Poorly-thought-out financial positions?

[Dennis Leahy]

Poorly-thought-out financial positions?

1.) No taxes. Taxes are illegal.

2.) Commodity/resource/scarce precious substance backing money. (such as gold-backed money)
=============================

1. No Taxes?
OK, so I have heard Libertarians, von Mises supporters, Foster Gamble in Thrive, and Drake went off on a tangent in the FreedomReigns show today ("All of the money you pay in taxes go into bankers pockets."), etc. saying that taxes are illegal.

I have heard some folks also mention "voluntary taxes."

Of course, we want the Federal Reserve gone, we want fractional reserve banking gone. Most people with any financial sense probably agree with that. We also do not owe the international bankers the "National Debt", although I'm not too sure we can stick the international bankers with the bill, as they have sold off the debt to other nations - in our name. Without paying the national debt, taxes should be lower - a lot lower. But if zero, then how does ANY government - even a lean, scaled-down government, operate?

OK, so a sweep is made by the group that Drake is in contact with, they arrest the bad guys, and (among other things) they declare tax illegal. Who's gonna pay for the fluoride we need added to our water supply? (hahahahh sorry, strange humor) But seriously, road repair, snow removal, sewage, water, libraries, fire departments, public schools... ??? Are We the People really going to hold out a hat and ask for donations to cover all of the social services? And what about those that are currently in poverty? The Libertarian rhetoric basically says that good people will help them out. There are millions and millions of people in poverty in the US (billions in the world) - and it has very little to do with taxes that they owe. Libertarian financial policy only makes sense to me if everyone starts out with a house and a job and is not in debt. But later, when some people do well financially, some will do poorly. Do we just say, "oh well, you had your chance." ?

I simply cannot figure out how a government of any size could operate without any taxes.

Maybe they just mean, "no income taxes." If so, there would need to be very high taxes on sales or excise/sin taxes (like cigarettes and alcohol), or some other revenue stream (hopefully not CIA heroin and cocaine.) And I guess we can forget about Universal Health Care - the US population is on target to spend over 2 trillion in 2012 on health care. Without Universal Health Care, I guess we are sort of telling the impoverished people who are sick or injured to scrounge up some herbs... or just suffer until you die.



2. Metal backed money?

(here I will be lazy and paste in a previous post of mine)

Major Economic Flaw:

Easily discerned, once you look at it squarely.

I will refer to all of these: {gold-backed money, silver-backed money, metal-backed money, mineral-backed money} as "metal-backed money."

We all know that the international bankers control the finances of the world, and that their major tool of exploitation is "debt." Debt is used as a tool of enslavement. So, we take away their tool of enslavement, and they can no longer control the world's finances and economy. Right? Right?

Hmmmmm.... Is there a "back door?"

Is there another way the Financial Elite can control at least the VALUE of money? Yes. If money is backed by precious metals.

As the value of a precious metal goes up and down, the value of money and the rate of inflation goes up and down. Who cares if you have a million dollars, if a loaf of bread costs a quarter million dollars.

The Financial Elite HAVE the vast portion of the world's known reserves of gold. (Let's not even talk about gold that may be stashed somewhere - it doesn't solve the WHOLE problem, and it most certainly does not solve the whole problem OVER TIME.)

So, what's the value of gold? What will it be in 1 year, 3 years, 5 years? What is the value of a dollar? What will it be in 1 year, 3 years, 5 years?

If you want to guarantee inflationary and deflationary cycles (mostly inflationary), back your dollars with a commodity whose price fluctuates. Was anyone paying attention when the Hunt brothers played with the value of silver?

Drake's group may know the legal basis to legally declare the USA corporation null and re-define the USA as a sovereign nation. They may know the logistics to pull off a (benevolent) coup. But if that group spearheads a return to a gold standard or silver standard (metal-backed money), they guarantee inflation and guarantee that the Financial Elite still play the major role in the value of a dollar.

Alfred Lambremont Webre may understand some of the big picture, but with his call for silver-backed dollars, shows he does not understand this issue either.

Probably the best researcher in the monetary reform arena that I know of is Bill Still (http://www.themoneymasters.com/monetary-reform-act/). Years and years of research on monetary reform, and he was also caught up in the notion of metal-backed money displacing debt-based money. But he kept researching until he realized that "the quantity of money" and "who issues the (debt-free) money" is the only way to prevent inflationary and deflationary cycles, and to prevent the Financial Elite from using the back door to control the planetary financial paradigm.

Dennis

[Debra]

Hi Dennis,

the whole prospect of creating a new way of governing is exhilarating. It´s also a mystery in waiting.
I am no economist but I sometimes think about this opportunity. I just keep coming up with this simple plan:

Income tax (killed)

However, it goes without saying that taxes will still need to be sourced to cover the general running of key infrastructure.

Utilities - including the process towards upgrading - to free energy technologies - and maintenance of existing utilities - paid into by all property and business owners, including public service entities - and assessed according to yearly usage.

Public services - including all government offices, military and intelligence agencies, social services, education, public hospitals, police and fire services - again another tax paid by wage earners, businesses and corporations, on a sliding scale of annual income (personal income, under a certain level are excluded).

As a precursor to this, I would streamline all government offices, collapse the security agencies into one body, pull the military out of countries they are not required in, and put the rest of the military industrial complex into the service of the American people - some of which would be spread into the establishment of new wave utilities as well.

And, all of these services will be subject to and accountable to yearly performance reviews, addressed to the American people, and voted upon every year with general public representation from all states to ascertain their bite of the tax pie for the following year.

I have no idea about redefining currency - but I respect how important it is, especially to weather through and avoid a collapse.

A positive challenge - Zebra

[write4change]

This was a huge issue in Occupy LA. First, there was thousand's of dollars stolen not once but three times that I know of because we did not have a bank. Two, we could not accept a lot of things because we were not any kind of entity. People need contracts and written agreements that are legal. The US first promised its people equality before the Law which we have never achieved but that does not mean the goal was wrong--its the loop holes that are wrong. Third, the police would not even pursue the thefts because they were stolen from no one since Occupy LA was no legal entity.

Then the people who wanted the most-- gave the least. Libertarianism does not work and has never worked because to do so the entire population would have to be enlightened. Reinventing the human race sounds cool and I would like to see us all flower into some new kind of human but that becomes a chicken or egg debate. The stuff that goes on here that is "spiritual" gives me great pause.

Living in Occupy La for 45 days, I came to understand why people would choose Facism. If my only choices were chaos or anarchy which is chaos--I would choose Facism. I have a chance of survival in Facism--I have no chance in anarchy. Both the book and movie Postman illustrates this. This reality is why we are now living in the outer edges of the Hunger Games.

[Alie]

Maybe Drake meant no FEDERAL taxes as opposed to STATE taxes. Part of last night's discussion was about strengthening the states and a MUCH smaller federal government.

[Bo Atkinson]

Dennis, Didn't Drake mention that a certain 5 US citizen (or so) could actually cover the debt? He did not go into those details and almost implied that commerce could resume with a few initial hickups. Drake did mention the Star Trek mechanisms to literally duplicate ready to serve meat, hmmm... This actually sounds like the veil will lift a little bit, concerning scarcity models in economics. Life would work very differently, at that level. As Zebra points out, free-energy would change everything, depending on the disclosure levels and procedures. The swirling confusions of which is possibly anyone's guess. Though Drake did not analyze the disclosure subject. His big mission in this, according to him, was as a messenger to the militias, the Oath Keepers and others with self-sufficient or backwoods mindsets. Keep the peace, don't shoot, expect local law enforcement to do it right, within common sense. Wait until you can see the whites, while looking them in the eye and then talk it all out?

[fractal being]

Dear Dennis,

I'm afraid that whatever is the suggested financial model it always comes down to "intentions" and "policy making".

1. Taxes. The biggest lie here is not that somebody needs to pay illegal taxes in order to ensure social benefits, but that a government needs the tax money in order to provide those benefits to the people. Taxes are the major tool of the governments to maintain the poor in poverty and the rich in the elite. So taxes are mainly a means of social control rather a necessity for social prosperity. I would assure you that any government who would put on the top of the list it's own peoples prosperity, would do wonders with just 1/10 of the taxation used in modern systems. Think about the Icelanders, they kicked out the bakers and their puppet government and within months from that decision the taxes were lowered and their society was able to repay its debt up to three years in advance.:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/16/us-iceland-loans-idUSBRE82F0IB20120316

On of the heaviest misconceptions is that a government is a corporate body that needs to be profitable in order to provide high quality life standards to its citizens and that this depends on taxation. WRONG! We keep forgetting that governments have unlimited access to a country's natural resources and their main duty is to re-distribute the "profits" of handling those resources as social benefits to its people. Take former Libya for instance. The Gaddafi regime was able to provide it's citizens with unbelievable benefits (even for a western regime) including free education/healthcare and the great man-made river, just with proper management of the resources instead of taxation:
XorKTwkFPDU
and the discussion here:
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?32944-Libya-Gaddafi-The-Truth-you-are-not-supposed-to-know&highlight=truth+gaddafi

2. Money. LOL money it's just a religion, once you stop believing in it it will lose it's substance. There are plenty of ways to have an efficient and relatively secure and uncompromisable monetary system as soon as there is a need for it. Take for example bitcoins:
FTOhti7wxXk

or Greece's Local Alternative Units:
http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/03/22/greeces-new-currency/

and Spain's Marinaleda paradigm:
http://p2pfoundation.net/Marinaleda
http://www.marinaleda.com/

Or even the resource-based Economy described in the Zeitgeist series.

The success of the above system is based on two parameters:
1. INTENTION. As soon as we decide that NO LIFE BEING is above profits, we need to materialize this as a collective consciousness (and therefore to become ONE).
2. POLICY MAKING. The Libyan utopia lasted as long as some other policy makers in a distant area decided that they need to put theirs paws on it. So no system will be sustainable if its not supported from the grass-root movements in other areas.

"Lo primero es la vida, después la deuda." Life comes first, and debt after.
from a quote by Rafael Correa -

[risveglio]

"...It only looks impossible because a truly free and peaceful society has yet to be achieved. But once we get there, and we will, people will look back at governments as ridiculous, bloody, and evil hangovers from the primitive and drunken adolescence of our species. Your government cannot protect your property by stealing half of it first. It cannot protect your life by threatening you with endless violent edicts. It cannot protect your currency by forcing you to use a currency that it counterfeits at will. It cannot protect your children by sealing them up in 18th century mental prisons for years, while selling their futures off to the highest bidder." - Stefan Molyneux

[Dennis Leahy]

I spent quite a bit of time researching taxes, in order to take an intelligent stab at offering a new system for discussion in the original The Reset Button document (www.resetbutton2011.org/Documents/ResetButton.pdf#page=38 (http://www.resetbutton2011.org/Documents/ResetButton.pdf#page=38))

One of the things that struck me was that people (in the US) go into retirement, and have to continue paying property taxes forever. In many cases, that means selling the home and property that the homeowner has, not because it is too big (empty nest), but because they realize they must get cheaper property to be able to afford the property tax forever - or lose their home. Many people do lose their homes to property tax. All it takes is a single catastrophic event to wipe out anyone's savings - and many in the years between 'retired' and 'elderly' will have a financial catastrophe (usually medical.)

Secondly, I realized that islands of wealth and prosperity have been set up by using local taxes that stay local - thus lavishing the rich with the finest schools and other public infrastructure, while most other areas are starved for funds. I reasoned that for every kid in the US to have an equal chance at an awesome education (education reform is on page 51 of The Reset Button document - nothing like we have now), the money needs to be divided up equally according to the population density. It's called "apportionment', and was in the original Constitution.

So, (in my model) I took all local taxes off the table. I also think that "localization" is not the answer to every problem, and if that trend takes over, there will be island communities of wealth, and slums - and not much of a gradient between them.

I do believe in shrinking government, at all levels, down in size considerably. There is an enormous amount of waste from bureaucracy. Shrinking should lower taxes considerably. I also believe in eliminating our imperialist military, closing all foreign bases, and shrinking the military budget by 90% - leaving only a truly defensive force. I believe we could do that and still be "safe." The entire Homeland Security can be, and should be, flushed down the toilet. Of course, that would drop taxes considerably. I calculated that it would take almost exactly the same amount of money that Donny PNAC Rumsfeld and his buddies "lost", in order to build all new elementary, middle, and high schools in the US (as per a vision I am sharing for true education reform in the revision 2 of The Reset Button in a few days from now.)

I think the vast majority of money spent on "healthcare" in the US is wasted on Big Pharma "medicine" that alleviates some symptoms, guarantees a long-term stream of income, and often/usually makes people even more sick by attacking other systems in the body. So, true health care reform (where natural remedies and herbal cures would be the norm, surgery would be as needed, and pharmaceuticals would mostly cease to exist) would bring down our health care costs to a number that could be handled as part of taxes, and would be free and universal coverage with no insurance at all. Agricultural reform, getting rid of all GMOs and the entire "conventional" (chemical and poison-based) paradigm would be the other main difference in health care - we would not need nearly as much health care if food was nutritious. It would be preventative health rather than chasing disease. (Realistically, there is a generation or two of managing, detoxing, and weaning existing patients off of "modern medicine", so it will still be quite expensive for a while.)

I am convinced that we need a comprehensive approach, where there are simultaneous reforms in all areas. We have PLENTY. Plenty to ensure all are taken care of. We have abundance, masked by those who profit from creating the illusion of scarcity. I believe in pooling of some of our resources and sharing them, and that means some form of equitable and non-burdensome taxation (or I need new "visionary glasses.")

Dennis

[9eagle9]

Beyond the questionable legality of taxes I'd have to ask if it's wise to pay the powers that be to keep us slaves.

We are paying for our own enslavement paradigm. Every April 16th we pay once again to be their slaves. It's a brilliant plan. ..on THEIR part.

We are sorta the dummies in the whole situation. I mean if you showed up offering to mow my lawn, and clean my house and then pay me for the privledge of doing so I'm going to think I'm about the luckiest person in the world and I'd not be in a hurry to break down a deal like that.

We're sorta dumb that way.

[risveglio]

You are still looking for a "government" solution. We will not advance as a species with Government. It doesn't work and is inherently evil. Once we stop looking at government to solve our problems, then we will move towards a free and prosperous society.

"If government is the answer, it was a stupid question"

[Dennis Leahy]

You are still looking for a "government" solution. We will not advance as a species with Government. It doesn't work and is inherently evil. Once we stop looking at government to solve our problems, then we will move towards a free and prosperous society.

"If government is the answer, it was a stupid question"
Well, what we have is an outrageously repressive and malignant government. It won't just go away. Do you really believe we can go from here to some form of a government-less society in one step?

I kinda like Stefen Molyneaux, but like all the von Mises and most Libertarian thinkers, has no clue (or does not care) about millions and millions of poor and working poor that are starting from zero and many are physically, or emotionally, or mentally ill from a lifetime of poverty. Libertarianism (in my understanding) would only work, temporarily, if everyone started out on relatively even footing (not just in terms of finance, but education and health as well.) He also has a fantasy about "free-trade" and shows a lack of understanding of humans at our current level of... let's call it 'evolution.'

No offense, risveglio, but you and I have seen before that we have vastly different opinions. We would need to try very hard to find common ground in our thinking. I am trying to see "the way it is" and offer some pathways toward a much healthier and benevolent and compassionate society - not project my ultimate visions and propose that we can leap there.

Dennis

[risveglio]

You are still looking for a "government" solution. We will not advance as a species with Government. It doesn't work and is inherently evil. Once we stop looking at government to solve our problems, then we will move towards a free and prosperous society.

"If government is the answer, it was a stupid question"
Well, what we have is an outrageously repressive and malignant government. It won't just go away. Do you really believe we can go from here to some form of a government-less society in one step?

I kinda like Stefen Molyneaux, but like all the von Mises and most Libertarian thinkers, has no clue (or does not care) about millions and millions of poor and working poor that are starting from zero and many are physically, or emotionally, or mentally ill from a lifetime of poverty. Libertarianism (in my understanding) would only work, temporarily, if everyone started out on relatively even footing (not just in terms of finance, but education and health as well.) He also has a fantasy about "free-trade" and shows a lack of understanding of humans at our current level of... let's call it 'evolution.'

No offense, risveglio, but you and I have seen before that we have vastly different opinions. We would need to try very hard to find common ground in our thinking. I am trying to see "the way it is" and offer some pathways toward a much healthier and benevolent and compassionate society - not project my ultimate visions and propose that we can leap there.

Dennis

See you are wrong here. Libertarians are the only ones that care for the poor. The reality is that without government, many great people like yourself would be more free to help the poor. If I did not have over 40% of my income taken from me in the form of local, state and federal taxes, I would have a lot more to give. I give what I can now but no where near what I would like.

Also, unless you are so blinded by the bull**** taught about free trade, you would understand that free trade is the ONLY way to trade. Now I do agree that our "Free Trade Agreements" have been harmful, but since they are a creation of government, of course they are the opposite of the there titles. The idea that you can keep power constrained is just naive and is why we need to find a society free of government.

I do agree that we do not see eye to eye but that is because I see your "Reset Button" as just another form of tyranny and you think it is fine to force it onto us all.

[EnergyGardener]

The question posed is based on old paradigms. With surplus of resources that we will trade throughout the universe, perhaps a slight tax on that will cover any "residual" government infrastructure.

The cleanup and removal of the intentionally designed existing corrupt system will eliminate most of our problems.

During the transition period to the new systems and way of life—which may take several years—we will have temporary positions and systems for clean-up, rebuilding and reeducation of all humans for the new life, including elimination of so many rules / laws. Who will pay for that? Again, an assumption of an old idea / principal that is unique to our existing soon-to-be obsolete screwed up system.

That is my opinion and understanding.

