We aren't using a single currency because we're forced to do so, we do so because of convenience. Try running a store if 3% want to pay with beaver pelts, 14.5% with gold coins of one type, 16.7% with other gold coins, another 31% with bronze, and so on...and now think about online trade and derivatives trading. It would just not be practical in today's world...which is why the suggestion is so ridiculous in today's world.

2) You are confusing slavery with being an employee. There's a huge difference, so yes, it would create a 2 class system and destroy equality. You might wanna look up the definition of slave to understand the difference



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


1) We aren't using a single currency because we're forced to do so, we do so because of convenience. Try running a store if 3% want to pay with beaver pelts, 14.5% with gold coins of one type, 16.7% with other gold coins, another 31% with bronze, and so on...and now think about online trade and derivatives trading. It would just not be practical in today's world...which is why the suggestion is so ridiculous in today's world.

2) You are confusing slavery with being an employee. There's a huge difference, so yes, it would create a 2 class system and destroy equality. You might wanna look up the definition of slave to understand the difference




1) No, we are using a single currency because we are forced to.

If you removed legal tender laws and the regulations prohibiting the private issuance of currency, the dollar would disappear within a few years.

2) I'm not confusing anything - you are. Block is in favor of voluntary slavery, which is voluntarily selling yourself into bondage under your own free will. You are ridiculously attempting to equate voluntary servitude with confederate style slavery. The two are not comparable in the slightest.

Further, you wish to use violence against me personally to prevent me from using money of my chosing and to prevent me from selling my own body.




edit on 3-2-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


You can already work as a personal 24/7 butler for someone, no one's stopping you...slavery takes this further by robbing you of your personal rights. Twist it as you want, but it's slavery and slavery is WRONG!

You have no clue about global economics and globalization if you believe using tons of alternative currencies like beaver pelts and various gold coins would be a better system. International trade would be a giant pain, but since you so obviously never had to do with it, I don't expect you to understand


PS: I wouldn't use violence against you, I'd fine the person who would try to buy slaves
Just like we would under current law...
edit on 3-2-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


You can already work as a personal 24/7 butler for someone, no one's stopping you...slavery takes this further by robbing you of your personal rights. Twist it as you want, but it's slavery and slavery is WRONG!

You have no clue about global economics and globalization if you believe using tons of alternative currencies like beaver pelts and various gold coins would be a better system. International trade would be a giant pain, but since you so obviously never had to do with it, I don't expect you to understand


You may think voluntary slavery is immoral (which I agree it is), but that does't give you the right to use violence against me to prevent me from voluntarily selling my own body.

As for globalization, the world already uses thousands of different currencies and gets along just fine (at least it did until the Fed started printing money). So your notion that we can't have competing currencies in the US, just as we do abroad, is ridiculous.

Further, the US used to have competing currencies that were issued by private banks. The banks didn't like this because they couldn't inflate (print money), because people would make a run on the bank to get their gold out if they did.

This is primary reason why the federal reserve was created and money was monopolized by the Fed - to prevent bank runs and to let the banks inflate the money supply.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 





As for globalization, the world already uses thousands of different currencies and gets along just fine (at least it did until the Fed started printing money). So your notion that we can't have competing currencies in the US, just as we do abroad, is ridiculous.


That's ridiculous


Seriously, just because the US did so in the past, when the world was entirely different, doesn't mean it would work today. Saying it would be ok for certain states (or parts of states) to use other currencies than neighbouring states, or cities, is beyond ridiculous. It would COMPLICATE trade to the point where it would be a giant hindrance.

And yeah, the world is already using a few hundred currencies (not thousands...way to exaggerate like Beck) and it's already complicating things, we don't need an additional 20-100 different currencies per country.

I'm really getting the feeling I'm talking to someone from the 19th century



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


PS: I wouldn't use violence against you, I'd fine the person who would try to buy slaves
Just like we would under current law...
edit on 3-2-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)


Prostitutes sell themselves routinely.

In order to stop a voluntary transaction, both parties (the johns and the prostitutes) are punished.

It makes no logical sense to only punish one party in an illegal transaction.

I'm just as guilty as the guy I sell myself to for engaging in the slave trade.



edit on 3-2-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by mnemeth1
 





As for globalization, the world already uses thousands of different currencies and gets along just fine (at least it did until the Fed started printing money). So your notion that we can't have competing currencies in the US, just as we do abroad, is ridiculous.


That's ridiculous


Seriously, just because the US did so in the past, when the world was entirely different, doesn't mean it would work today. Saying it would be ok for certain states (or parts of states) to use other currencies than neighbouring states, or cities, is beyond ridiculous. It would COMPLICATE trade to the point where it would be a giant hindrance.

