The Left Destroys EVERYTHING It Touches

[simplicity]

Why would you ever want to prostitute your economy by making it dependent on resources over which you have zero control?

That's a great question. Let's just take gold as an example [but perhaps other resources could be used]. The most important quality of money is that it hold its store of value [and in the optimal case, increase it's value...as happened in the U.S. during the 19th century]. If the currency increases in value due to an increase in social productivity, then all who use the currency realize an increase in their wealth. This is why so many emigrated to the U.S. in the 19th century. Otherwise [and especially with FIAT currencies] only the elite benefit.

So we are designating gold the substance which is going to back the currency. There are those who are concerned that there is only so much gold and this would prevent an economy from expanding. This could not be further from the truth. Let's say that there is x tons of gold backing all national currencies. So what happens when you have x tons of gold and y goods and services? We do the math and you find that z amount of gold equals v value. If the amount of gold stays stable in the next year, and the amount of GDP increases by 5%, then the gold has also increased in value by 5%. This benefits savers and savings should be the engine of the investment economy [not printing]. You want to encourage production, efficiency and investment, and you do this by encouraging savings as a method of accumulating real wealth.

In a FIAT system, money becomes increasingly worthless, decreasing savings, increasing speculation, and creating massive distortions everywhere in the economy. The economy we witness today is a massive catastrophe due to the fact that money is basically used to manipulate people and distort business for the advantage of the elite.

FIAT currency is not prostitution because at least with prostitution, you [hopefully] have something to show for it. With FIAT you end up with nothing as witnessed every time this gigantic scam has been sold to the idiot masses who will do nearly anything to acquire something for nothing...even believing that you can print money out of thin air.

[simplicity]

Take a bow. The Chinese model created more growth and pulled more people out of poverty in 50 years than Capitalism did in 200.

Capitalists have to take some moral or qualitative high ground nowadays, because the factual/quantitative argument isn't in their favor anymore.

The Chinese model is called capitalism.

Actually, the Chinese model is called slavery.

So the enormous Chinese middle and upper middle class are all slaves?

[simplicity]

[FIAT money always fails

That's yet another blanket statement you've made that doesn't look very sustainable. Will you do anything to justify any of them at any point?

FIAT begins its failure the moment one unit of currency is counterfeited.

therefore you must have what I refer to as "real" money, that is, something that people cannot counterfeit [including central banks].

So ... bitcoin is "real" money then?

Crypto is real money if the society accepts it as such. Personally, it seems too good to be true but time will tell.

I agree that perhaps the biggest problem people have faced over the centuries is folks having their labor-value stolen by those who control the economic system. Man working towards a method that would compensate a worker for the amount of labor-value s/he produces [less overhead] should be a long-range goal of the species. Perhaps a couple of centuries down the road.

That's the Labour Theory of Value, you complete commie
After everything you've written, now you are chanelling Karl Marx.

Actually, I've read nearly the entire collected works of Marks and Engels. Marx was a brilliant economist but a really lousy sociologist and political scientist. What he did in the 1840's and 50's was truly remarkable. You should read some of his work if you have not.

[Immanuel Can]

I am not interested in reading your conspiracy theorist tomes,

Ha!

It's THEIR book. It has nothing to do with me. If you knew the very first thing about the Davos Group, you'd know that it's THEIR manifesto!

Classic. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Classic.

And their manifesto says they will launch a world government does it?

Go and read it. Before you say how ridiculous the thing you've never read is, you should know something...just something...about what you're talking about. Don't take my word for it: take theirs.

[Skepdick]

The Chinese model is called capitalism.

Well, yeah - you've called it that.

In order to avoid having to explain why it's kicking capitalism's ass in terms of wealth creation.

Now tell us about the state-sanctioned theft of intellectual property in China.
Tell us about the human rights abuses.
Tell us about the racketeering of foreign companies and protectionism of Chinese companies.

[Walker]

Do you have a definition for this 'left' that you (simplicity) are referring to?

The Left is The Corrupter.

The Left has corrupted Science because The Left doesn’t need and will not enforce any stinking rules it doesn’t approve.