[Dennis Leahy]

You are still looking for a "government" solution. We will not advance as a species with Government. It doesn't work and is inherently evil. Once we stop looking at government to solve our problems, then we will move towards a free and prosperous society.

"If government is the answer, it was a stupid question"
Well, what we have is an outrageously repressive and malignant government. It won't just go away. Do you really believe we can go from here to some form of a government-less society in one step?

I kinda like Stefen Molyneaux, but like all the von Mises and most Libertarian thinkers, has no clue (or does not care) about millions and millions of poor and working poor that are starting from zero and many are physically, or emotionally, or mentally ill from a lifetime of poverty. Libertarianism (in my understanding) would only work, temporarily, if everyone started out on relatively even footing (not just in terms of finance, but education and health as well.) He also has a fantasy about "free-trade" and shows a lack of understanding of humans at our current level of... let's call it 'evolution.'

No offense, risveglio, but you and I have seen before that we have vastly different opinions. We would need to try very hard to find common ground in our thinking. I am trying to see "the way it is" and offer some pathways toward a much healthier and benevolent and compassionate society - not project my ultimate visions and propose that we can leap there.

Dennis

See you are wrong here. Libertarians are the only ones that care for the poor. The reality is that without government, many great people like yourself would be more free to help the poor. If I did not have over 40% of my income taken from me in the form of local, state and federal taxes, I would have a lot more to give. I give what I can now but no where near what I would like.

Also, unless you are so blinded by the bull**** taught about free trade, you would understand that free trade is the ONLY way to trade. Now I do agree that our "Free Trade Agreements" have been harmful, but since they are a creation of government, of course they are the opposite of the there titles. The idea that you can keep power constrained is just naive and is why we need to find a society free of government.

I do agree that we do not see eye to eye but that is because I see your "Reset Button" as just another form of tyranny and you think it is fine to force it onto us all.

Maybe you could start a thread explaining Libertarianism, and the Libertarian concept of free-trade. I see Libertarianism as a "me first" and "self-centered" philosophy, and although a Libertarian with a higher percentage of earned income retained could give more to the poor, they are no more likely than any other person to do so. Do Libertarians believe in pooling any resources, for building or maintaining societal infrastructure (which is socialism)? How does the new bridge get built or the potholes get filled in or the fire department paid for if most everyone just says, "I refuse to donate" to the pool? School me. Maybe Libertarians have the perfect vision, and maybe it could work. Maybe my understanding is wrong. But let's do it in a different thread.

Your comment about The Reset Button is puzzling. The Reset Button is about getting the control of governance into the hands of ordinary citizens, and away from oligarchs. It would change the electoral structure to completely eliminate all of the ways that oligarchs influence and control elections. It has, as one of its provisions, that candidates would all have to put down, in writing, their positions on the topics covered in "Phase II" of The Reset Button. Their positions could be that they disagree 100% with every word written in Phase II topics, and they could still be elected - by voters that actually knew in advance what their positions are on the major topics of the day.

And that is tyrannical?

Dennis

[Carmody]

For anyone who wants to get a real in depth look at this subject and it's origins, I suggest getting a hold of The recent Joseph P. Farrell book, 'Babylon's Banksters:The alchemy of deep Physics, High Finance and Ancient Religion'. (An essay concerning the relationships between Aether Physics, Economics, Astrology, Alchemy, Geomancy, Ancient Temples, And the Politics of suppression)

[risveglio]

I have gravitated away from Libertarianism and am moving more toward Voluntarism but it is true that they both have a me first and self-centered philosophy. The fact is if you can not take care of yourself, it is impossible for you to help others. Unfortunately I do not have the time to go into this as I am late for a meeting but Walter Block does a better job than I ever could to explain private roads.

http://mises.org/daily/3416

As for why I find the "Reset Button" to be tyrannical it is simply because of the pieces I have read so far, you are pushing for direct democracy. Direct Democracy is easily corruptible as the people with the most money, power, and/or resources can easily influence the masses. I'll try to return but I have meetings for the rest of the day and am not the best one to be teaching this subject in the first place.

[Dennis Leahy]

As for why I find the "Reset Button" to be tyrannical it is simply because of the pieces I have read so far, you are pushing for direct democracy. Direct Democracy is easily corruptible as the people with the most money, power, and/or resources can easily influence the masses. I'll try to return but I have meetings for the rest of the day and am not the best one to be teaching this subject in the first place.Actualy, that's not true, but I do understand it was a weakness in my writing that left that impression.

The US is a republic, not a democracy. It can be described as a republic with representatives elected democratically. That's just on paper, though. In the current reality, citizens have very close to zero representation in government (especially at its higher federal and state levels.) Oligarchs have nearly 100% representation.

Even going all the way to a new society in a visionary way (and that was not what I did in The Reset Button), I see pure democracy as something that could only work with very small groups of people (a family, up to maybe as big as an apartment complex or a commune - maybe.) It would take every waking hour of every day to make decisions if every decision had to go through a full, democratic process. Mainly because of that aspect, I actually like the idea of a representative government. However, that would assume that my voice is represented - and right now, it isn't. I also believe that your voice (as different as our opinions may be) is not represented in state and federal government, and probably not local government either, unless you spend a great deal of time influencing local politics and politicians.

So, neither of us believes in large-scale governance using direct democracy. Hey, common ground! Let's bust out the champagne!

But, I do think the logic of your rhetoric is faulty. Why would it be easier for the Elite to influence 51% of the population than it would be to influence 1 single representative?

Rather than talk about a misunderstanding of what you thought I was saying (and I just spent about 8 months completely rewriting The Reset Button), what I am advocating is:



we stick with a republic with representatives elected democratically (this is not questioned in the RB document)


Reset Button, Phase I:


we ensure that we know, in advance of casting votes, in writing, the representative's positions on the topics covered in The Reset Button Phase II. That is, all candidates would be mandated to provide written position papers on the topics listed in The Reset Button phase II, and would need to participate in several televised debates
we have a way to recall the elected official if they lie and go directly against the positions they published
we completely stop Big Money (from anyone - including the candidates themselves), from influencing and controlling elections
we elect only ordinary citizens, with no ties/strings attached to corporations
elected and appointed officials must not "plug-in" to the corporate world or even buy stock for 5 years after serving in office
elected and appointed officials serve in their position once, for a single 4-year term, and may never hold that office again
all judges - all the way up through the Supreme Court - would be elected, not appointed, and would serve a single 4-year term like every other elected position
political parties would not be able to assist candidates in any way (destroying not only the faux 2-party paradigm, but all political parties)
a manageable number of candidates (10 presidential, for example) would be allowed to run, and would be chosen randomly from all who file to become candidates for that office. This shares some similarity with jury selection, and prevents oligarchs from knowing in advance - and illegally grooming - any candidate
the media would be legally mandated to give equal time and prominence to all candidates for an office


Reset Button, Phase II proposals:


we greatly expand the communication network to ensure that our representative has "the pulse" of our voice, to be able to represent us
there are quite a few more topics/proposals/essays in Phase II, and candidates would have to address them - via position paper - in Phase one (the election), but every word of Phase II is simply a proposal, not a mandate. Most are not unique to me, but are taken from the words and work of thousands of activists seeking to make a better country and a better world.

Thank you for explaining what you meant by tyrannical content or position, as it will help me make sure that revision 2 (which I have been trying like crazy to complete) will not leave incorrect, negative impressions. In fact, the only people that "should" have a negative impression (if my writing is clear) are oligarchs that will no longer be able to control elections and die-hard partisans that cannot fathom having to actually discern for themselves out of a cluster of candidates who to vote for. It is currently so easy for people to vote "straight ticket", for the party they identify with, and that would disappear. Other things that would disappear are words/phrases like "bi-partisan" and "both sides of the aisle" - as if 2 political parties could represent the views of 320 million people.


Dennis

[karelia]

I've always looked at politics as a popularity contest. It should be firmly placed in the entertainment sector, alongside with soap operas. Playing with the well-being of a nation, or even part of a nation, as may be in the cast of individual US states, certainly must not ever be confused with entertainment (though the cabal probably see it as such). Having experienced politics as a form of "government," I think a 180-degree turn of the paradigm is needed.

One thing I miss seeing here on the forum is the realisation that a change of paradigm will naturally abolish the need for much that we think we depend on today. One cannot imagine such a paradigm shift without taking the spiritual aspect into account.

No, we don't need taxes in any shape or form, not We the People! For starters, turn the tide and let businesses pay tax on their profits; that'll be more than enough to pay any civil servant, president, prime minister, offer the poorer free annual holidays and a whole lot more. That also ensures that the businesses to their social duty instead of donating, tax-deductable of course, to "charities" that are run by their bed partners and are everything but charitable. Then, every country has resources, be they metals, fertile soil, genius minds, whatever. Let a government employ the Tesla-like geniuses with a generous salary and excellent working conditions, and watch the genius invent exactly what a lot of other countries want. Then let the government sell it if they need extra income.

Also, I absolutely believe that people change to the better pretty quickly once they don't have to worry about their health, how to pay for the next prescription of poisons, heck, how to pay for the next dinner, never mind mortgage or rent. People will actually have time to consider fellow people! They won't be bogged down by government-induced fears and worries and terror, no, they can become themselves. That will be the biggest change single-handedly. They can be humans instead of slaves, and they will thrive and they will WANT TO help others because a human being isn't selfish in its nature. That selfishness was another thing imposed by the way the cabal set it all up for us. You will see ego diminishing because people, once free of worry, will find joy in service to others because they no longer need service to self. /soapbox

[Deega]

Thanks Dennis, a few comments on your great Tread.

No Taxes!

A few fundamental premises. What is a government?, generally, it’s an institution (put up on similar bases as military organization) that has the power (given by the people or otherwise) to bring services to the people (security, hospital, education, roads, bridges, sea ports, to name a few) and to corporations (laws, regulations to put them up, laws, regulations to control them, laws, regulation pertaining to bankruptcy, to name a few) that produced goods and services to the people.

And to facilitate the working of all these together, people are at the foundation of this big machine working smoothly. People bring their skills, talent to a workforce. And the skills of the people is measure by a value standard established through the years by Corporations, Unions and Government (at lease in North America). And the value standard is compensated by a means we call «money».

Now, we need to have a mechanism to control the flow, value, control of money, we have a banking system. In essence, this system has the sole responsibility to bring sufficient money to allow growth, control the value of money (against inflation, deflation, hyperinflation, Monetary Mass, to name a few), and this ain’t always easy to do, and try to maintain the value of the dollar in International Commerce.

We are in a society where we need to have different services to protect, to educate, to nurse, to help the unfortunate, to name a few, the wellbeing (so the Government tries to tell!) of the people. And the thinkers of yesterday have thought that paying the skills of the people with money would surely bring growth and prosperity to the nation. This goes very well for the corporations paying salaries (make the economy wheel turn, buying, saving, capitalizing) for the skills of the people, but, who will pay the salaries for the Public Services in society?, a TAX has been levied on the people skills and their produces (sales, excices, etc.).

Unfortunately, IF ALL THINGS REMAINS THE SAME, Taxes will remains the ways to pay for the Society Services, do we have others ways to go at it…?, surely, but we will need to do things differently!

During the Clinton era, deregulation of banking services led to the availability of «hedge» funds, the availability of «derivatives» that are at the source of all the financial problems in the World right now!, actually, the banking system has lost his bearing! The Financial World is having a headache, we are feeling the pain.

But a system is valid, accepted by the people only if the people accept it, subscribe to it, otherwise, the standing will fall!

Unfortunately, people don’t have the time to have a serious look at the intricacy of the system, but they would if the value of the money of the mass of people don’t suffice to paid for grocery of a week for example.

2. Metal backed money?

I would concur that a metal backed money could do the things for a period of time. But, if a majority partner (one Nation who control more than half the Monetary Mass) in the game decide to change the rule (like the «hedge, and derivative»), the situation would probably be different.

IMHO, we would need to change the fundamental of our banking system to make it a better means of controlling the flow of money, but maybe, we would need something more dramatic than that, and your ideas will contribute to it!

All the best to everyone.

Deega

[cellardoor]

The world is controlled by a global elite of approximately 6,000 people. 94% of them are men, and their average age is 60. 2% of the world's population own 50% of the world's wealth. 1,100 billionaires have double the assets of the world's poorest 2.5 billion people. The world's 50 largest financial institutions control a third of the world's assets. The world's 250 biggest companies generate sales of about a third of the world's GDP

Very few super-rich elite are elected. Many have attended privileged schools, colleges and universities. Many belong to exclusive clubs and societies. Many inherited great wealth and many just happened to be present when great assets became available (as in the case of the 36 Russian oligarchs). Many have strong family and religious links. Many are close friends. They control practically everything worth controlling. They don't listen to us, and they don't care about us. So, the choice is simple. Let's do nothing and go through life like peasants bowing to feudal kings. Or let's stand up to the elite and take what is ours. It's time to replace the system that oppresses us. Democracy is the global elite's main instrument of political control of the masses - their brilliant trick to make us think they are ruling on our behalf. Meritocracy, the antidote to corrupt democracy.

In a meritocracy there need only be two taxes, 100% inheritance tax and tax any income more than 20 times the national lowest per year. All other taxes are nil and void. The new education system will initially be paid for by the proceeds of the 100% inheritance tax - which will reallocate the wealth of the privileged elite to the education of the people. As time goes on, the country will be vastly richer because it will be producing optimised, self-actualised citizens making the best possible contribution. The enormous "cost of failure" that plagues our society will be a thing of the past, and all of the money can be redirected to education and social excellence. GDP will grow by leaps and bounds in a smart, meritocratic society. Wealth would be recycled, greed abolished and nepotism stopped for good. Wealth would be based on the merit one gains in any given field, you get to vote in all areas in which you have demonstrable knowledge and expertise. A person without any knowledge or expertise would not get a vote since any vote accorded to them could not be exercised in any meaningful way - it would be a random vote based on nothing but emotion and prejudice, hence would not be permitted in a meritocracy. It'll be what you know, not who you know. Education would become the central focus of the republic which seeks to give everyone equal choice and equal opportunity to pursue their own interests and happiness in any given field of expertise. Meritocracy is based on the fact that people are born free therefore no child should be subject to any form of indoctrination.
1) Every child must be provided with a supportive, loving, safe environment where it can flourish.
2) The Republic must seek to identify the child's strengths and weaknesses. It will remove the child from activities of failure that will harm the child's confidence and self-esteem. It will instead provide the child with environments of success where the child is happy, confident and can demonstrate the highest merit.
3) The Republic will guarantee the child the "10,000 hours" said to be required to make someone an expert in their chosen field.
4) No child should be "forced", for the sake of an inflexible curriculum, to do something that they instinctively resist. There is no point in force-feeding advanced mathematics, for example, to a child with little aptitude for the subject. You will only make them miserable, make them feel like failures, and dent their confidence.
5) Every child must be protected from any brainwashing or mind control from any source.
6) Every child must be exposed to a wide variety of ideas. The child will decide for itself what religious, philosophical and political views it wishes to subscribe to, depending on the child's own nature, character, personality, intelligence and talents. No one but the child may choose. No one is allowed to choose on behalf of the child or to force the child in any desired direction.
7) Every child must enjoy the same opportunities and treatment as every other child. No child should benefit from privilege, or suffer from underprivilege.
8) The fate of a child should in no way be linked to that of its parents. Each child must stand on its own merits. The merits (or otherwise), the wealth (or otherwise), of others to whom the child is related are entirely irrelevant.

The Meritocratic Republic provides maximum freedom for the maximum number of people at the expense of those - the Old World Order - who have hitherto enjoyed the maximum freedom at the expense of the People.

Religions will no longer be "free" to brainwash and physically mutilate children.

Everyone will have the space and freedom to think for themselves.

Thomas Jefferson said "A Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the People may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." One is therefore entitled to feel a little nervous when contemporary American politicians rant and rave about the benefits of a democracy, and proclaim it the best system of government on Earth. Jefferson saw its dangers, and these have never faded away. Democracy is often a dictatorship of the majority.


The United States was actually designed to be a Constitutional Republic - note a Republic, not a democracy - bound by Law (the Constitution). The Constitution was explicitly designed to protect the rights of the people against any force, including a democratic majority, that might seek to subvert them. In this light, America is arguably not a democracy at all, just as the United Kingdom certainly is not.

A democracy, despite the relentless propaganda of its advocates, is by no means guaranteed to be the type of system one would like to live under if one valued freedom of opinions and the freedom to live as one wishes. Many of the greatest thinkers of antiquity such as Plato and Aristotle were strenuously opposed to democracy. It has never been favoured by intellectuals who typically regard it as a dumbed-down, lowest common denominator ideology for hysterical, ill-educated mobs.

A meritocratic republic is dedicated to ensuring that only those people that are qualified, or have earned a position, receive it. There is no patronage, favouritism, cronyism, nepotism, privilege or discrimination. Merit is the only criterion for success. There are no deals under the table, rigged cartels or means of corrupting the government. Government must be as transparent as possible. Just as justice should be done and be seen to be done, so should government. All of the financial dealings of the members of government, Congress and lobbyists should be a matter of public record. If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, and saw how far America had deviated from his great vision, what would he do to put things right? He would unquestionably turn to meritocracy. Privilege has destroyed the Old Republic. Meritocracy is the antidote to this cancer.

Meritocracy is not about equality, but about equal opportunity. Meritocracy is about unequal outcomes based on merit. In order to assess merit correctly, it's imperative for everyone to set out from the same starting line. Meritocracy focuses on identifying the more meritorious and ensuring that they get the best and most influential jobs. It doesn't pander to the lazy and those who don't want to make the most of themselves. Meritocracy is no kind of communism imposing an artificial equality on those of unequal merit. Meritocracy asserts that merit is the only criterion that can rationally be used for differentiating between people: not sex, race, age, parents, money, or social connections. Only one type of discrimination is valid - that based on merit. But who is to be the judge of merit? The only acceptable answer is the people. Well-educated, fair-minded, unprejudiced, rational people will judge who amongst their number are the most meritorious i.e. this is the one place where a democratic voting procedure is essential. Assuming that no one has the chance to rig an election then there is no reason to suspect that people will not identify the most talented amongst themselves.