And yeah, the world is already using a few hundred currencies (not thousands...way to exaggerate like Beck) and it's already complicating things, we don't need an additional 20-100 different currencies per country.

I'm really getting the feeling I'm talking to someone from the 19th century


Using violence complicates things.

And, as we are about to find out, ultimately leads to a total currency implosion.

A society on a 100% reserve gold standard has never experienced a currency crisis.

Ever.

I don't care how ancient the system is - if it works, it works.

We still use pythagoras theorem to calculate triangles.



edit on 3-2-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


PS: I wouldn't use violence against you, I'd fine the person who would try to buy slaves
Just like we would under current law...
edit on 3-2-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)


Prostitutes sell themselves routinely.

In order to stop a voluntary transaction, both parties (the johns and the prostitutes) are punished.

It makes no logical sense to only punish one party in an illegal transaction.

I'm just as guilty as the guy I sell myself to for engaging in the slave trade.



edit on 3-2-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)


Read up on who gets punished harder in those cases


And just because someone wants to do something, doesn't mean he should have the right to do so. For example, sleeping with children is horrible too...so if the child wants it too, should it be ok? And before you say that's not the same, the child doesn't act rationally...neither does some poor sob who's on the street and doesn't have a way out other than selling his personal right for freedom.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


PS: I wouldn't use violence against you, I'd fine the person who would try to buy slaves
Just like we would under current law...
edit on 3-2-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)


Prostitutes sell themselves routinely.

In order to stop a voluntary transaction, both parties (the johns and the prostitutes) are punished.

It makes no logical sense to only punish one party in an illegal transaction.

I'm just as guilty as the guy I sell myself to for engaging in the slave trade.



edit on 3-2-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)


Read up on who gets punished harder in those cases


And just because someone wants to do something, doesn't mean he should have the right to do so. For example, sleeping with children is horrible too...so if the child wants it too, should it be ok? And before you say that's not the same, the child doesn't act rationally...neither does some poor sob who's on the street and doesn't have a way out other than selling his personal right for freedom.



It doesn't matter who gets punished, the fact remains that violence is used to prevent a voluntary transaction.

It is immoral to punish two voluntary parties.

As for the kiddie sex, how many of those kids were voluntary participants?

I'd wager none, unless it was some 18 year old hooking up with a 14 year old, in which case they shouldn't be punished anyways.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


You do realize that a full grown adult has the legal right to itself where a child does not?
I hope so. It's not about if somebody is acting rationally or not, it's a matter of legality. A child is a minor and is therefore not a full-fledged citizen. A child can not vote, purchase alcohol, drive, sign contracts etc. An adult can. An adult can legally consent to how he or she wants to use his or her own body. A child can not give that legal consent.

I mean, you've made a great many logic flaws in this argument, but this was just so stark that I had to say something.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Headshot
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


You do realize that a full grown adult has the legal right to itself where a child does not?
I hope so. It's not about if somebody is acting rationally or not, it's a matter of legality. A child is a minor and is therefore not a full-fledged citizen. A child can not vote, purchase alcohol, drive, sign contracts etc. An adult can. An adult can legally consent to how he or she wants to use his or her own body. A child can not give that legal consent.

I mean, you've made a great many logic flaws in this argument, but this was just so stark that I had to say something.


Exactly, a child has no rights...and neither does a slave, he's also not a full citizen by its very definition. He's an object that is fully owned. It was an analogy btw, of course it's not 100% the same thing.

Still doesn't change the fact that saying slavery should come back, even voluntary slavery, is harsh and I guess means freedom is only a slogan in the US, and nothing more. Even a donkey on '___' can see why this system could be abused by companies



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Italy, Spain, France, Ireland and the UK are not on fire at all. Yes, there have been some violent protests in Greece because of the recession there, but that's pretty much it and it has nothing to do with the Middle East or North Africa. Glen Beck is a fool, especially when he tries to talk about anything occurring outside the United States. Either that or he is a liar.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


The two are non-congruous. A voluntary slave can volunteer to give up his or her rights. That person would deal with the consequences.
You can't endorse freedom by pointing a gun at a person making a decision for themselves.
You can't force freedom upon someone. If they don't want to be free then they don't want to be free. If the money is worth more to them than a year of freedom then that is their decision.
It's not the same as a butler because butlers and maids get paid usually on a weekly or monthly basis whereas a voluntary slave would be subject to all his or her master's commands at for a given period of time and if that person leaves the control of said master then the contract would be void.




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join