Unscientific Method
“And now, in addition to the inhibitions on publishing, the cancellation machine is explicitly wiping out judgments of scientific merit if they fail to meet a diversity quota.”
https://www.city-journal.org/scientific ... quity-cult

[FlashDangerpants]

[FIAT money always fails

That's yet another blanket statement you've made that doesn't look very sustainable. Will you do anything to justify any of them at any point?

FIAT begins its failure the moment one unit of currency is counterfeited.

That's not failing by any standard other people would recognise, and you've already describe standard issuance of currency as "counterfeit".

Can you justify the claim that FIAT money always fails in some way that what it is failing isn't just your personal sniff test?

therefore you must have what I refer to as "real" money, that is, something that people cannot counterfeit [including central banks].

So ... bitcoin is "real" money then?

Crypto is real money if the society accepts it as such. Personally, it seems too good to be true but time will tell.

Good news, society accepts the US Dollar as real money. So you use real money every day and you don't need to change anything.

I agree that perhaps the biggest problem people have faced over the centuries is folks having their labor-value stolen by those who control the economic system. Man working towards a method that would compensate a worker for the amount of labor-value s/he produces [less overhead] should be a long-range goal of the species. Perhaps a couple of centuries down the road.

That's the Labour Theory of Value, you complete commie
After everything you've written, now you are chanelling Karl Marx.

Actually, I've read nearly the entire collected works of Marks and Engels. Marx was a brilliant economist but a really lousy sociologist and political scientist. What he did in the 1840's and 50's was truly remarkable. You should read some of his work if you have not.

His historical method had some merit, but economists tend to regard his economic theory to be behind the times on the day it was written, failing to account for the proportion of value that comes from design for instance even while that became ever more obvious.

[Age]

age: Your framework up-thread FAILS from START to FINISH.

me: Please explain how it fails from start to finish.

(your list follows with my responses interspersed)

By the fact that you:
1. Could NOT legitimately provide an individual human being NOR body who could arbitrate over this.

To review: this...

A man belongs to himself.

A man's life, liberty, and property are his.

A man's life, liberty, or property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property.

...is my framework. The only question with the first two items is: are they true?

OF COURSE NOT.

Does a man belong to himself?

No. A 'man' is its self or itself. It can NOT logically be owned/possessed by itself.

A 'man' is just one of the older male gendered ones of the human species. So, a 'man' is therefore just a member, or belongs to, the group known as human beings.

A 'man' does NOT belong to himself because this is self-refuting and a contradiction in terms, as well.

Are a man's life, liberty, and property his?

No.

A 'man', just like a 'woman' AND a 'child' are alive, and thus a life. NONE of them own NOR possess ANY life.

EVERY one is just naturally FREE. A 'man' does NOT own NOR possess freedom. Each 'man' is just FREE.

NO 'man' owns NOR possesses property.

Now that that is out of the way. You, STILL, could NOT legitimately provide an individual human being NOR body who could arbitrate over this.

So, what I will remind you here is that just REPEATING what you have previously stated does NOT make what you previously said any more true NOR correct.

I believe these are facts about man.

We KNOW that this is what you BELIEVE, and this BELIEF of yours is WHY you are NOT OPEN enough to SEE what thee ACTUAL Truth is here.

My reasoning is in the first post of this thread...
viewtopic.php?p=452267#p452267

LOOK, you are just like EVERY other one here who BELIEVES some thing. That is; 'you' will 'try to' fight or argue for what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true, while NOT being OPEN to ANY thing contrary to the currently held BELIEF. Even if the contrary is thee ACTUAL Truth of things.

The third item does properly fall within the sphere of arbitration. Determining when a man has murdered or self-defended, when he's stolen or welched on a contract, etc. can and should be arbitrated. We have judges and juries for exactly that purpose.

2. Because you CONTRADICT your OWN made up framework through and by of your own continual behaviors.

Can you cite an example of where I violate the spirit or letter of the framework above? [/quote]

SHOOTING people because you make AN ASSUMPTION BEFORE you gain CLARIFICATION.