The pillars of a meritocracy are: equality of opportunity, equality before the law and equal rights, but not equality of outcomes (which is a variable based on talent, creativity and hard work).

100% inheritance tax=

1) The end of the super rich
2) The end of the Old World Order and all privileged elites
3) The end of Party politics and political lobbying
4) The end of private capitalism
5) The end of private banking (i.e. banking controlled by private institutions)
6) The end of Abrahamism
7) The end of media moguls
8) The end of the abuse, mutilation and brainwashing of children
9) The end of existing armies, police forces and intelligence services that are the creatures of the elite and the enemies of the people
10) The end of all cartels and private networks of families, relatives, cronies, co-religionists, fellow Masons etc.

1) Equality of Opportunity
2) Equality before the law
3) Genuine equal rights immune from privilege
4) Public capitalism
5) Public banking
6) Dialectical politics
7) A New Model Army and Police Service based on intelligence and psychology rather than brute force
8) Tailor-made, psychology-based schools and academies
9) 10,000 hours to become an expert in your chosen field
http://armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/

[risveglio]

The world is controlled by a global elite of approximately 6,000 people. 94% of them are men, and their average age is 60. 2% of the world's population own 50% of the world's wealth. 1,100 billionaires have double the assets of the world's poorest 2.5 billion people. The world's 50 largest financial institutions control a third of the world's assets. The world's 250 biggest companies generate sales of about a third of the world's GDP

Very few super-rich elite are elected. Many have attended privileged schools, colleges and universities. Many belong to exclusive clubs and societies. Many inherited great wealth and many just happened to be present when great assets became available (as in the case of the 36 Russian oligarchs). Many have strong family and religious links. Many are close friends. They control practically everything worth controlling. They don't listen to us, and they don't care about us. So, the choice is simple. Let's do nothing and go through life like peasants bowing to feudal kings. Or let's stand up to the elite and take what is ours. It's time to replace the system that oppresses us. Democracy is the global elite's main instrument of political control of the masses - their brilliant trick to make us think they are ruling on our behalf. Meritocracy, the antidote to corrupt democracy.

In a meritocracy there need only be two taxes, 100% inheritance tax and tax any income more than 20 times the national lowest per year. All other taxes are nil and void. The new education system will initially be paid for by the proceeds of the 100% inheritance tax - which will reallocate the wealth of the privileged elite to the education of the people. As time goes on, the country will be vastly richer because it will be producing optimised, self-actualised citizens making the best possible contribution. The enormous "cost of failure" that plagues our society will be a thing of the past, and all of the money can be redirected to education and social excellence. GDP will grow by leaps and bounds in a smart, meritocratic society. Wealth would be recycled, greed abolished and nepotism stopped for good. Wealth would be based on the merit one gains in any given field, you get to vote in all areas in which you have demonstrable knowledge and expertise. A person without any knowledge or expertise would not get a vote since any vote accorded to them could not be exercised in any meaningful way - it would be a random vote based on nothing but emotion and prejudice, hence would not be permitted in a meritocracy. It'll be what you know, not who you know. Education would become the central focus of the republic which seeks to give everyone equal choice and equal opportunity to pursue their own interests and happiness in any given field of expertise. Meritocracy is based on the fact that people are born free therefore no child should be subject to any form of indoctrination.
1) Every child must be provided with a supportive, loving, safe environment where it can flourish.
2) The Republic must seek to identify the child's strengths and weaknesses. It will remove the child from activities of failure that will harm the child's confidence and self-esteem. It will instead provide the child with environments of success where the child is happy, confident and can demonstrate the highest merit.
3) The Republic will guarantee the child the "10,000 hours" said to be required to make someone an expert in their chosen field.
4) No child should be "forced", for the sake of an inflexible curriculum, to do something that they instinctively resist. There is no point in force-feeding advanced mathematics, for example, to a child with little aptitude for the subject. You will only make them miserable, make them feel like failures, and dent their confidence.
5) Every child must be protected from any brainwashing or mind control from any source.
6) Every child must be exposed to a wide variety of ideas. The child will decide for itself what religious, philosophical and political views it wishes to subscribe to, depending on the child's own nature, character, personality, intelligence and talents. No one but the child may choose. No one is allowed to choose on behalf of the child or to force the child in any desired direction.
7) Every child must enjoy the same opportunities and treatment as every other child. No child should benefit from privilege, or suffer from underprivilege.
8) The fate of a child should in no way be linked to that of its parents. Each child must stand on its own merits. The merits (or otherwise), the wealth (or otherwise), of others to whom the child is related are entirely irrelevant.

The Meritocratic Republic provides maximum freedom for the maximum number of people at the expense of those - the Old World Order - who have hitherto enjoyed the maximum freedom at the expense of the People.

Religions will no longer be "free" to brainwash and physically mutilate children.

Everyone will have the space and freedom to think for themselves.

Thomas Jefferson said "A Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the People may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." One is therefore entitled to feel a little nervous when contemporary American politicians rant and rave about the benefits of a democracy, and proclaim it the best system of government on Earth. Jefferson saw its dangers, and these have never faded away. Democracy is often a dictatorship of the majority.


The United States was actually designed to be a Constitutional Republic - note a Republic, not a democracy - bound by Law (the Constitution). The Constitution was explicitly designed to protect the rights of the people against any force, including a democratic majority, that might seek to subvert them. In this light, America is arguably not a democracy at all, just as the United Kingdom certainly is not.

A democracy, despite the relentless propaganda of its advocates, is by no means guaranteed to be the type of system one would like to live under if one valued freedom of opinions and the freedom to live as one wishes. Many of the greatest thinkers of antiquity such as Plato and Aristotle were strenuously opposed to democracy. It has never been favoured by intellectuals who typically regard it as a dumbed-down, lowest common denominator ideology for hysterical, ill-educated mobs.

A meritocratic republic is dedicated to ensuring that only those people that are qualified, or have earned a position, receive it. There is no patronage, favouritism, cronyism, nepotism, privilege or discrimination. Merit is the only criterion for success. There are no deals under the table, rigged cartels or means of corrupting the government. Government must be as transparent as possible. Just as justice should be done and be seen to be done, so should government. All of the financial dealings of the members of government, Congress and lobbyists should be a matter of public record. If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, and saw how far America had deviated from his great vision, what would he do to put things right? He would unquestionably turn to meritocracy. Privilege has destroyed the Old Republic. Meritocracy is the antidote to this cancer.

Meritocracy is not about equality, but about equal opportunity. Meritocracy is about unequal outcomes based on merit. In order to assess merit correctly, it's imperative for everyone to set out from the same starting line. Meritocracy focuses on identifying the more meritorious and ensuring that they get the best and most influential jobs. It doesn't pander to the lazy and those who don't want to make the most of themselves. Meritocracy is no kind of communism imposing an artificial equality on those of unequal merit. Meritocracy asserts that merit is the only criterion that can rationally be used for differentiating between people: not sex, race, age, parents, money, or social connections. Only one type of discrimination is valid - that based on merit. But who is to be the judge of merit? The only acceptable answer is the people. Well-educated, fair-minded, unprejudiced, rational people will judge who amongst their number are the most meritorious i.e. this is the one place where a democratic voting procedure is essential. Assuming that no one has the chance to rig an election then there is no reason to suspect that people will not identify the most talented amongst themselves.

The pillars of a meritocracy are: equality of opportunity, equality before the law and equal rights, but not equality of outcomes (which is a variable based on talent, creativity and hard work).

100% inheritance tax=

1) The end of the super rich
2) The end of the Old World Order and all privileged elites
3) The end of Party politics and political lobbying
4) The end of private capitalism
5) The end of private banking (i.e. banking controlled by private institutions)
6) The end of Abrahamism
7) The end of media moguls
8) The end of the abuse, mutilation and brainwashing of children
9) The end of existing armies, police forces and intelligence services that are the creatures of the elite and the enemies of the people
10) The end of all cartels and private networks of families, relatives, cronies, co-religionists, fellow Masons etc.

1) Equality of Opportunity
2) Equality before the law
3) Genuine equal rights immune from privilege
4) Public capitalism
5) Public banking
6) Dialectical politics
7) A New Model Army and Police Service based on intelligence and psychology rather than brute force
8) Tailor-made, psychology-based schools and academies
9) 10,000 hours to become an expert in your chosen field
http://armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/

Can I opt out? I have no problem with capitalism and I have seen the death tax ruin a family of three because they were all working in the family business and the business had to be sold to pay the death tax. They went from three comfortable middle class families to two of the three families having to rely on public assistance and there children not being able to go to college.

I just thank God that none of these awful ideas will ever come to reality.

MRpEV2tmYz4

[cellardoor]

Can I opt out? I have no problem with capitalism and I have seen the death tax ruin a family of three because they were all working in the family business and the business had to be sold to pay the death tax. They went from three comfortable middle class families to two of the three families having to rely on public assistance and there children not being able to go to college.

The problem is that the state and not the republic imposed the death tax but the country is still a free market economy run democracy. Those family members would be well educated and sovereign in a meritocracy. Family is the bedrock of the elite. It is up to the people to make the republic act in their interests, no child would suffer unequal opportunity, all adults would have 10,000 hours of the best possible education. Class would be purely based on merit.

[risveglio]

The problem is that the state and not the republic imposed the death tax but the country is still a free market economy run democracy. Those family members would be well educated and sovereign in a meritocracy. Family is the bedrock of the elite. It is up to the people to make the republic act in their interests, no child would suffer unequal opportunity, all adults would have 10,000 hours of the best possible education. Class would be purely based on merit.

I call bull****. There will be elite in your meritocracy and they will be the controllers. They will decide what is taught in your 10,000 hours and will put us right back into our slave box. I see no problem with family and do not think you should have the right to destroy the family. If I want to work extremely hard to that my children have a better life, an easier life, than I should be free to do so. Your 100% inheritance tax will just mean that the old are going to do there best to hide there money or spend it before they die.

I say let's try no government for a while. If that doesn't work, then we can try these awful ideas that destroy the individual and the family.

[cellardoor]

I call bull****. There will be elite in your meritocracy and they will be the controllers. They will decide what is taught in your 10,000 hours and will put us right back into our slave box. I see no problem with family and do not think you should have the right to destroy the family. If I want to work extremely hard to that my children have a better life, an easier life, than I should be free to do so. Your 100% inheritance tax will just mean that the old are going to do there best to hide there money or spend it before they die.

I say let's try no government for a while. If that doesn't work, then we can try these awful ideas that destroy the individual and the family.

You call bull**** then promote anarchy. Education and freedom of choice are essential to optimising the individual and demoting the family values within a political context in favour of public virtue. We cannot destroy true family love and bonding essential to our well being and that is not the point. The point is we have been ruled by just a few families for thousands of years. What we going to do about it?

[risveglio]

Yes. I do call for anarchy as it is the only way we can have a truly free, peaceful and prosperous society. Every other idea and concept that has been discussed on this thread is just relying on the state and government. See, my version allows you to choose how to live your own life. Your form of government puts me in a box and makes me a slave of the state. I choose freedom.

[cellardoor]

Yes. I do call for anarchy as it is the only way we can have a truly free, peaceful and prosperous society. Every other idea and concept that has been discussed on this thread is just relying on the state and government. See, my version allows you to choose how to live your own life. Your form of government puts me in a box and makes me a slave of the state. I choose freedom.

I'd love to know how Anarchy will create a peaceful prosperous society. Please share your vision.

[risveglio]

Here is a start.
AQmMe2IeGPU

lEksrPwiDj0

ZpYUAucm1ZI

[Blueskywalking]

I'll throw this into the mix here.
A great level of conversation here and good questions.
"Walter Burien" is a former trader and "follow the money" investment guy.
The sort of guy that understands the money game from long experience
and eats spreadsheets for breakfast.
Alex Jones interviewed him years ago on the subject of
The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report or C.A.F.R.

He published a video on this in 2009 as I recall, called The Biggest Game in Town.
jkwjtbTjTsE
In 2011 he published a more polished, shorter version called
The Only Game in Town.
bn3hUcmNDdA

Bottom Line is this.
Just as we learn that the government has been telling us
what they think we need to hear in so many other spheres,
the "books" of the guvmint are no exception.

In truth there are sort of two accounting reckonings kept.
The first is The Annual Operating Budget or "The Budget".
This is the one that is pushed in the public's face and talked about as if it is the only one.
But it only accounts for about a third of the money - more or less equal to taxation income.
The REAL document is called The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
This totals investment and enterprise incomes ALONGSIDE tax receipts.

The "Collective Government financial position" in terms of investment and enterprise returns
is the aggregate of 100,000's of local gov, state gov, speciality funds, etc
The total figure is astronomical.
At all levels of government, local, state and federal,
about 5% of tax income has been slipped off the table for 65-70 years.
and ended invested on a set of books that aren't in "The Budget".
In truth, it would appear that the Collective Government owns some 50-60-70% of all the big corporations.
This isn't just a corporate/government marriage, ie fascism,
this is government OWNING the corporate bodies.
And we wonder why government won't reign in corporate abuse/psychopathy.
It would affect the guvmint's bottom line.


Walter's radical idea is simple.
Following the example of the solid ongoing returns from well managed Government pension funds
Walter proposes that any city, council, state, or group of citizens can wisely create and invest in
a TRF or tax retirement fund that will be able to replace taxation as source of funds needed to cover the operating budget .
Much like a wise/prudent individual will work/produce/add value in their "working years" (in a healthy economy)
and invest 5-10% so as to live well in "retirement" from investments.

This is critical stuff guys.
The government ain't broke, it's just another huge lie.
This breaks down how they do it.

In light of all this tax IS just theft, it's not only illegal or better yet unlawful, it's not even needed.

His site: http://cafr1.com/

[cellardoor]

[QUOTE=risveglio;464464]Here is a start.
AQmMe2IeGPU

Hoppe argues the non-aggression principle is a presupposition of argumentation and so cannot be rationally denied in discourse. According to Hegel,
"On approaching the other it has lost its own self, since it finds itself as another being; secondly, it has thereby sublated that other, for this primitive consciousness does not regard the other as essentially real but sees its own self in the other." The "I" sees another "I" and finds its own pre-eminence and control compromised. It ignores this other or sees it as a threat to itself. Its own self-certainty and truth have forevermore been shattered. The only means of re-asserting itself, in order to proceed toward self-consciousness, is by entering into a struggle for pre-eminence. A struggle to the death ensues. However, if one of the two should die, the achievement of self-consciousness fails. Hegel refers to this failure as "abstract negation" not the negation or sublation required. This death is avoided by the agreement, communication of, or subordination to, slavery. In this struggle the Master emerges as Master because he doesn't fear death as much as the slave, and the slave out of this fear consents to the slavery. This experience of fear on the part of the slave is crucial, however, in a later moment of the dialectic, where it becomes the prerequisite experience for the slave's further development. Truth of oneself as self-conscious is achieved only if both live; the recognition of the other gives each of them the objective truth and self-certainty required for self-consciousness. Thus, the two enter into the relation of master/slave and preserve the recognition of each other. However, this state is not a happy one and does not achieve full self-consciousness. The recognition by the slave is merely on pain of death. The master's self-consciousness is dependent on the slave for recognition and also has a mediated relation with nature: the slave works with nature and begins to shape it into products for the master. As the slave creates more and more products with greater and greater sophistication through his own creativity, he begins to see himself reflected in the products he created, he realises that the world around him was created by his own hands, thus the slave is no longer alienated from his own labour and achieves self-consciousness, while the master on the other hand has become wholly dependent on the products created by his slave; thus the master is enslaved by the labour of his slave. The realisation of this contradiction allows the slave to once again struggle against his master. The contradiction is resolved when the difference between slave and the master is dissolved and both persons recognise that they are equal.

So which is a more accurate assumption of the unfolding of history?

Anarchy would be a viable system if people were naturally communitarian, cooperative, unselfish, altruistic, free of corruption, vices and criminality. Anarchy would be the logical answer in a world of angels, not in this world. Here, where the dark side of human nature thrives, the law of the jungle would come to the fore in the absence of government. The only law followed would be the most primitive Darwinism of the strong dominating the weak.

How would anarchy help in times of a natural disaster such as a tsunami, earthquake or hurricane? The drowning of New Orleans by hurricane Katrina showed that even when a government is in place, help is slow to come. Imagine how much worse it would have been without any government at all. In a world without legitimate control there would be chaos. The person wielding the biggest gun is king.
In an Anarchy, how would food, water, shelter, aid, and protection be organized? People would be forced into factions for support and survival. The entire population would follow a gang mentality. The bartering system would return and eventually those with the most power (those with the most followers, most resources, most guns) would assume power. In other words, anarchy would not long remain free of government; it would quickly degenerate into a tyranny. In time, the tyranny would seek to legitimise itself and place itself on a hereditary footing and would become a monarchy. And so humanity would have gone backwards, back to the dark, feudal past. Anarchy, given the selfish and cutthroat human nature we witness every day (the human as rat in a ferocious rat race), would be a catastrophe. Anarchy has to be resisted at all costs. The Tea Party are the face of modern anarchy and they are repellent in every regard.

https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSGvVhT7Nki57Ne_fm7KmmB0OlLzA5dABckGakC13QzIPS2OccEvU4Ps5ON

The Tea Party seek to reduce government and the state to zero. No one, they believe, should be allowed to interfere with their lives in any way. A senior member of the Tea Party openly advocated that a white businessman should not have to serve a black customer if he did not want to i.e. this places infinite value on the businessman and reduces the black customer to zero. This is an absolutely horrific and obscene concept that has no place in any civilised nation, and is exactly why there is a need for strong government and a powerful state. If the Tea Party ever came to power, a second Civil War would follow within days. The Tea Party are just the Confederates in a new guise. The Confederates - White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs) - actually went to war to uphold slavery. Has any army in history ever fought for such an ignoble, disgusting cause? Yet Confederate flags are still regularly flown all over America!

Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Du contrat social argues that government is entirely necessary as the foundations of political rights based on unlimited popular sovereignty

The social contract can be reduced to the following terms: Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will; and in a body we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.
Rousseau's striking phrase that man must "be forced to be free" should be understood this way: since the indivisible and inalienable popular sovereignty decides what is good for the whole, then if an individual lapses back into his ordinary egoism and disobeys the leadership, he will be forced to listen to what they decided as a member of the collectivity (i.e. as citizens). Thus, the law, inasmuch as it is created by the people acting as a body, is not a limitation of individual freedom, but its expression. Thus, enforcement of law, including criminal law, is not a restriction on individual liberty, as the individual, as a citizen, explicitly agreed to be constrained if, as a private individual, he did not respect his own will as formulated in the general will. Because laws represent the restraints of civil freedom, they represent the leap made from humans in the state of nature into civil society. In this sense, the law is a civilizing force, and therefore Rousseau believed that the laws that govern a people helped to mold their character

[risveglio]

I can't respond to your last one because I don't see the Tea Party representing anything you say so how can I respond. The tea party represents modern anarchy? Are you kidding me? They have put there support in the Republican Primary to a big government neo-con. How is that wanting to reduce the state to nothing?

All your other question are answered in the last video I posted. People, free of an oppressive state would be far more willing to help in times of natural disasters. During Hurrican Floyd, the community in Florida where my uncle lives all helped each other by sharing food and alternating homes with generators while they were out of power for a week. If they waiting for help from FEMA, they probably all would have starved to death.

Sorry but the Civil War was not a fight for slavery alone. But, this statement show that you were good student of the indoctrination of the state and probably not someone equipped with the ability to understand concepts not taught by state.

[cellardoor]

I can't respond to your last one because I don't see the Tea Party representing anything you say so how can I respond. The tea party represents modern anarchy? Are you kidding me? They have put there support in the Republican Primary to a big government neo-con. How is that wanting to reduce the state to nothing?

All your other question are answered in the last video I posted. People, free of an oppressive state would be far more willing to help in times of natural disasters. During Hurrican Floyd, the community in Florida where my uncle lives all helped each other by sharing food and alternating homes with generators while they were out of power for a week. If they waiting for help from FEMA, they probably all would have starved to death.

AN ANARCHIST’S VIEW ON A RON PAUL PRESIDENCY
Published December 28, 2011
http://grantjkidney.com/an-anarchists-view-on-a-ron-paul-presidency/
To many anarchists, Ron Paul would seem right up their alley. He wants to drastically reduce the size of government to levels untold of.

Anarchists of course wish for a total dissolution of government- and by no means does Paul endorse such an idea. But can folks really have their cake and eat it too?

A Ron Paul presidency would at least move society in to a more anarchistic direction in that many useless government bureaucracies will have vanished thus paving the way for greater self reliance and perhaps a more natural collectivization of the species for the purpose of manifesting the common good.

Many folks shy away from the notion of anarchy in that they believe in a world completely devoid of all governmental institutions, untold of criminality would ensue and nothing would be there to stop that. This belief however fails to take in to account the fact that even with the massive governments embedded in to our collective social order today, crime and all manner of unspeakable horror still persist. War is by far the most deadly of diseases wrought on by the hand of government.

Many liberals would argue that government serves wonderful purposes like that of educating children and providing health care. A liberal therefore is the farthest thing from an anarchist- and its a real surprise that many liberals are coming around to Ron Paul! The problem with the liberal world view is that it doesn’t seem to recognize the inherent flaw in allowing for the existence of giant government bureaucracies which serve merely as mafia-like ‘fronts’ for the corrupt and the greedy. A Ron Paul presidency- or an actualized anarchistic world, wouldn’t allow for politicians to hide behind the guise of ‘good will’ and ‘charity’. Good will and charity would be left up to the people to facilitate for themselves.

Many of Paul’s supporters are hard-line constitutionalists and therefore support the existence of a ‘republic’ wherein politicians are voted for so as to make the best possible decisions for us. Anarchists detest such notions. After all, a politician is but a mere man and thus inherently flawed. But if Paul and his supporters succeed in transforming America back in to a constitutional republic, it would certainly be a hell of a lot nicer than living beneath a draconian empire such as what we’re plagued with today!

In order to make Ron Paul president, he has to be voted for. Voting is an activity that anarchists typically shy away from in that they see a vote for anyone as a vote for the state. But as mentioned prior, a Ron Paul presidency would at least help to pave the way for a more open, anarchistic world- and this reason alone is why anarchists should head off to the voting booths in support of Dr. Paul.


Paul has been characterized as the "intellectual godfather" of the Tea Party movementhttp://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/the-tea-party-8217-s-brain/8280/

[risveglio]

I can't respond to your last one because I don't see the Tea Party representing anything you say so how can I respond. The tea party represents modern anarchy? Are you kidding me? They have put there support in the Republican Primary to a big government neo-con. How is that wanting to reduce the state to nothing?

All your other question are answered in the last video I posted. People, free of an oppressive state would be far more willing to help in times of natural disasters. During Hurrican Floyd, the community in Florida where my uncle lives all helped each other by sharing food and alternating homes with generators while they were out of power for a week. If they waiting for help from FEMA, they probably all would have starved to death.

AN ANARCHIST’S VIEW ON A RON PAUL PRESIDENCY
Published December 28, 2011
http://grantjkidney.com/an-anarchists-view-on-a-ron-paul-presidency/
To many anarchists, Ron Paul would seem right up their alley. He wants to drastically reduce the size of government to levels untold of.

Anarchists of course wish for a total dissolution of government- and by no means does Paul endorse such an idea. But can folks really have their cake and eat it too?

A Ron Paul presidency would at least move society in to a more anarchistic direction in that many useless government bureaucracies will have vanished thus paving the way for greater self reliance and perhaps a more natural collectivization of the species for the purpose of manifesting the common good.

Many folks shy away from the notion of anarchy in that they believe in a world completely devoid of all governmental institutions, untold of criminality would ensue and nothing would be there to stop that. This belief however fails to take in to account the fact that even with the massive governments embedded in to our collective social order today, crime and all manner of unspeakable horror still persist. War is by far the most deadly of diseases wrought on by the hand of government.

Many liberals would argue that government serves wonderful purposes like that of educating children and providing health care. A liberal therefore is the farthest thing from an anarchist- and its a real surprise that many liberals are coming around to Ron Paul! The problem with the liberal world view is that it doesn’t seem to recognize the inherent flaw in allowing for the existence of giant government bureaucracies which serve merely as mafia-like ‘fronts’ for the corrupt and the greedy. A Ron Paul presidency- or an actualized anarchistic world, wouldn’t allow for politicians to hide behind the guise of ‘good will’ and ‘charity’. Good will and charity would be left up to the people to facilitate for themselves.

Many of Paul’s supporters are hard-line constitutionalists and therefore support the existence of a ‘republic’ wherein politicians are voted for so as to make the best possible decisions for us. Anarchists detest such notions. After all, a politician is but a mere man and thus inherently flawed. But if Paul and his supporters succeed in transforming America back in to a constitutional republic, it would certainly be a hell of a lot nicer than living beneath a draconian empire such as what we’re plagued with today!

In order to make Ron Paul president, he has to be voted for. Voting is an activity that anarchists typically shy away from in that they see a vote for anyone as a vote for the state. But as mentioned prior, a Ron Paul presidency would at least help to pave the way for a more open, anarchistic world- and this reason alone is why anarchists should head off to the voting booths in support of Dr. Paul.

What is your point here? That anarchists should support Ron Paul? I think any American citizen with a heart should be supporting Ron Paul. But that does not mean that ultimately we are not better off without the state.

[cellardoor]

I can't respond to your last one because I don't see the Tea Party representing anything you say so how can I respond. The tea party represents modern anarchy? Are you kidding me? They have put there support in the Republican Primary to a big government neo-con. How is that wanting to reduce the state to nothing?

All your other question are answered in the last video I posted. People, free of an oppressive state would be far more willing to help in times of natural disasters. During Hurrican Floyd, the community in Florida where my uncle lives all helped each other by sharing food and alternating homes with generators while they were out of power for a week. If they waiting for help from FEMA, they probably all would have starved to death.

AN ANARCHIST’S VIEW ON A RON PAUL PRESIDENCY
Published December 28, 2011
http://grantjkidney.com/an-anarchists-view-on-a-ron-paul-presidency/
To many anarchists, Ron Paul would seem right up their alley. He wants to drastically reduce the size of government to levels untold of.

Anarchists of course wish for a total dissolution of government- and by no means does Paul endorse such an idea. But can folks really have their cake and eat it too?

A Ron Paul presidency would at least move society in to a more anarchistic direction in that many useless government bureaucracies will have vanished thus paving the way for greater self reliance and perhaps a more natural collectivization of the species for the purpose of manifesting the common good.

Many folks shy away from the notion of anarchy in that they believe in a world completely devoid of all governmental institutions, untold of criminality would ensue and nothing would be there to stop that. This belief however fails to take in to account the fact that even with the massive governments embedded in to our collective social order today, crime and all manner of unspeakable horror still persist. War is by far the most deadly of diseases wrought on by the hand of government.

Many liberals would argue that government serves wonderful purposes like that of educating children and providing health care. A liberal therefore is the farthest thing from an anarchist- and its a real surprise that many liberals are coming around to Ron Paul! The problem with the liberal world view is that it doesn’t seem to recognize the inherent flaw in allowing for the existence of giant government bureaucracies which serve merely as mafia-like ‘fronts’ for the corrupt and the greedy. A Ron Paul presidency- or an actualized anarchistic world, wouldn’t allow for politicians to hide behind the guise of ‘good will’ and ‘charity’. Good will and charity would be left up to the people to facilitate for themselves.

Many of Paul’s supporters are hard-line constitutionalists and therefore support the existence of a ‘republic’ wherein politicians are voted for so as to make the best possible decisions for us. Anarchists detest such notions. After all, a politician is but a mere man and thus inherently flawed. But if Paul and his supporters succeed in transforming America back in to a constitutional republic, it would certainly be a hell of a lot nicer than living beneath a draconian empire such as what we’re plagued with today!

In order to make Ron Paul president, he has to be voted for. Voting is an activity that anarchists typically shy away from in that they see a vote for anyone as a vote for the state. But as mentioned prior, a Ron Paul presidency would at least help to pave the way for a more open, anarchistic world- and this reason alone is why anarchists should head off to the voting booths in support of Dr. Paul.

What is your point here? That anarchists should support Ron Paul? I think any American citizen with a heart should be supporting Ron Paul. But that does not mean that ultimately we are not better off without the state.

The point would be to emphasise the dangers of devolving back to a constitutional republic as a step towards a faith based anarchic order. The core issues of greed, selfishness, nepotism and cronyism will not magically disappear they will resurface in any way they can. We will inevitably repeat history for that is how history works. Meritocracy is the end of history and the omega point of freedom. Every child is free to choose their political and philosophical views. Where does anarchy allow for this? Everyone is forced into anarchy. Anarchy is akin to saying that god will sort everything by means of a mysterious natural order which cannot be understood just implemented. It is a new religion.

[risveglio]

I can't respond to your last one because I don't see the Tea Party representing anything you say so how can I respond. The tea party represents modern anarchy? Are you kidding me? They have put there support in the Republican Primary to a big government neo-con. How is that wanting to reduce the state to nothing?

All your other question are answered in the last video I posted. People, free of an oppressive state would be far more willing to help in times of natural disasters. During Hurrican Floyd, the community in Florida where my uncle lives all helped each other by sharing food and alternating homes with generators while they were out of power for a week. If they waiting for help from FEMA, they probably all would have starved to death.

AN ANARCHIST’S VIEW ON A RON PAUL PRESIDENCY
Published December 28, 2011
http://grantjkidney.com/an-anarchists-view-on-a-ron-paul-presidency/
To many anarchists, Ron Paul would seem right up their alley. He wants to drastically reduce the size of government to levels untold of.

Anarchists of course wish for a total dissolution of government- and by no means does Paul endorse such an idea. But can folks really have their cake and eat it too?

A Ron Paul presidency would at least move society in to a more anarchistic direction in that many useless government bureaucracies will have vanished thus paving the way for greater self reliance and perhaps a more natural collectivization of the species for the purpose of manifesting the common good.

Many folks shy away from the notion of anarchy in that they believe in a world completely devoid of all governmental institutions, untold of criminality would ensue and nothing would be there to stop that. This belief however fails to take in to account the fact that even with the massive governments embedded in to our collective social order today, crime and all manner of unspeakable horror still persist. War is by far the most deadly of diseases wrought on by the hand of government.

Many liberals would argue that government serves wonderful purposes like that of educating children and providing health care. A liberal therefore is the farthest thing from an anarchist- and its a real surprise that many liberals are coming around to Ron Paul! The problem with the liberal world view is that it doesn’t seem to recognize the inherent flaw in allowing for the existence of giant government bureaucracies which serve merely as mafia-like ‘fronts’ for the corrupt and the greedy. A Ron Paul presidency- or an actualized anarchistic world, wouldn’t allow for politicians to hide behind the guise of ‘good will’ and ‘charity’. Good will and charity would be left up to the people to facilitate for themselves.

Many of Paul’s supporters are hard-line constitutionalists and therefore support the existence of a ‘republic’ wherein politicians are voted for so as to make the best possible decisions for us. Anarchists detest such notions. After all, a politician is but a mere man and thus inherently flawed. But if Paul and his supporters succeed in transforming America back in to a constitutional republic, it would certainly be a hell of a lot nicer than living beneath a draconian empire such as what we’re plagued with today!

In order to make Ron Paul president, he has to be voted for. Voting is an activity that anarchists typically shy away from in that they see a vote for anyone as a vote for the state. But as mentioned prior, a Ron Paul presidency would at least help to pave the way for a more open, anarchistic world- and this reason alone is why anarchists should head off to the voting booths in support of Dr. Paul.

What is your point here? That anarchists should support Ron Paul? I think any American citizen with a heart should be supporting Ron Paul. But that does not mean that ultimately we are not better off without the state.

The point would be to emphasise the dangers of devolving back to a constitutional republic as a step towards a faith based anarchic order. The core issues of greed, selfishness, nepotism and cronyism will not magically disappear they will resurface in any way they can. We will inevitably repeat history for that is how history works. Meritocracy is the end of history and the omega point of freedom. Every child is free to choose their political and philosophical views. Where does anarchy allow for this? Everyone is forced into anarchy. Anarchy is akin to saying that god will sort everything by means of a mysterious natural order which cannot be understood just implemented. It is a new religion.

OK, HA HA. You are quite the comedian. Anarchy is force? Sorry, but we have 6,000 years of proof that government is force. Under an anarchical society, if a group of people wanted to live in a commune, there is no state to stop them. You meritocracy is just a different form of slavery. One that you came up with so therefore you can eventually hold the power and tell everyone else how to live there lives. How much of there labor they are allowed to keep and what should be taught in our schools. If you are picking Rousseau over Locke, I don't want anything to do with you world.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2836446/posts

[cellardoor]

I can't respond to your last one because I don't see the Tea Party representing anything you say so how can I respond. The tea party represents modern anarchy? Are you kidding me? They have put there support in the Republican Primary to a big government neo-con. How is that wanting to reduce the state to nothing?

All your other question are answered in the last video I posted. People, free of an oppressive state would be far more willing to help in times of natural disasters. During Hurrican Floyd, the community in Florida where my uncle lives all helped each other by sharing food and alternating homes with generators while they were out of power for a week. If they waiting for help from FEMA, they probably all would have starved to death.

AN ANARCHIST’S VIEW ON A RON PAUL PRESIDENCY
Published December 28, 2011
http://grantjkidney.com/an-anarchists-view-on-a-ron-paul-presidency/
To many anarchists, Ron Paul would seem right up their alley. He wants to drastically reduce the size of government to levels untold of.

Anarchists of course wish for a total dissolution of government- and by no means does Paul endorse such an idea. But can folks really have their cake and eat it too?

A Ron Paul presidency would at least move society in to a more anarchistic direction in that many useless government bureaucracies will have vanished thus paving the way for greater self reliance and perhaps a more natural collectivization of the species for the purpose of manifesting the common good.

Many folks shy away from the notion of anarchy in that they believe in a world completely devoid of all governmental institutions, untold of criminality would ensue and nothing would be there to stop that. This belief however fails to take in to account the fact that even with the massive governments embedded in to our collective social order today, crime and all manner of unspeakable horror still persist. War is by far the most deadly of diseases wrought on by the hand of government.

Many liberals would argue that government serves wonderful purposes like that of educating children and providing health care. A liberal therefore is the farthest thing from an anarchist- and its a real surprise that many liberals are coming around to Ron Paul! The problem with the liberal world view is that it doesn’t seem to recognize the inherent flaw in allowing for the existence of giant government bureaucracies which serve merely as mafia-like ‘fronts’ for the corrupt and the greedy. A Ron Paul presidency- or an actualized anarchistic world, wouldn’t allow for politicians to hide behind the guise of ‘good will’ and ‘charity’. Good will and charity would be left up to the people to facilitate for themselves.

Many of Paul’s supporters are hard-line constitutionalists and therefore support the existence of a ‘republic’ wherein politicians are voted for so as to make the best possible decisions for us. Anarchists detest such notions. After all, a politician is but a mere man and thus inherently flawed. But if Paul and his supporters succeed in transforming America back in to a constitutional republic, it would certainly be a hell of a lot nicer than living beneath a draconian empire such as what we’re plagued with today!