LOOK, you BELIEVE you have the, so-called, "right" to KILL people just because they touch IMMATERIAL things, which you, laughably, CLASS as "your own", even if they did it ACCIDENTALLY. You then just have to TELL "others" or "yourself", "They were stealing it", and then, to you, you BELIEVE you are "justified". Which is BEYOND A JOKE.

There are a multitude of other examples I could provide.

Or perhaps you're talkin' about people in general violating the framework. Please clarify.

I SAID, and WROTE, 'Because 'you' CONTRADICT 'your' OWN made up framework. So, what this MEANS, and who this refers to, is 'YOU', the one known as "henry quirk" here, in this forum.

IF I was talking about people in general, THEN I would NOT have used the words 'you' and 'your OWN made up framework'. Now, if you are STILL NOT YET SURE, OBVIOUSLY, I was referring to "henry quirk" ONLY, and "henry quirk's" OWN (silly, little) made up framework.

And: the framework is not made up, not solely my construct. Bastiat and Locke, naming just two, said the same things. Hell, in this forum, I posted Bastiat's work The Law, wherein he makes his case for man's ownness and for the legitmacy of life, liberty, and property. viewtopic.php?f=15&t=32456

WHY did you use the word 'hell' here?

Were you saying it like you seem unexpected NOT EVERY one reads EVERY thing you wrote in this forum?

If no, then WHY did you use the word 'hell' here?

3. Because EVERY one has their OWN definition of 'just cause'.

Indeed. Even though the third item, when unpacked, is unambiguous, there would still need for impartial and dispassionate arbitration (judges and juries).

BUT you BELIEVE you ALREADY have the 'right' to KILL human beings DEAD if they "touch" your stuff, correct?

If yes, then you ALREADY BELIEVE you have 'just cause'. So what would it matter what a judge or juries say?

4. Because one can NEVER fully KNOW whether another is doing something knowingly nor willingly.

Sure you can. Generally, you can ask someone and they'll tell you, in effect, I did so & so cuz I wanted to or I did so & so becuz I was forced to.

But it is LOT HARDER to ask someone when they have ALREADY been SHOT DEAD, just because they were standing in a building, which you CLAIM "is yours", at 3am. Remember you had ALREADY ASSUMED that there is NO justification for being there.

Sometimes someone might say I don't know why I did so & so. Evidence, what was actually done and how, can help determine motive in such cases.

ALL moot. Like a LOT of what you are saying here.

5.Because NO one ACTUALLY "owns" "property".

I provide a product for my customers, meeting the mutually agreed upon requirements of our contract. They pay the agreed upon fee. I take that money and, for example, buy a car from the owner. The owner accepts my money and signs over ownership of the car to me. How am I not the owner of the car? How is the car not my property?

LOOK, you are FAR TO SHORT SIGHTED and have a FAR TO NARROWED field of view here to REALLY SEE and UNDERSTAND things here.

You only LOOK AT things from the perspective of the amount of time you have been alive, and so only SEE things from that very SMALL, NARROWED, and SHORT SIGHTED view and perspective of things.

More basic: How can I not belong to me? I am my substance. The flesh, bone, brain, muscle, and the soul that animates that substance is me. How can I not be my first, best property?

VERY SIMPLE.

Who and/or what is 'me' EXACTLY? In other words, LEARN and UNDERSTAND what thee proper and correct answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?', then 'you' will SEE things VERY DIFFERENTLY.

6. And, because of the ABSURD notion that a human being has the "right" to forfeit or deprive another human being of life, liberty, or "property" just because they think that they have a "right" to.

But I don't have the right to deprive another of life, liberty, or property, (without just cause) and there's a consequence if I do. You need to read the framework again.

AND you NEED to STOP 'trying to' DEFLECT. That is; if you do not want to come across as being VERY DECEPTIVE.

7. If this framework was followed or adhered to, then you ALL, in the days when this is being written, would have already been forfeited in part or in whole of your own life, liberty, AND "property".

No, if this framework were followed (each man recognizing that all other men belong to themselves in exactly the same way as he belongs to himself) then the world would be a better place.

LOL
LOL
LOL

And YET here you are being the VERY FIRST ONE to CLAIM that you can SHOOT people ["other" men] DEAD if they touch your toothpick.