In order to make Ron Paul president, he has to be voted for. Voting is an activity that anarchists typically shy away from in that they see a vote for anyone as a vote for the state. But as mentioned prior, a Ron Paul presidency would at least help to pave the way for a more open, anarchistic world- and this reason alone is why anarchists should head off to the voting booths in support of Dr. Paul.

What is your point here? That anarchists should support Ron Paul? I think any American citizen with a heart should be supporting Ron Paul. But that does not mean that ultimately we are not better off without the state.

The point would be to emphasise the dangers of devolving back to a constitutional republic as a step towards a faith based anarchic order. The core issues of greed, selfishness, nepotism and cronyism will not magically disappear they will resurface in any way they can. We will inevitably repeat history for that is how history works. Meritocracy is the end of history and the omega point of freedom. Every child is free to choose their political and philosophical views. Where does anarchy allow for this? Everyone is forced into anarchy. Anarchy is akin to saying that god will sort everything by means of a mysterious natural order which cannot be understood just implemented. It is a new religion.

OK, HA HA. You are quite the comedian. Anarchy is force? Sorry, but we have 6,000 years of proof that government is force. Under an anarchical society, if a group of people wanted to live in a commune, there is no state to stop them. You meritocracy is just a different form of slavery. One that you came up with so therefore you can eventually hold the power and tell everyone else how to live there lives. How much of there labor they are allowed to keep and what should be taught in our schools. If you are picking Rousseau over Locke, I don't want anything to do with you world.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2836446/posts

Locke’s child is trained to become an individual of action in society, while Rousseau’s child is trained to lead the simple, natural life of beauty and simplicity slightly outside of society therefore can earn citizenship. These distinct goals provide the theoretical basis of their different educational philosophies, both operate under a social contract, which is as far from anarchy as you can get. And yes I approve of Rousseau's version. But crucially my views differ from both in that I think a meritocratic republic is superior to a constitutional republic. I do not hate family, I mean what kind of parent wouldn't want the best possible education for their child? Only parents who think they have the right to dictate to that child what to think. Ie Anarchy, christianity, ect..........


So communism is allowed in anarchy? Communism is a direct attack on merit and would never be allowed in a meritocracy.

[Dennis Leahy]

In light of all this tax IS just theft, it's not only illegal or better yet unlawful, it's not even needed.

The Reset Button recognizes the interplay and interdependence between numerous aspects of governance, not just tax. For example, if ALL tax is taken off the table, kiss universal health care goodbye, say adios to any real education paradigm change, and where would the money come from for even the most basic social infrastructure maintenance? Roads would all need to become toll roads; bridges tool bridges, libraries - if they survive - would become pay-for-book-loan services, fire departments would let your house burn down if your credit card is declined...

I think there is a great need for visionaries - visionaries like Jacque Fresco (even if you don't like his ideas.) Visionaries provide possible tangible targets for an evolving society. Discussion points, somewhere to start from to allow people to refine the ideas (even though much of any society may yearn for nostalgia and want only retro changes to a romantic notion of the past.)

When the Zeitgeist Movie came out and (among other things) presented Fresco's vision he calls The Venus Project, my first thought was that it was too large a giant leap for US citizens to even consider. The vision was shown in its mature form, not the concrete steps to get to it, and not the transition.

The Reset Button was not an attempt to leap towards a far-flung vision beyond the comprehension of most citizens, but a very real next step. A "phased" approach broken into 2 steps, as it became apparent that no changes at all could occur while fascist and oligarch flags fly over the nation. Step one ("Phase I"), kick the oligarchs out of control over elections, and elect only ordinary citizens not connected to corporations. Step 2 ("Phase II"), proposed changes would then be presented to a group of citizens in elected positions, not oligarch's representatives in "elected" positions.

Among the Phase II proposals are a paradigm change in education, which does include fundamental changes in education methods (plural) embracing the very best ideas of visionaries in education whose interest is in nurturing creative and critical thinking. That proposal also includes a $2+ trillion dollar expense to create all new (K-12) school buildings and grounds, to create an environment of learning and wonder equal to the blossoming human mind. (explained in better detail in revision 2) That $2 trillion would also mean immediate (2 to 3 year) jobs (from architectural through all building trades) in every community large enough to have a school or schools.

Education Reform! is not likely to show up on many Occupiers' protest signs, because they are protesting the more immediate, but education reform is the critical insurance - the only real insurance - that our future gets better, that we stop processing and producing an army of obedient dumbed-down factory worker mentality people to take the next steps of societal evolution. It really should not surprise us, for example, that "Drake" and the group he speaks for would be smart enough to say they plan to revamp the monetary system and kill the Federal Reserve and fractional reserve lending, and yet ignorant enough to have the currency backed by precious metals, allowing the oligarchs a back door to control the value of money. People believe what they were taught, what they were indoctrinated to believe - whether the idea is half-baked or well thought-through.

Universal health care (after we stabilize and wean the pharmaceutically-enslaved off of unnecessary meds and replace them with nutritive and herbal remedies), will cost the US less than half of the projected 2.7 trillion that US citizens and insurance companies will pay for health care in 2012. It doesn't matter how long you study the problem, no one can predict how low the costs of universal health care will go, but when all food is organic, all water is pure, stress (especially artificially fear-induced stress) is greatly reduced, herbal and alternative healing modalities are fully embraced, and probably 95% of all pharmaceutical drugs are eliminated... the costs will be a small fraction of what they are now (and we will all enjoy much greater health and rapid and real cures from ailments.) But, it will require a transition phase, which could last 2 to 5 years. In those years, universal health care will still cost trillions of dollars. Where wil the money come from?

If corporations are hit too hard with corporate tax, wouldn't most corporations simply flee from the US?

And what about the whole "sin tax" concept? Taxing cigarettes, alcohol, gambling, and the income of corporations that produce mainly frivolous crap - aren't we putting ourselves in the ethical dilemma of counting on "sins" for the revenue we need? Aren't we actually promoting "sins?" In many places in the US, taxpayers "burden" of paying for public schools was alleviated to a large degree with gambling revenues. C'mon, this is a bullsh!t way to run a society. Counting on "dirty" money to run our society?

I'd like to start thinking of a post-election reform era tax, not a business-as-usual, 100% corrupt government taxing us. Think of tax money as being a resource pool of a percentage of "clean" citizen's money, for those things that require a resource pool (like infrastructure maintenance, universal health care, libraries, fire departments, schools...)

(Sorry, this got a bit long.)

Dennis

[risveglio]

Locke’s child is trained to become an individual of action in society, while Rousseau’s child is trained to lead the simple, natural life of beauty and simplicity slightly outside of society therefore can earn citizenship. These distinct goals provide the theoretical basis of their different educational philosophies, both operate under a social contract, which is as far from anarchy as you can get. And yes I approve of Rousseau's version. But crucially my views differ from both in that I think a meritocratic republic is superior to a constitutional republic. I do not hate family, I mean what kind of parent wouldn't want the best possible education for their child? Only parents who think they have the right to dictate to that child what to think. Ie Anarchy, christianity, ect..........

What? No! How does a parent that believes in a voluntary form of government want to dictate what a child thinks? Did you watch the video I posted? Your meritocracy will lead us right back into tyranny. Who will decide what is taught in your wonderful schools? In my indoctrination center, I was taught Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Teddy Roosevelt were good presidents. Once I broke free from these institutions and started to learn for myself, I realized they were among the worst of our leaders. Keynes was taught as the be all end all of monetary problems when now I can see quite easily Hayek had it right. Now, our local schools of indoctrination want to eliminate Thomas Jefferson and you think a state controlled government that teaches our children garbage like Rousseau and takes all our earned money at the end of our lives is going to be a better society? You want to eliminate property rights? You want to destroy the individual and the family? No, I want to opt out! Its a ****ing evil concept, I am sorry, I would rather the damn reset button, which at least keeps some idea of the individual than this flawed commune that will lead us right back into our boxes.

[cellardoor]

Locke’s child is trained to become an individual of action in society, while Rousseau’s child is trained to lead the simple, natural life of beauty and simplicity slightly outside of society therefore can earn citizenship. These distinct goals provide the theoretical basis of their different educational philosophies, both operate under a social contract, which is as far from anarchy as you can get. And yes I approve of Rousseau's version. But crucially my views differ from both in that I think a meritocratic republic is superior to a constitutional republic. I do not hate family, I mean what kind of parent wouldn't want the best possible education for their child? Only parents who think they have the right to dictate to that child what to think. Ie Anarchy, christianity, ect..........

What? No! How does a parent that believes in a voluntary form of government want to dictate what a child thinks? Did you watch the video I posted? Your meritocracy will lead us right back into tyranny. Who will decide what is taught in your wonderful schools? In my indoctrination center, I was taught Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Teddy Roosevelt were good presidents. Once I broke free from these institutions and started to learn for myself, I realized they were among the worst of our leaders. Keynes was taught as the be all end all of monetary problems when now I can see quite easily Hayek had it right. Now, our local schools of indoctrination want to eliminate Thomas Jefferson and you think a state controlled government that teaches our children garbage like Rousseau and takes all our earned money at the end of our lives is going to be a better society? You want to eliminate property rights? You want to destroy the individual and the family? No, I want to opt out! Its a ****ing evil concept, I am sorry, I would rather the damn reset button, which at least keeps some idea of the individual than this flawed commune that will lead us right back into our boxes.

The education system at present is a sham. In no way do I support it, it is in need of radical reform, and the people will decide, the most qualified and unprejudiced. I seek to optimise the individuals freedom through choice, you are completely missing the point. Resetting the system and sending everyone back to the stone age is and evil idea, it's completely selfish. It's like saying "I'll look after myself, **** everyone else!".
And when have I said I wish to eliminate property rights? You are putting words into my mouth. The only families that I wish to destroy are the ones that have held onto power and wealth. We all deserve to start life on an equal footing, what is evil in that? You are the one promoting a system that will benefit the OWO, do you think the economy will disappear with out a government? No law for us = no law for them = hell.

[risveglio]

And when have I said I wish to eliminate property rights?

Number 4 of your list.
4) The end of private capitalism

How do you have private property without capitalism? Also, how are you going to protect property if you take everything a man earned in his life upon his death. You don't see what this will lead to? When I hit my mid 80s or develop some disease, I would spend all my money like a kid in a candy store. Buying anything and everything for my friends and family so that the evil state could not get there hands on what I own. If you think humans are so selfish that they would not help others without government force then what makes you think they will constrain themselves under this central power system. It's bogus. Let the selfish be selfish. In a free society, there will be more than enough good people in the world the help the few that could not stand on there own. Without the false safety net of government most people will be self sufficient, the only ones that will truly need help on a regular basis are those born with mental or physical handicaps.

[Dennis Leahy]

Again, I don't think anarchy or a meritocracy are even on the table. I hope to have a discussion about poorly thought-out financial positions, focused on taxes and commodity-backed money.

This will be a bit big, but for ease of reading, I'm going to plop the "Tax Reform" section of Phase II of The Reset Button here, rather than trying to explain the idea in bits and pieces. I would hope that people might comment based on the probable reality that there will be a system of taxation, and whether or not this addresses it fairly (in stark contrast to the current, corrupt, mess.)

If we are going to be taxed (and again, I cannot see where the money for social services and infrastructure will come form if there is no tax), would this be a vast improvement over the current system, or not?

This is US-based, but I'd also like to hear input from those around the world who believe they have workable solutions. I realize many countries already have universal health care, and you already realize that is comes from pooling your money.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6.) Tax Reform

Background:
Taxation has been a roller-coaster ride in the United States, with maximum federal income tax rates as high as 92% and as low as 28% over the past 60 years (currently at 35%.) The tax code is ridiculously complex, and ridiculously full of loopholes for corporations. State tax rates from 0% to 11% create tax havens and incentives for business activity in certain States, and business deserts in other States. Local taxes and property taxes create a situation where retired or non-income-earning families can lose a home due to inability to pay property taxes, and these taxes can create islands of wealth where local services and schools are top-notch, while most others suffer from lack of local funding. In addition to the federal income tax, several other taxes are hidden in plain sight by calling them “deductions” or “contributions” rather than taxes (FICA: Social Security, Medicare; and possibly health insurance deductions.)

A greatly simplified, fair system of taxation is critically needed, with the elimination of loopholes for corporations, and the complete elimination of all State and Local taxes. A straight line rate of tax increase percentage based on adjusted gross income utterly simplifies federal income tax, and a percentage cap means a flat tax rate for high (individual and corporate) earners.

A nationwide sales tax on non-essential goods and services (even in States not currently charging a State sales tax) provides a level playing field for all States, for interstate commerce and Internet sales.

The major drawback with estate tax is the possible loss of a family farm with a generational change, and this requires exemptions to family farm lands, to ensure family farms are not destroyed by estate taxation. Without estate taxation, family empires are maintained, and wealth accumulation increases unchecked, generation to generation.

Astronomical corporate salaries have allowed corporations a huge tax loophole, as the salaries have been allowed to be considered as normal operating expenses. Corporate salary cutoff, for the purpose of tax calculations: Salaries above a ratio of 1:15 (lowest paid full-time employee salary) will not be allowed as operating expenses in tax calculations. Salary expenditures above the 1:15 ratio will be taxed.

Corporations doing business in the US or operating on US soil must pay their fair share of taxes.

No organizational body, federal, state, or local government to be permitted to offer tax breaks to any individual or business entity.

Tax reform to include:


All local taxes eliminated.
All property tax/real estate tax eliminated.
All State taxes eliminated.
No sales tax on items of need (food, medicines, non-luxury clothing, non-luxury single family residence, etc.)
National sale tax of 15% on all “luxury” (non-necessity) items. This tax applies in every State for all transactions on non-necessity goods, is collected locally at point of purchase or Internet transaction (interstate or intrastate), and sent to the State where collected, and the State sends it to the US Department of the Treasury.
Estate tax of 15% on estate (excluding family farms) value above $2M. Family farms: estate tax of 15% on estate value above $3M, not including currently working or fallow field arable land value. No forced sale of estate that becomes the primary residence for estate beneficiary. No forced sale of family farm estate.
IRS to be eliminated. All federal tax collection and disbursement of tax monies to be under the jurisdiction of the US Department of the Treasury.
New, simplified federal income tax program.



Federal income tax to be collected by the State governments. Then: total tax revenue summed and reported, 50% of monies collected by each State to be retained by each State Treasury, and 50% sent to the US Department of the Treasury (for disbursal to federal programs, and the remainder apportioned back to individual States.)

For the purpose of calculating adjusted gross income (individual, business, corporate), the only tax write-off is charitable giving to registered, US Treasury Dept. approved charity. US Treasury Dept. approved charity shall consist of not-for-profit 501(c)(3) Public Charity organizations, operating within the required maximum 1:15 ratio of lowest:highest paid, full-time employee compensation, operating under a maximum salary cap for any executive of $200K, where a maximum of 25% of donations are used for operating expenses, salaries and fund-raising expenses, and a minimum of 75% of donations are channeled out of the organization and directed towards its programs and services. All churches wishing to be considered as Public Charities must file for not-for-profit 501(c)(3) Public Charity organization status. Private Foundations are not considered as Public Charity organizations.

Considering no State tax, no local/property tax, and full universal health care costs to come from federal income tax, the vast majority of US citizens will be keeping a higher percentage of their earnings than any time in the past 97 years, retirees can relax, freed from local/property tax and freed of the burden of taxes on retirement income. Even the highest earning individuals will have lower overall tax rates, especially considering no additional medical contributions. And, with a flat tax rate at the high end of the earnings scale, no disincentive to earning. Corporations will now pay their fair share of taxes, and will be impacted. This is the end of the corporate taxation “free-ride.”

Action:
For 2012, federal (individual, business, and corporate) income tax to be a simple, graduated 1:1 line scale (x-axis=net income; y axis=tax rate), with 2 points:


minimum amount of income to pay any income tax (set at $10K adjusted gross income, at 6% tax rate, for 2012.)
slope cutoff point (set at $300K adjusted gross income, at 35% tax rate, for 2012.) Tax rate is flat after that point.

2012 Individual Income Tax levels: (1% increase per $10K income, up to $300K, then tax rate flattens.)

Minimum income point and slope cutoff point to be set by Congress each year.

Salary cap for tax calculations based upon maximum 1:15 ratio, lowest paid full-time employee:highest paid employee.

Adjusted Gross Income Calculations:

Adjusted Gross Income: Individual:
For individuals, gross income excludes all retirement and pension income.
(gross income) – (charitable donations) = (adjusted gross income)

Adjusted Gross Income: Business/Corporate (sole proprietor, partnership, S-Corp, C-corp, B-corp)
(gross income) – (cost of goods sold+operating expenses+charitable donations+below cap salaries) = (adjusted gross income)

The proposed tax chart image that is inserted here, in The Reset Button document, is too big to display, so here is a link, or click on the thumbnail image below:
http://www.resetbutton2011.org/Images/2012TaxChart.jpg

http://www.resetbutton2011.org/Images/2012TaxChartThumb.jpg (http://www.resetbutton2011.org/Images/2012TaxChart.jpg)

2012 Individual Income Tax examples:
Household adjusted gross income: under $10K. 0% tax rate. Tax due = $0
Household adjusted gross income: $10K. 6% tax rate. Tax due = $600
Household adjusted gross income: $30K. 8% tax rate. Tax due = $2,400
Household adjusted gross income: $50K. 10% tax rate. Tax due = $5,000
Household adjusted gross income: $75K. 12.5% tax rate. Tax due = $9,375
Household adjusted gross income: $100K. 15% tax rate. Tax due = $15,000
Household adjusted gross income: $150K. 20% tax rate. Tax due = $30,000
Household adjusted gross income: $200K. 25% tax rate. Tax due = $50,000
Household adjusted gross income: $300K. 35% tax rate. Tax due = $105,000
Household adjusted gross income: $500K. 35% tax rate. Tax due = $175,000

2012 Corporate Income Tax examples:
Corporate adjusted gross income: $1M. 35% tax rate. Tax due = $350,000
Corporate adjusted gross income: $10M. 35% tax rate. Tax due = $3.5M
Corporate adjusted gross income: $100M. 35% tax rate. Tax due = $35M
Corporate adjusted gross income: $1B. 35% tax rate. Tax due = $350M

oops - wrong chart embedded at first. (fixed now, correct chart inserted)

{edit} Note that this would really becomes an individual income tax, not a household tax, because there is a disadvantage to combining income, for tax purposes. For example, if 2 individuals in a household each had just under $10K in adjusted income, they would pay no tax. If they combined the income on one tax form, they would have made $20K, and would pay 7% tax or $1400. A better example would be a couple that each earned $30K adjusted income. They would each pay 8% or $2400, for a total of $4800 filing separately. A "joint" income of $60K would be $6600 in tax, at 11%. Again, no advantage to combine income, for tax purposes. However, filling out a tax form would take maybe 5 minutes for any individual (no BS, no loopholes), so filing a tax return for each income earner would not be time consuming..