BECAUSE like a LITTLE CHILD and SPOILT BRAT you ACTUALLY BELIEVE "it is YOURS". Talk about NOT recognizing who and what human beings to, EXACTLY.

I will tell you what "henry quirk", the world would be a MUCH BETTER place if there were NOT human beings, like "yourself", who "OWNED" guns and who had BELIEFS like you do.

If you REALLY BELIEVED that men and women REALLY " belonged to "themselves" ", then you would NOT WANT TO SHOOT them DEAD for ANY reason.

[henry quirk]

The Chinese model is called capitalism.

Actually, the Chinese model is called slavery.

So the enormous Chinese middle and upper middle class are all slaves?

Considerin' what sits atop them all: yep.

[Sculptor]

Why would you ever want to prostitute your economy by making it dependent on resources over which you have zero control?

That's a great question. Let's just take gold as an example [but perhaps other resources could be used]. The most important quality of money is that it hold its store of value [and in the optimal case, increase it's value...as happened in the U.S. during the 19th century]. If the currency increases in value due to an increase in social productivity, then all who use the currency realize an increase in their wealth. This is why so many emigrated to the U.S. in the 19th century. Otherwise [and especially with FIAT currencies] only the elite benefit.

So we are designating gold the substance which is going to back the currency. There are those who are concerned that there is only so much gold and this would prevent an economy from expanding. This could not be further from the truth. Let's say that there is x tons of gold backing all national currencies. So what happens when you have x tons of gold and y goods and services? We do the math and you find that z amount of gold equals v value. If the amount of gold stays stable in the next year, and the amount of GDP increases by 5%, then the gold has also increased in value by 5%.

No, no, no.
This would only be true if every country on earth had the gold standard.
I would also mean 5% inflation, since the rise in gold is not balanced by a rise in economic wealth.

This benefits savers and savings should be the engine of the investment economy [not printing]. You want to encourage production, efficiency and investment, and you do this by encouraging savings as a method of accumulating real wealth.

You have swallowed the myth of intrinsic value where no such things exists.
You cannot eat gold and so it is worthless.
It's value is based on supply and the capriciousness of people who like shiny things.
Additionally the only time it has value is when it is used for making things, at which time it is no longer in the reserve- in other words when you use it you loose it.

In a FIAT system, money becomes increasingly worthless, decreasing savings, increasing speculation, and creating massive distortions everywhere in the economy. The economy we witness today is a massive catastrophe due to the fact that money is basically used to manipulate people and distort business for the advantage of the elite.

Rubbish,
You can immediately increase the worth of your currency by withdrawing money from the money supply.
You cannot do that with a standard.

FIAT currency is not prostitution because at least with prostitution, you [hopefully] have something to show for it. With FIAT you end up with nothing as witnessed every time this gigantic scam has been sold to the idiot masses who will do nearly anything to acquire something for nothing...even believing that you can print money out of thin air.

Obviously you've not heard the parable of the Conche shell.

Let us imagine that the UK adpots a gold standard. Gold rises and falls in price regardless of the UK economy.
Answer these simple questions, in relation to the impact on the UK economy:
What happens when the gold price rises?
What happens when the gold price falls?
What happens when South Africa decide to sell off its reserves of gold?
What happens when the US decides to buy up the as much gold as it can gets its hands on?

All these actions have an adverse effect on the UK economy since they represent changes in the UK currency that are not directly related to the wealth of the Nation.

[Age]

age: in "henry quirk's" world, if someone touches "henry's stuff", even if it is a toothpick, or they are standing in a building, which you claims "is yours", you BELIEVE you have the 'right' to forfeit that one's life, liberty, or property, in part or in whole. If this is NOT correct, then correct it.

me: It's not correct. The correction is in previous posts.

age: ...PROVIDE the "correction"...

As I say: the correction is in the previous posts. At no point in this thread, or any other, did I say in my world,

You do NOT have to say. 'my world', for us to KNOW what exists in 'your world'.

if someone touches my stuff, even if it's a toothpick, or they're standing in a building, which I claim is mine, I believe I have the 'right' to forfeit that person's life, liberty, or property, in part or in whole.