[cellardoor]

And when have I said I wish to eliminate property rights?

Number 4 of your list.
4) The end of private capitalism

How do you have private property without capitalism? Also, how are you going to protect property if you take everything a man earned in his life upon his death. You don't see what this will lead to? When I hit my mid 80s or develop some disease, I would spend all my money like a kid in a candy store. Buying anything and everything for my friends and family so that the evil state could not get there hands on what I own. If you think humans are so selfish that they would not help others without government force then what makes you think they will constrain themselves under this central power system. It's bogus. Let the selfish be selfish. In a free society, there will be more than enough good people in the world the help the few that could not stand on there own. Without the false safety net of government most people will be self sufficient, the only ones that will truly need help on a regular basis are those born with mental or physical handicaps.

To be replaced with public capitalism FYI free market capitalism is crony capitalism. The selfish capitalists will never let you or I be free that is just wishful thinking.

[risveglio]

And when have I said I wish to eliminate property rights?

Number 4 of your list.
4) The end of private capitalism

How do you have private property without capitalism? Also, how are you going to protect property if you take everything a man earned in his life upon his death. You don't see what this will lead to? When I hit my mid 80s or develop some disease, I would spend all my money like a kid in a candy store. Buying anything and everything for my friends and family so that the evil state could not get there hands on what I own. If you think humans are so selfish that they would not help others without government force then what makes you think they will constrain themselves under this central power system. It's bogus. Let the selfish be selfish. In a free society, there will be more than enough good people in the world the help the few that could not stand on there own. Without the false safety net of government most people will be self sufficient, the only ones that will truly need help on a regular basis are those born with mental or physical handicaps.

To be replaced with public capitalism FYI free market capitalism is crony capitalism. The selfish capitalists will never let you or I be free that is just wishful thinking.

Public Capitalism? Yeah, that doesn't sound like complete tyranny. How is free market capitalism crony capitalism? In a free market system you vote with your wallet. If someone provides a bad service, you do not return to them. Corporatism, the deals between government and big business is crony capitalism. Want a great example of corporatism, look at the FDA and big pharma.

[cellardoor]

And when have I said I wish to eliminate property rights?

Number 4 of your list.
4) The end of private capitalism

How do you have private property without capitalism? Also, how are you going to protect property if you take everything a man earned in his life upon his death. You don't see what this will lead to? When I hit my mid 80s or develop some disease, I would spend all my money like a kid in a candy store. Buying anything and everything for my friends and family so that the evil state could not get there hands on what I own. If you think humans are so selfish that they would not help others without government force then what makes you think they will constrain themselves under this central power system. It's bogus. Let the selfish be selfish. In a free society, there will be more than enough good people in the world the help the few that could not stand on there own. Without the false safety net of government most people will be self sufficient, the only ones that will truly need help on a regular basis are those born with mental or physical handicaps.

To be replaced with public capitalism FYI free market capitalism is crony capitalism. The selfish capitalists will never let you or I be free that is just wishful thinking.

Public Capitalism? Yeah, that doesn't sound like complete tyranny. How is free market capitalism crony capitalism? In a free market system you vote with your wallet. If someone provides a bad service, you do not return to them. Corporatism, the deals between government and big business is crony capitalism. Want a great example of corporatism, look at the FDA and big pharma.

One writer/philosopher released a novel that the Old World Order now view as their supreme intellectual and moral justification. That book is Ayn Rand’s notorious Atlas Shrugged, published in 1957. Any expression of support for this book should be taken for what it is – an explicit endorsement of the Old World Order, of the world of privileged elites trampling over the rights of everyone else.

Rand was a fanatical advocate of unregulated, unrestrained free markets. "The market is infallible" was her mantra. We know exactly where Rand’s worldview gets us – the financial crisis we are enduring right now. For the last thirty years, the Old World Order have been able to do whatever they liked in terms of the “free market”. No controls were imposed, no brakes applied. We had unregulated markets in full flow – leading to the current disaster that has cost millions of people their jobs and livelihoods: it’s the “parasites, moochers and looters” i.e. the hardworking taxpayers of the world who are picking up the OWO’s tab.

Rand’s most famous disciple of recent times is none other than Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, leading member of the Old World Order and one of the key architects of the current credit crunch that has wrecked the lives of so many millions.

[risveglio]

And when have I said I wish to eliminate property rights?

Number 4 of your list.
4) The end of private capitalism

How do you have private property without capitalism? Also, how are you going to protect property if you take everything a man earned in his life upon his death. You don't see what this will lead to? When I hit my mid 80s or develop some disease, I would spend all my money like a kid in a candy store. Buying anything and everything for my friends and family so that the evil state could not get there hands on what I own. If you think humans are so selfish that they would not help others without government force then what makes you think they will constrain themselves under this central power system. It's bogus. Let the selfish be selfish. In a free society, there will be more than enough good people in the world the help the few that could not stand on there own. Without the false safety net of government most people will be self sufficient, the only ones that will truly need help on a regular basis are those born with mental or physical handicaps.

To be replaced with public capitalism FYI free market capitalism is crony capitalism. The selfish capitalists will never let you or I be free that is just wishful thinking.

Public Capitalism? Yeah, that doesn't sound like complete tyranny. How is free market capitalism crony capitalism? In a free market system you vote with your wallet. If someone provides a bad service, you do not return to them. Corporatism, the deals between government and big business is crony capitalism. Want a great example of corporatism, look at the FDA and big pharma.

One writer/philosopher released a novel that the Old World Order now view as their supreme intellectual and moral justification. That book is Ayn Rand’s notorious Atlas Shrugged, published in 1957. Any expression of support for this book should be taken for what it is – an explicit endorsement of the Old World Order, of the world of privileged elites trampling over the rights of everyone else.

Rand was a fanatical advocate of unregulated, unrestrained free markets. "The market is infallible" was her mantra. We know exactly where Rand’s worldview gets us – the financial crisis we are enduring right now. For the last thirty years, the Old World Order have been able to do whatever they liked in terms of the “free market”. No controls were imposed, no brakes applied. We had unregulated markets in full flow – leading to the current disaster that has cost millions of people their jobs and livelihoods: it’s the “parasites, moochers and looters” i.e. the hardworking taxpayers of the world who are picking up the OWO’s tab.

Rand’s most famous disciple of recent times is none other than Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, leading member of the Old World Order and one of the key architects of the current credit crunch that has wrecked the lives of so many millions.

You are so confused. I can see there is no way for us to go any further. Keep believing you are going to get an answer from the state. Keep promoting these ideas of forcing people to be moral and good with the use of force. Greenspan may of talked as if he was a supporter of Rand but look at everything he did as Fed Chairman goes against Rand's objectivism. Now I am not going to stand here and defend Ayn Rand as I am no expert but I do know the left, which you obviously are follower of, have twisted and turned everything she taught. Please, open your mind a little, just a little.

Greenspan was against a gold standard. Greenspan kept interest rates artificially low for years. These are not policies that Ayn Rand would promote.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/alan-greenspan-betrayed-ayn-rand-ruined-economy-says-124734929.html

[cellardoor]

And when have I said I wish to eliminate property rights?

Number 4 of your list.
4) The end of private capitalism

How do you have private property without capitalism? Also, how are you going to protect property if you take everything a man earned in his life upon his death. You don't see what this will lead to? When I hit my mid 80s or develop some disease, I would spend all my money like a kid in a candy store. Buying anything and everything for my friends and family so that the evil state could not get there hands on what I own. If you think humans are so selfish that they would not help others without government force then what makes you think they will constrain themselves under this central power system. It's bogus. Let the selfish be selfish. In a free society, there will be more than enough good people in the world the help the few that could not stand on there own. Without the false safety net of government most people will be self sufficient, the only ones that will truly need help on a regular basis are those born with mental or physical handicaps.

To be replaced with public capitalism FYI free market capitalism is crony capitalism. The selfish capitalists will never let you or I be free that is just wishful thinking.

Public Capitalism? Yeah, that doesn't sound like complete tyranny. How is free market capitalism crony capitalism? In a free market system you vote with your wallet. If someone provides a bad service, you do not return to them. Corporatism, the deals between government and big business is crony capitalism. Want a great example of corporatism, look at the FDA and big pharma.

One writer/philosopher released a novel that the Old World Order now view as their supreme intellectual and moral justification. That book is Ayn Rand’s notorious Atlas Shrugged, published in 1957. Any expression of support for this book should be taken for what it is – an explicit endorsement of the Old World Order, of the world of privileged elites trampling over the rights of everyone else.

Rand was a fanatical advocate of unregulated, unrestrained free markets. "The market is infallible" was her mantra. We know exactly where Rand’s worldview gets us – the financial crisis we are enduring right now. For the last thirty years, the Old World Order have been able to do whatever they liked in terms of the “free market”. No controls were imposed, no brakes applied. We had unregulated markets in full flow – leading to the current disaster that has cost millions of people their jobs and livelihoods: it’s the “parasites, moochers and looters” i.e. the hardworking taxpayers of the world who are picking up the OWO’s tab.

Rand’s most famous disciple of recent times is none other than Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, leading member of the Old World Order and one of the key architects of the current credit crunch that has wrecked the lives of so many millions.

You are so confused. I can see there is no way for us to go any further. Keep believing you are going to get an answer from the state. Keep promoting these ideas of forcing people to be moral and good with the use of force. Greenspan may of talked as if he was a supporter of Rand but look at everything he did as Fed Chairman goes against Rand's objectivism. Now I am not going to stand here and defend Ayn Rand as I am no expert but I do know the left, which you obviously are follower of, have twisted and turned everything she taught. Please, open your mind a little, just a little.

Greenspan was against a gold standard. Greenspan kept interest rates artificially low for years. These are not policies that Ayn Rand would promote.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/alan-greenspan-betrayed-ayn-rand-ruined-economy-says-124734929.html

Ayn Rand (originally Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum) was born in 1905 in Tsarist Russia to a well-off family. In 1925, she secured a visa to visit American relatives, and never returned to Russia (which had overthrown the tyrannical Tsarist regime in 1917 and brought Rand’s privileged world to an end, to her disgust).

Atlas Shrugged asks the question what would happen to the world if the global elite – the Old World Order (Rand doesn’t use this term, but it’s exactly what she means) – went on strike. Her conclusion is that the world would collapse. The world, Rand maintained, was full of "parasites", “looters” and “moochers” – the people who envy, resent and resist the OWO, and try to take, often by force (allegedly), what rightfully belongs to the OWO elite. Rand’s worldview is so obnoxious that she has been branded as one of the most evil figures of modern intellectual history. That reputation is fully deserved.

You open your mind, no actually if you want to be a anarcho-capitalist slave go ahead no one is forcing no one to do anything. I have been more than polite to you yet you continue to be condescending towards me. So I will take my leave, thank you for the discussion. And thank you Denis for opening up this debate.

[risveglio]

Rand’s worldview is so obnoxious that she has been branded as one of the most evil figures of modern intellectual history. That reputation is fully deserved.


According to who? FDR is praised and so is Woodrow Wilson and they were horribly evil people. Why should I accept the opinions of the controllers? Also, Voluntarism is not Objectivism and we find our answer from Von Mises and not Rand. But you feel the need to have a monster so you choose Rand who is an easy target cause she was an atheist and taught how selfishness could be seen as a virtue. We would be far better off with a free market than what we have today. The marriage of big government and the state. If we listened to Rand, or to Mises, two quite different philosophies, we would not be in endless wars, we would not be in debt to the Chinese government. Healthcare and Education would not be ridiculously expensive with diminishing qualities. You want to put me in the slave box of your meritocracy. I would not be a slave under Anarcho-Capitalism, I would be free and prosperous to succeed or fail without your evil hands controlling my life!

[cellardoor]

Rand’s worldview is so obnoxious that she has been branded as one of the most evil figures of modern intellectual history. That reputation is fully deserved.


According to who? FDR is praised and so is Woodrow Wilson and they were horribly evil people. Why should I accept the opinions of the controllers? Also, Voluntarism is not Objectivism and we find our answer from Von Mises and not Rand. But you feel the need to have a monster so you choose Rand who is an easy target cause she was an atheist and taught how selfishness could be seen as a virtue. We would be far better off with a free market than what we have today. The marriage of big government and the state. If we listened to Rand, or to Mises, two quite different philosophies, we would not be in endless wars, we would not be in debt to the Chinese government. Healthcare and Education would not be ridiculously expensive with diminishing qualities. You want to put me in the slave box of your meritocracy. I would not be a slave under Anarcho-Capitalism, I would be free and prosperous to succeed and fail without your evil hands controlling my life!

Despite Rand being a pro-choice atheist,[162] the political figures who cite Rand as an influence are most often members of the United States Republican Party.[163] A 1987 article in The New York Times referred to her as the Reagan administration's "novelist laureate".[164] Republican Congressmen and conservative pundits have acknowledged her influence on their lives and recommended her novels.[165]
The late-2000s financial crisis spurred renewed interest in her works, especially Atlas Shrugged, which some saw as foreshadowing the crisis,[166] and opinion articles compared real-world events with the plot of the novel.[167] During this time, signs mentioning Rand and her fictional hero John Galt appeared at Tea Party protests.[168] There was also increased criticism of her ideas, especially from the political left, with critics blaming the economic crisis on her support of selfishness and free markets, particularly through her influence on Alan Greenspan.[169] For example, Mother Jones remarked that "Rand's particular genius has always been her ability to turn upside down traditional hierarchies and recast the wealthy, the talented, and the powerful as the oppressed",[162] while The Nation alleged similarities between the "moral syntax of Randianism" and fascismhttp://www.thenation.com/article/garbage-and-gravitas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

[risveglio]

Oh please. Mother Jones? Really? What free market? How do you have capitalism without sound money? How do you have capitalism with artificially low interest rates. How do you have capitalism with too big to fail? You talk about the evil of Ayn Rand and then you quote Mother Jones? Are you serious?

[cellardoor]

Oh please. Mother Jones? Really? What free market? How do you have capitalism without sound money? How do you have capitalism with artificially low interest rates. How do you have capitalism with too big to fail? You talk about the evil of Ayn Rand and then you quote Mother Jones? Are you serious?
http://www.thenation.com/article/garbage-and-gravitas
Rand's defenders like to claim that what Rand has in mind by "life" is not simply biological preservation but the good life of Aristotle's great-souled man, what Rand characterizes as "the survival of man qua man." And it's true that Rand isn't much taken with mere life or life for life's sake. That would be too pedestrian. But Rand's naturalism is far removed from Aristotle's. For him life is a given; for her it is a question, and that very question is what makes life, on its own, such an object and source of reflection.

What gives life value is the ever present possibility that it might (and one day will) end. Rand never speaks of life as a given or ground. It is a conditional, a choice we must make, not once but again and again. Death casts a pall, lending our days an urgency and weight they otherwise would lack. It demands wakefulness, an alertness to the fatefulness of each and every moment. "One must never act like a zombie," Rand enjoins. Death, in short, makes life dramatic. It makes our choices—not just the big ones but the little ones we make every day, every second—matter. In the Randian universe, it's high noon all the time. Far from being exhausting or enervating, such an existence, at least to Rand and her characters, is enlivening and exciting.

If this idea has any moral resonance, it will be heard not in the writings of Aristotle but in the drill march of fascism. The notion of life as a struggle against and unto death, of every moment laden with destruction, every choice pregnant with destiny, every action weighed upon by annihilation, its lethal pressure generating moral meaning—these are the watchwords of the European night. In his famous Berlin Sportpalast speech of February 1943, Goebbels declared, "Whatever serves it and its struggle for existence is good and must be sustained and nurtured. Whatever is injurious to it and its struggle for existence is evil and must be removed and eliminated." The "it" in question is the German nation, not the Randian individual. But if we strip the pronoun of its antecedent—and listen for the background hum of triumph and will, being and nonbeing, preservation and elimination—the similarities between the moral syntax of Randianism and of fascism become clear. Goodness is measured by life, life is a struggle against death and only our daily vigilance ensures that one does not prevail over the other.

[risveglio]

Oh please. Mother Jones? Really? What free market? How do you have capitalism without sound money? How do you have capitalism with artificially low interest rates. How do you have capitalism with too big to fail? You talk about the evil of Ayn Rand and then you quote Mother Jones? Are you serious?
http://www.thenation.com/article/garbage-and-gravitas
Rand's defenders like to claim that what Rand has in mind by "life" is not simply biological preservation but the good life of Aristotle's great-souled man, what Rand characterizes as "the survival of man qua man." And it's true that Rand isn't much taken with mere life or life for life's sake. That would be too pedestrian. But Rand's naturalism is far removed from Aristotle's. For him life is a given; for her it is a question, and that very question is what makes life, on its own, such an object and source of reflection.

What gives life value is the ever present possibility that it might (and one day will) end. Rand never speaks of life as a given or ground. It is a conditional, a choice we must make, not once but again and again. Death casts a pall, lending our days an urgency and weight they otherwise would lack. It demands wakefulness, an alertness to the fatefulness of each and every moment. "One must never act like a zombie," Rand enjoins. Death, in short, makes life dramatic. It makes our choices—not just the big ones but the little ones we make every day, every second—matter. In the Randian universe, it's high noon all the time. Far from being exhausting or enervating, such an existence, at least to Rand and her characters, is enlivening and exciting.

If this idea has any moral resonance, it will be heard not in the writings of Aristotle but in the drill march of fascism. The notion of life as a struggle against and unto death, of every moment laden with destruction, every choice pregnant with destiny, every action weighed upon by annihilation, its lethal pressure generating moral meaning—these are the watchwords of the European night. In his famous Berlin Sportpalast speech of February 1943, Goebbels declared, "Whatever serves it and its struggle for existence is good and must be sustained and nurtured. Whatever is injurious to it and its struggle for existence is evil and must be removed and eliminated." The "it" in question is the German nation, not the Randian individual. But if we strip the pronoun of its antecedent—and listen for the background hum of triumph and will, being and nonbeing, preservation and elimination—the similarities between the moral syntax of Randianism and of fascism become clear. Goodness is measured by life, life is a struggle against death and only our daily vigilance ensures that one does not prevail over the other.

Keep concentrating on Ayn Rand and promoting your Soros funded sources. To lump Rand with all free market capitalist is just intellectually dishonest but honesty probably doesn't mean much to you since you get your news from Mother Jones. A news magazine that makes Fox and MSNBC seem fair and balanced. Fascism is Corporatism and is the complete opposite Free Market Capitalism.

Ayn Rand condemned libertarianism as being a greater threat to freedom and capitalism than both modern liberalism and conservationism. So, bringing up Rand in this conversation is just a tactic to move away from the point that we would rather a country free of the state where humans are born as free individuals than your idea where the state owns the individual. Why you want to concentrate on Rand is obvious, first because she is so misunderstood and second because, as the left does so well, you think you can lump all Voluntarist, Anarcho-Capitalist, Anacho-Communist, Liberatarians, and Miniarchist together under Rand, an easy target.

[Dennis Leahy]

I think you two have an interesting conversation going on, and it deserves its own thread. It is related, but tangential to the topic I started. Yes, I know topics organically meander, but this really is a separate topic. Maybe call it Meritocracy versus Libertarianism.

Dennis

[risveglio]

I think you two have an interesting conversation going on, and it deserves its own thread. It is related, but tangential to the topic I started. Yes, I know topics organically meander, but this really is a separate topic. Maybe call it Meritocracy versus Libertarianism.

Dennis


There is no need. It is not going anywhere. Though to get back on topic and to answer your question "would this be a vast improvement over the current system, or not?". Yes I do think it would be a big improvement. After you cleared up the direct democracy point I felt it was good enough to share and have shared the link with friends that are far more informed than I am that have political views on the left and right. I have shared it with communists, socialists, libertarians and anarchist and will share their views here if I receive any responses.

[risveglio]

Ok, the first couple response came back but the Reset Button was not taken too well. Of the 3 response I got, the kindest was from someone who leans right and who said he has seen it already.

"I can't really take a substantiated stand for or against the reset button, though I always have been intrigued by this. Here's a question: given the complications brought forth by human nature, is it really possible?"

The next responses from someone more right of center but he really did not like it. "Quick scan, draws up strawman about capitalism, and wants to blend 'the good parts' of it with social democracy, yet later says we will be ruled by rules not rulers. Social Democracy is essentially rule by majority, which in my mind is the same as tyranny by majority Not really interested in keeping our individual rights, but rather subjecting us to the rule of the masses.....no thanks, I will pass."

Next response. "Did you read some of the Stock Market reform and tax reform? Complete [expletive] disaster! This looks like an attempt to aggregate power at the Federal level, not only am I not interested, I now consider this down right dangerous. Okay that is a bit of an over statement since this isn't going anywhere anyway but you get what I am saying? Disallow any trading of precious metals or strategic metals? Disallow option trading? Disallow short selling? My guess is the authors are statist who do not even know half of what they are saying. Disallow trading of any foodstuffs (like grain) so now what are we totally going back to the 14th century? I mean disallow trading of food stuffs? How would grain get to market? And exactly which 100+ millions of our citizens would we choose to starve to death? This guy is an obvious ideologue with no working perspective of how markets serve people and make our world better. If implemented I would chose open rebellion and armed opposition, no questions asked and with no hesitation."

Back to the drawing board?

[ThePythonicCow]

For anyone who wants to get a real in depth look at this subject and it's origins, I suggest getting a hold of The recent Joseph P. Farrell book, 'Babylon's Banksters:The alchemy of deep Physics, High Finance and Ancient Religion'. (An essay concerning the relationships between Aether Physics, Economics, Astrology, Alchemy, Geomancy, Ancient Temples, And the Politics of suppression)

I've just recently "discovered" Joseph P. Farrell, and am half way through his earlier "Saucers, Swastikas and Psyops: A History of a Breakaway Civilization: Hidden Aerospace Technologies and Psychological Operations" (short titles are not his forte.) Based on some other reviews I encountered yesterday and some of the more recent Farrell videos on Youtube, I just ordered his "Babylon's Banksters" book.

I had not realized until now the strength of the Germans in these areas (physics, finance and the esoteric) before and during World War II, and how strong is the case that they (Nazi's, in a word) have continued their work and impact on world events since then. Farrell's description of this breakaway civilization rings true to me.

My tin foil hat brain wonders if the modern day Nazi's might have set-up their arch enemies the Anglo-American banksters on 9/11.

Perhaps the Zionists, the Banksters, and the Neocons thought they were involved in a less dramatic version of 9/11, which included the various conventional bombs in the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings, the apparent hijacking and crashing into the WTC towers of two airplanes, the concurrent military exercises and stand-down, the insurance fraud, the destruction or theft of various financial or incriminating documents and gold, ...

But perhaps the modern day Nazi's provided the "directed energy" weapons that took down the towers, without telling the Zionists, the Banksters, or the Neocons of that ahead of time. Such would have an affect like Truman's signing off on the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan in 1945, or the hidden in plain sight assassination of JFK in Dallas in 1963 ... striking fear in the hearts of one's biggest enemies.

Such a bold display of brutal power would be the "disclosure" we have been waiting for, except that they neglected to tell the public what had been disclosed. Instead it would be a bit of one-oneupmanship by the Nazi's over the Banksters, Neocons and Zionists ... letting them know their days might be numbered.

Now power seems to be shifting to the East. China has a national bank, issuing its own currency, rather than a Bankster controlled Federal Bank issuing debt based currency. Iran's Meshe is flaunting awareness of deep physics. Likely China and Russia are far along in their engineering of such physics. Perhaps the gold that was stolen from Fort Knox didn't end up in Clinton's or Bush's sock drawer, but rather in the hands of these Nazi's. Perhaps the trillions of dollars of Federal Reserve bailout "loans", repos and swaps ended up benefiting the Nazi's and making more perilous the position of the Fed.

The unexpected (by others) use of deep black energy technology to dustify the WTC towers on 9/11, when combined with the increasingly desperate tyranny of the current Western leaders and larceny of the current Western banksters seems to be making their position increasingly desperate. This may be just as the breakaway civilization of modern day Nazi's intend.

What I wouldn't give to see the look in Dick Cheney's face, the first time he saw the WTC towers vanish in a cloud of fine dust, if indeed, as I speculate here, he wasn't expecting that.

The above are obviously wild eyed conspiracy speculations. But in my view, understanding these "high order bits" (computer term) of who are the "big dogs" in this game is absolutely essential to understanding what's playing out, and how best to adapt to ongoing events. You don't want to get caught by surprise learning that one of your poker partners is a psychopath packing a Smith & Wesson Model 500 .50-Cal. Magnum.

[Dennis Leahy]

Ok, the first couple response came back but the Reset Button was not taken too well. Of the 3 response I got, the kindest was from someone who leans right and who said he has seen it already.

"I can't really take a substantiated stand for or against the reset button, though I always have been intrigued by this. Here's a question: given the complications brought forth by human nature, is it really possible?"

The next responses from someone more right of center but he really did not like it. "Quick scan, draws up strawman about capitalism, and wants to blend 'the good parts' of it with social democracy, yet later says we will be ruled by rules not rulers. Social Democracy is essentially rule by majority, which in my mind is the same as tyranny by majority Not really interested in keeping our individual rights, but rather subjecting us to the rule of the masses.....no thanks, I will pass."

Next response. "Did you read some of the Stock Market reform and tax reform? Complete [expletive] disaster! This looks like an attempt to aggregate power at the Federal level, not only am I not interested, I now consider this down right dangerous. Okay that is a bit of an over statement since this isn't going anywhere anyway but you get what I am saying? Disallow any trading of precious metals or strategic metals? Disallow option trading? Disallow short selling? My guess is the authors are statist who do not even know half of what they are saying. Disallow trading of any foodstuffs (like grain) so now what are we totally going back to the 14th century? I mean disallow trading of food stuffs? How would grain get to market? And exactly which 100+ millions of our citizens would we choose to starve to death? This guy is an obvious ideologue with no working perspective of how markets serve people and make our world better. If implemented I would chose open rebellion and armed opposition, no questions asked and with no hesitation."

Back to the drawing board?
risvigleo,

I somehow never saw your response to this. Again, it was really a breakaway from the thread topic, but the thread transmuted and died, until Paul resurrected a tangent of it anyway. So, I'll bite:

Guy # 1 "is it really possible?"
I don't know. What then is possible? Is there any way for citizens of the US to remove the entire cadre of corporate-sponsored officials from office, and replace them with ordinary citizens that are not corporate whores? That's it in a nutshell. That's what the Reset Button is all about. We know for sure we cannot vote our way out of this, because the Financial Elite control US elections in (at least) 9 different ways. We also know (or should) that the corporate whores in power, our rulers who rule with an iron fist - and the iron is getting even harder - pay no attention whatsoever to any protest or petitions. Hopefully, a bunch of guys - even paramilitary and ex-military deadly marksmen - cannot really believe that armed citizens could ever take over the US government/US police/US military, right? So, is that it? Do we give up and just admit we are slaves forever, or do we actually try to figure out a way to non-violently actually get a government of the people, by the people, and for the people?


protesting won't work
begging won't work
petitions won't work
voting won't work
a violent overthrow won't work
disengaging from the malevolent government won't work (maybe a few thousand can hide off the grid, the rest of us can't possibly)

What's left?

I proposed a strategy that includes a national general strike, figuring it is the biggest leverage we have. Stop the wheels of the machinery as much as possible. A strike with no ending date, but to meet the demand of passing the one law and one amendment that would take electoral control away from corporations and put it in citizens hands. If the strongest leverage US citizens have is still not enough, I'd say, we might as well line up for the barcode tattoo on our foreheads.

Guy #2: "Quick scan, draws up strawman about capitalism..."
Well, obviously, a quick scan was not enough. You completely missed several EXTREMELY critical things:

Unless you are afraid of citizens TALKING about what was listed in Phase 2, or afraid of forcing candidates to reveal, in writing, what their positions are (and would be held accountable to) about what is listed in Phase 2, then you completely missed the point. The entire phase 2, repeat, the ENTIRE Phase 2, is a cluster of essays - that's all. Disagree with every single thing, it makes no difference. The whole idea of phase 2 is to have real topics, real issues so candidates cannot just smile pretty and talk nebulously, or have the public being led around and divided by the gay marriage topic as if it is actually important for our nation or the world. The topics in Phase 2 actually are important.

Does that make sense?

Oh, and the only way I've seen capitalism used as a strawman is in arguments from capitalists that declare that capitalism is not based on an unsustainable pyramid benefitting a few over the many no matter how hard the many work, and that "real" capitalism has never been given a chance to flourish.

The Reset Button IS The Reset Button Phase I - that's the RESET! Corporate rulers OUT, citizens (without corporate ties) IN.

Is that scary?

I know to some Libertarians, it is. It scares them because it starts to smell like democracy! Well, it isn't. Nothing in The Reset Button Phase I would change the constitutional republic into a democracy. Are ordinary citizens in positions of governance scarier than corporate whores and war mongering, sociopathic imperialists?

Phase 2 does force citizens and especially candidates to look at issues. The one and only tie from Phase I to Phase II is the fact that candidates would be forced to complete a position paper on the topics in Phase II.

[The rest of Guy #2's words could take me way out into a discussion of the flaws of pure Libertarianism that Libertarians never mention - such as what would happen to perhaps a hundred million US citizens who currently own virtually nothing. Also, the fact that "rule by rules, not by rulers" is Anarchism (self-rule) as much as possible deposing tyranny, the police state, and so many laws on the books no one knows how many laws we have. I know there are people that want pure socialism, others that want a resource-based economy flavor of socialism, others that want pure Libertarian capitalism with no socialism at all, and other gray zones between. Many would fight to the death for their own version of what is right. An advanced, deliberate compromise between non-predatory capitalism and socialism/social democracy is a compromise that could work for all but the most selfish extremists. But, none of this matters. None of this is anything but concepts in an essay for which candidates would have to revel their positions. It doesn't matter unless guy #2 is convinced that removing corporate whores and sociopathic militarists from ruling us all will ruin his chance at living the Libertarian American Dream.]

Guy #3: "Did you read some of the Stock Market reform and tax reform? ..."
My my, I seem to have stepped on a toe of someone in the "investment class." And without hesitation, he will kill to defend his right to corner markets and short sell, and do whatever is "legal" in current trading practices. Wow.

First of all, just like guy #2 missed completely, EVERYTHING in Phase 2 of The Reset Button is topical essays to poke and prod and make sure we all know exactly who we are voting for to represent us.

Following Guy #3 off track: Is it really that limiting to trade stock in Apple, GE, BP, and Monsanto and leave the goddamned corn out of it? Why should some asshole daytrader or high powered trader get to mess with the cost of next year's cornflakes? This does not have anything whatsoever to do with a farmer selling his corn at market price, this is the "investor class" greedily inflating the cost of food to consumers. This viewpoint is far beyond selfish Libertarian; it is sociopathic. Follow the logic of this as a pure capitalist: how about water rights bought, sold, and traded. Why not? Who cares if a few people get to control the food and water prices for everyone else? All is fair in war and business, right?

How can someone be so selfish, so sociopathic, that they don't see that it is NOT OK to trade everything - especially the necessities for life - as commodities? How in the hell do you think "grain got to market" before the selfish pricks in Wall Street cubicles started messing with grain prices and "futures?" You think there is no market without the stock exchange? All sales of grain would stop if not allowed to be marked-up by Wall Street traders? Are you actually thinking this through, or just throwing a tantrum because someone proposes clipping the wings of traders to stop allowing them unfettered access to manipulate goods critical to survival?

"This guy is an obvious ideologue with no working perspective of how markets serve people and make our world better." I don't want to live in your world, and neither will you when you fall from grace. When you become poor, working poor, or struggling (like half of the US citizens), and some greedy Wall Street asshole raises the price of your groceries every week, you'll get your gun out and shoot the opposite direction from your statements here.

Dennis

[ThePythonicCow]

Perhaps the Zionists, the Banksters, and the Neocons thought they were involved in a less dramatic version of 9/11, which included the various conventional bombs in the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings, the apparent hijacking and crashing into the WTC towers of two airplanes, the concurrent military exercises and stand-down, the insurance fraud, the destruction or theft of various financial or incriminating documents and gold, ...

But perhaps the modern day Nazi's provided the "directed energy" weapons that took down the towers, without telling the Zionists, the Banksters, or the Neocons of that ahead of time. Such would have an affect like Truman's signing off on the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan in 1945, or the hidden in plain sight assassination of JFK in Dallas in 1963 ... striking fear in the hearts of one's biggest enemies.

Such a bold display of brutal power would be the "disclosure" we have been waiting for, except that they neglected to tell the public what had been disclosed. Instead it would be a bit of one-oneupmanship by the Nazi's over the Banksters, Neocons and Zionists ... letting them know their days might be numbered.
The above speculation on my part does not come from anything Joseph Farrell has written, so far as I know.

However on his blog, Farrell does take a small step in this direction, wondering if 9/11 might have been "the first shots in a “covert civil war” within the New World Order crowd."

Farrell quotes this from 9/11 Attacks: Criminal Foreknowledge and Insider Trading lead directly to the CIA’s Highest Ranks (Michael C. Ruppert, globalresearch.ca) (http://www.globalresearch.ca/9-11-attacks-criminal-foreknowledge-and-insider-trading-lead-directly-to-the-cia-s-highest-ranks/):



On September 29, 2001 – in a vital story that has gone unnoticed by the major media – the San Francisco Chronicle reported




“Investors have yet to collect more than $2.5 million in profits they made trading options in the stock of United Airlines before the Sept. 11, terrorist attacks, according to a source familiar with the trades and market data.

“The uncollected money raises suspicions that the investors – whose identities and nationalities have not been made public – had advance knowledge of the strikes.” They don’t dare show up now. The suspension of trading for four days after the attacks made it impossible to cash-out quickly and claim the prize before investigators started looking.

“… October series options for UAL Corp. were purchased in highly unusual volumes three trading days before the terrorist attacks for a total outlay of $2,070; investors bought the option contracts, each representing 100 shares, for 90 cents each. [This represents 230,000 shares]. Those options are now selling at more than $12 each. There are still 2,313 so-called “put” options outstanding [valued at $2.77 million and representing 231,300 shares] according to the Options Clearinghouse Corp.”

“…The source familiar with the United trades identified Deutsche Bank Alex. Brown, the American investment banking arm of German giant Deutsche Bank, as the investment bank used to purchase at least some of these options…”

As reported in other news stories, Deutsche Bank was also the hub of insider trading activity connected to Munich Re. just before the attacks. (Emphasis added by Ferrell)
Then Farrell writes:



This weird relationship and involvement of Deutschebank has, to my mind, never been adequately explained, and it is a perplexing one, for in the mad dash to assign ultimate blame to “neo-conservatives” or “the plan for the new American century” or “rogue elements in the CIA”, we are forgetting the possibility that there may be yet another layer to the whole scenario, and yet another player on the block.

It is to my mind highly suggestive that in the wake of the 9/11 tragedy, that Germany has once again stepped up its efforts to repatriate its gold from the US New York Federal Reserve Bank, that the financial games being played in Europe with the economies of whole countries are, to my mind, for the sole geopolitical purpose of tying Germany to the debtor nations of Europe in order to keep Germany in the EU…

…and there’s that disturbing Deutschebank connection in deep history, via Dr. Hermann Josef Abs, to the likes of Hitler, Bormann, Prince Bernhard… yea, I went there. But I did so because 9/11 continues to have a foul odor to it, and I don’t mean just the odor of radical Islamicists, or rogue American neo-conservatives either… It continues to have, for me, the odor of the first shots in a “covert civil war” within the New World Order crowd.

See you on the flip side.
You can find Farrell's blog post at DEUTSCHEBANK AND THOSE 9/11 PUT OPTIONS ON UNITED AIRLINES (Aug 28. 2012) (http://gizadeathstar.com/2012/08/deutschebank-and-those-911-put-options-on-united-airlines/).

I agree with Farrell ... something smells here. I suspect that some neocons high in the White House were deeply terrorized on 9/11, when what happened had a serious twist or two that were not in the plans as they knew them. Perhaps that surprise was the dustification (Judy Wood's term) of the World Trade Center towers, marking for those who had eyes to see the first dramatic and hostile use of energy weapons in full view of the world.

[risveglio]

Ok, the first couple response came back but the Reset Button was not taken too well. Of the 3 response I got, the kindest was from someone who leans right and who said he has seen it already.

"I can't really take a substantiated stand for or against the reset button, though I always have been intrigued by this. Here's a question: given the complications brought forth by human nature, is it really possible?"

The next responses from someone more right of center but he really did not like it. "Quick scan, draws up strawman about capitalism, and wants to blend 'the good parts' of it with social democracy, yet later says we will be ruled by rules not rulers. Social Democracy is essentially rule by majority, which in my mind is the same as tyranny by majority Not really interested in keeping our individual rights, but rather subjecting us to the rule of the masses.....no thanks, I will pass."

Next response. "Did you read some of the Stock Market reform and tax reform? Complete [expletive] disaster! This looks like an attempt to aggregate power at the Federal level, not only am I not interested, I now consider this down right dangerous. Okay that is a bit of an over statement since this isn't going anywhere anyway but you get what I am saying? Disallow any trading of precious metals or strategic metals? Disallow option trading? Disallow short selling? My guess is the authors are statist who do not even know half of what they are saying. Disallow trading of any foodstuffs (like grain) so now what are we totally going back to the 14th century? I mean disallow trading of food stuffs? How would grain get to market? And exactly which 100+ millions of our citizens would we choose to starve to death? This guy is an obvious ideologue with no working perspective of how markets serve people and make our world better. If implemented I would chose open rebellion and armed opposition, no questions asked and with no hesitation."

Back to the drawing board?
risvigleo,

I somehow never saw your response to this. Again, it was really a breakaway from the thread topic, but the thread transmuted and died, until Paul resurrected a tangent of it anyway. So, I'll bite:

Guy # 1 "is it really possible?"
I don't know. What then is possible? Is there any way for citizens of the US to remove the entire cadre of corporate-sponsored officials from office, and replace them with ordinary citizens that are not corporate whores? That's it in a nutshell. That's what the Reset Button is all about. We know for sure we cannot vote our way out of this, because the Financial Elite control US elections in (at least) 9 different ways. We also know (or should) that the corporate whores in power, our rulers who rule with an iron fist - and the iron is getting even harder - pay no attention whatsoever to any protest or petitions. Hopefully, a bunch of guys - even paramilitary and ex-military deadly marksmen - cannot really believe that armed citizens could ever take over the US government/US police/US military, right? So, is that it? Do we give up and just admit we are slaves forever, or do we actually try to figure out a way to non-violently actually get a government of the people, by the people, and for the people?


protesting won't work
begging won't work
petitions won't work
voting won't work
a violent overthrow won't work
disengaging from the malevolent government won't work (maybe a few thousand can hide off the grid, the rest of us can't possibly)

What's left?

I proposed a strategy that includes a national general strike, figuring it is the biggest leverage we have. Stop the wheels of the machinery as much as possible. A strike with no ending date, but to meet the demand of passing the one law and one amendment that would take electoral control away from corporations and put it in citizens hands. If the strongest leverage US citizens have is still not enough, I'd say, we might as well line up for the barcode tattoo on our foreheads.

Guy #2: "Quick scan, draws up strawman about capitalism..."
Well, obviously, a quick scan was not enough. You completely missed several EXTREMELY critical things:

Unless you are afraid of citizens TALKING about what was listed in Phase 2, or afraid of forcing candidates to reveal, in writing, what their positions are (and would be held accountable to) about what is listed in Phase 2, then you completely missed the point. The entire phase 2, repeat, the ENTIRE Phase 2, is a cluster of essays - that's all. Disagree with every single thing, it makes no difference. The whole idea of phase 2 is to have real topics, real issues so candidates cannot just smile pretty and talk nebulously, or have the public being led around and divided by the gay marriage topic as if it is actually important for our nation or the world. The topics in Phase 2 actually are important.

Does that make sense?

Oh, and the only way I've seen capitalism used as a strawman is in arguments from capitalists that declare that capitalism is not based on an unsustainable pyramid benefitting a few over the many no matter how hard the many work, and that "real" capitalism has never been given a chance to flourish.

The Reset Button IS The Reset Button Phase I - that's the RESET! Corporate rulers OUT, citizens (without corporate ties) IN.

Is that scary?

I know to some Libertarians, it is. It scares them because it starts to smell like democracy! Well, it isn't. Nothing in The Reset Button Phase I would change the constitutional republic into a democracy. Are ordinary citizens in positions of governance scarier than corporate whores and war mongering, sociopathic imperialists?

Phase 2 does force citizens and especially candidates to look at issues. The one and only tie from Phase I to Phase II is the fact that candidates would be forced to complete a position paper on the topics in Phase II.

[The rest of Guy #2's words could take me way out into a discussion of the flaws of pure Libertarianism that Libertarians never mention - such as what would happen to perhaps a hundred million US citizens who currently own virtually nothing. Also, the fact that "rule by rules, not by rulers" is Anarchism (self-rule) as much as possible deposing tyranny, the police state, and so many laws on the books no one knows how many laws we have. I know there are people that want pure socialism, others that want a resource-based economy flavor of socialism, others that want pure Libertarian capitalism with no socialism at all, and other gray zones between. Many would fight to the death for their own version of what is right. An advanced, deliberate compromise between non-predatory capitalism and socialism/social democracy is a compromise that could work for all but the most selfish extremists. But, none of this matters. None of this is anything but concepts in an essay for which candidates would have to revel their positions. It doesn't matter unless guy #2 is convinced that removing corporate whores and sociopathic militarists from ruling us all will ruin his chance at living the Libertarian American Dream.]

Guy #3: "Did you read some of the Stock Market reform and tax reform? ..."
My my, I seem to have stepped on a toe of someone in the "investment class." And without hesitation, he will kill to defend his right to corner markets and short sell, and do whatever is "legal" in current trading practices. Wow.

First of all, just like guy #2 missed completely, EVERYTHING in Phase 2 of The Reset Button is topical essays to poke and prod and make sure we all know exactly who we are voting for to represent us.

Following Guy #3 off track: Is it really that limiting to trade stock in Apple, GE, BP, and Monsanto and leave the goddamned corn out of it? Why should some asshole daytrader or high powered trader get to mess with the cost of next year's cornflakes? This does not have anything whatsoever to do with a farmer selling his corn at market price, this is the "investor class" greedily inflating the cost of food to consumers. This viewpoint is far beyond selfish Libertarian; it is sociopathic. Follow the logic of this as a pure capitalist: how about water rights bought, sold, and traded. Why not? Who cares if a few people get to control the food and water prices for everyone else? All is fair in war and business, right?

How can someone be so selfish, so sociopathic, that they don't see that it is NOT OK to trade everything - especially the necessities for life - as commodities? How in the hell do you think "grain got to market" before the selfish pricks in Wall Street cubicles started messing with grain prices and "futures?" You think there is no market without the stock exchange? All sales of grain would stop if not allowed to be marked-up by Wall Street traders? Are you actually thinking this through, or just throwing a tantrum because someone proposes clipping the wings of traders to stop allowing them unfettered access to manipulate goods critical to survival?

"This guy is an obvious ideologue with no working perspective of how markets serve people and make our world better." I don't want to live in your world, and neither will you when you fall from grace. When you become poor, working poor, or struggling (like half of the US citizens), and some greedy Wall Street asshole raises the price of your groceries every week, you'll get your gun out and shoot the opposite direction from your statements here.

Dennis

Hi Dennis. I don't really have communication with the group that I posed this question to so I can not pass your responses on and I think it is probably a bit pointless since the general understanding of what is "capitalism" is not agreed upon. From my understanding of "Capitalism", it is not what we have today so the first step to would be to find another word to describe what you are fighting against. On the other side, the idea of a Social Democracy to the 3 guys above is just as evil and ugly as Fascism or Socialism, so with those words in your paper or site, you will immediately have turned them off.

I think the biggest problem you are going to get with the reset button is how are you going to get a national strike? Its hard enough to get 15% of the people to care about something. We want the same thing just see two completely different ways to get to them. You see some "government by the people" which would be great but unrealistic to me. I would like a voluntary society with little or no government and I am sure that is very unrealistic to you. I only got involved in your thread again sometime ago cause you asked for criticism but my responses hit a nerve and things got ugly. I do not want to do that again. The reset button is just not for me and not something I can get behind at this time.

EDIT: Reread your response and I am going to see if I can track down any of these guys.

I also think you should consider cleaning up your site a little cause it seemed like it was coming from the far left which many people, including myself, fear as much as the far right. If that is done, you may not put the reader in a box he created because what he thought he was going to read.

Personally I would love to see a thread where you and T. Smith got into this because I think it would be very informative on why it is so hard to make rules for all. I do not think he has the time or the interest though.

[Dennis Leahy]

... I would like a voluntary society with little or no government and I am sure that is very unrealistic to you. I only got involved in your thread again sometime ago cause you asked for criticism but my responses hit a nerve and things got ugly. I do not want to do that again. The reset button is just not for me and not something I can get behind at this time.
Thanks for your reply, risveglio.

If not that specific plan, then another...but here's the point that virtually all activists (and those who simply sit and dream of the system they want) fail to see: there is a system in place right now, and it is completely controlled by Big Money (or call them "Financial Elite, or whatever.)

They will not change.

They don't care what your dreams are (or mine.)

The only way a change will come is if a change is forced, by citizens. (Even a complete financial meltdown leaves them in complete control.)

And, I just don't know how to say any more plainly what The Reset Button is and is not. Maybe if you simply throw away the second part of it, knowing that it doesn't matter right now - the only thing that matters is taking control of elections and governance away from the Financial Elite.

Do you want the Financial Elite to continue to completely control elections and to continue to install their people in all high positions of governance and all high positions in the judicial system? OK, then do nothing. They are doing that for you.

Do you want a change? Let's say your vision of pure and fair capitalism and Libertarian-style governance is where you want to be (it doesn't matter if my words hit or missed, just substitute "your vision here")... do you realize that the very first step in achieving YOUR vision is wresting control away from the Financial Elite? If you understand that point, then we are on the same team. It really is black and white: they are in complete control, their vision is the one we live in, and no one else's vision will ever come to being as long as they remain in complete control. You may not understand my words (which is my fault), but you either support The Reset Button's goals or you support the status quo. You may disagree with the strategy outlined in the Reset Button, fine, come up with another way to wrest control from the Financial Elite and if it is a better strategy, I'll support it.

The funny thing is, no matter how we differ on what should be done once we are in the castle (once we oust the corporatocracy from power over elections and thus governance), we both need to get into the castle to change anything. We have to go through the same door. We're on the same side (unless you're siding with the corporatocracy.)

Dennis

[Dennis Leahy]

...I also think you should consider cleaning up your site a little cause it seemed like it was coming from the far left which many people, including myself, fear as much as the far right. If that is done, you may not put the reader in a box he created because what he thought he was going to read....
This is a good point.

Having spent hundreds and hundreds of hours on the original version, and hundreds and hundreds of hours on the complete re-write (after Occupy started, then attempting to hitch The Reset Button as what I saw as the missing plan and strategy of Occupy, to the passion and people of Occupy) I don't really have time to start over again. Plus, the 2012 elections, which The Reset Button was supposed to stop (in favor of real elections) didn't happen, and so now 3/4ths of US citizens are again picking up their remote controls, buying 24 packs of Budweiser, and settling down for football season and just another election season - absolutely clueless about much of anything real, such as that international banker's plans that are about to shock them. As far as I'm seeing, there are very few cracks in the Matrix.

Americans, US citizens, are generally too brainwashed to even know we need change and most that would welcome change are too fearful to actually do anything about it. So, you and I can dream all we want, but the US is full of "reactive" people, not "proactive" people, and may actually require a complete financial meltdown to alter their lives. Even then, I don't really expect most people in the US to do anything to change the system - we are a nation with a very, very high percentage of whiners, not doers.

The only thing I am doing with the Reset Button at this point is putting it in front of people as an example of what a comprehensive plan, strategy, and goal for the critical first step might look like, and as a conversation starter - a dialogue long overdue. I no longer have the high hopes that any of it will come to pass, but hope that at least, maybe a seed was planted.

Dennis

[Fred Steeves]

As far as I'm seeing, there are very few cracks in the Matrix.


Hi Dennis, you're just "seeing" with the wrong set of eyes silly. http://nexus.2012info.ca/forum/images/smilies/newadditions/smile.gif I "see" panic in the elite. A deep, silent, and choking panic.

[Dennis Leahy]

As far as I'm seeing, there are very few cracks in the Matrix.


Hi Dennis, you're just "seeing" with the wrong set of eyes silly. http://nexus.2012info.ca/forum/images/smilies/newadditions/smile.gif I "see" panic in the elite. A deep, silent, and choking panic.Loan me your eyes, my friend!

Dennis

[Fred Steeves]

See, debating new systems, is exactly what the controllers want. It's Hegelian Dialectic, straight up. Any new system will soon enough be thoroughly infiltrated, and either controlled or destroyed. In the meantime, generation after generation, we fight and squabble amongst ourselves like chickens in the hen house, over what exactly our new newest system should be. It's game, set, and match every time. We won't ever defeat the masters on their home chess board.

What scares the living beejeezus out of "them", is the 'Surprise Button'. Because, the simple fact is, despite all of our deep and inherent programming and DNA alterations, "we" are still Creators, and "they" are not. There is absolutely nothing "they" can do about it, except to try and manipulate things so that somehow we don't notice.

Ever wonder why so much state of the art mind control and firepower are ever increasingly needed, to subdue a supposedly helpless and beleaguered population?

Ya'll know the line from Kenny Rogers' song "The Gambler" that goes: "You got to know when to hold em, know when to fold em, know when to walk away, and know when to run."

Right now is simply the time to hold em, look "them" in the eye, and call their bluff.

Don't believe me? Try it for yourself, on a personal level.

Just don't blink...

[Dennis Leahy]

See, debating new systems, is exactly what the controllers want. It's Hegelian Dialectic, straight up. Any new system will soon enough be thoroughly infiltrated, and either controlled or destroyed. ...
Though I didn't miss your main point, I have to disagree on invocation of Hegelian Dialectic.

Example: A man is thirsty and gets a drink of water.
Problem: thirst!
Reaction: fills a glass with water
Solution: swallows water

is not really Hegelian Dialectic. It's only a Hegelian Dialectic if someone is manipulating the pieces to get the outcome they want. The Reset Button (or some other way to take their control away) is an outcome that WE want, not them. Even if the Financial Elite deliberately injected divisive groups of citizens to foster argumentation over what specific plan (Reset Button, or something else) to use, if the final outcome is citizen unification behind one plan, then the subterfuge would have failed.

I'd point out that though it is true that every system can and will be gamed to some extent, the current system is completely rigged for the Financial Elite to game it. I know whatever we switched to would be attacked from 12 directions, but at least that's a "hard reset" to take away all of their control over elections. Right now, the Financial Elite have 100% power over elections and close to 100% power over governance. The Reset Button would be quite a paradigm changer: the Financial Elite would have 0% control over elections and (with "collusion" legally equated with "treason"), lobbying would be quite a dangerous game. By definition, lobbying is using money and power to influence an elected official's stance more than the elected officials' constituency. So, the Financial Elite would have very little power over governance.

Just how long would it take the Financial Elite to figure out how to game the new system? Could they ever game it anywhere near the 100% mark again? There would be an entire legislative body without ties to the Financial Elite and lots of pairs of citizen's eyes guarding the henhouse.

Besides, doesn't Abe's phrase have a cool ring to it, "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people"? Wouldn't it be cool to try it ...just once? Or else I'll get discouraged and take that cute slogan sticker off my guitar case.

Dennis

[gripreaper]

http://www.rumormillnews.com/pix3/7rea0s9w.jpg