Never said it. Never even hinted at it.

If this is true, then I KNOW where to go, and where to direct "others" to go, to obtain stuff.

This sounds like you REALLY would just crumble if someone was to go into your home and/or to touch your stuff.

And, a point of order: you assert I said sumthin'; the burden is on you to pony up the citation.

As you say: if 'you', human beings, want to make a CLAIM, then it would be far better, for 'you', if you were able to back up and support your CLAIM BEFORE you make the ACTUAL CLAIM in the FIRST PLACE.

ANY one only has to look through your writings to SEE what you have written.

If you, LOL, have supposedly NEVER even hinted at the above, then it will NOT be here, for ALL NOR for ANY one to SEE.

By the way, if you learned how to quote correctly here, then citing YOUR WORK would be MUCH EASIER.

-----

me: You still misuse forfeit.

age: How can I be using 'forfeit' wrong?

me: Consult a dictionary: you'll see the error.

age: Done this. There is NO error. End of story.

No, you didn't. If you had, you'd know I can't forfeit what is another's.

WELL how can human being's lives, liberties, and properties be forfeited, in part or in whole, if you can NOT do it?

And, when you SHOOT people DEAD are you NOT forfeiting their lives?

Jack can't forfeit Stan's life, car, home, etc.; only Stan can forfeit Stan's life, car home, etc.

So, when you write:
A man's life, liberty, or property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property.

Are you suggesting that people only give up their life, liberty, or property COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY?

If yes, then your idea/framework here is getting MORE and MORE ABSURD, as we get further into it, or while you are DESPERATELY 'trying to' COUNTER your previous CONTRADICTORY statements.

forfeit
fôr′fĭt[To lose or give up (something) on account of an offense, error, or failure to fulfill an agreement.
To subject to seizure as a forfeit.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.

LOL

You quote the "american heritage dictionary", as though that should be one the WHOLE population of earth looks at, listen to, and follows. LOL

Anyway, 'to lose' could be generally interpreted as 'taken by another', as NO one PURPOSES 'loses' ANY thing like their life, liberty, NOR 'property".

But ALL of this is just HIGHLIGHTING MORE and MORE of YOUR CONTRADICTIONS "henry quirk".

[Age]

Most people have no clue what money is nor how it works. I would include you and the others in this conversation among them,

SHOW ALL of us here in this conversation, who you CLAIM have NO clue what money is nor how money works, what 'money' REALLY IS, and how 'money' REALLY works.

If you do not, then you can include "yourself' in with ALL of 'us'.

[henry quirk]

age: So, a 'man' is therefore just a member, or belongs to, the group known as human beings.

Just a herd member, yeah?


age: Each 'man' is just FREE.

Yes, exactly.


age: LOOK, you BELIEVE you have the, so-called, "right" to KILL people just because they touch IMMATERIAL things

Nope.


age: There are a multitude of other examples I could provide.

You haven't provided even one yet.


age: BUT you BELIEVE you ALREADY have the 'right' to KILL human beings DEAD if they "touch" your stuff, correct?

Nope.


age: And YET here you are being the VERY FIRST ONE to CLAIM that you can SHOOT people ["other" men] DEAD if they touch your toothpick.

Nope. Never said it. Never hinted at it.


age: You do NOT have to say. 'my world', for us to KNOW what exists in 'your world'.

You say that I've said if someone touches my stuff, even if it's a toothpick, or they're standing in a building, which I claim is mine, I believe I have the 'right' to forfeit that person's life, liberty, or property, in part or in whole.

I never said it. Never even hinted at it.


age: ANY one only has to look through your writings to SEE what you have written.

Yep. That's what I've said to any number of folks on any number of topics: go see for yourself.


age: If you, LOL, have supposedly NEVER even hinted at the above, then it will NOT be here, for ALL NOR for ANY one to SEE.

It's not here. Go, see for yourself.


age: And, when you SHOOT people DEAD are you NOT forfeiting their lives?

Nope, I'm takin' a life. Whether my takin' it is justified is another matter.


age: Are you suggesting that people only give up their life, liberty, or property COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY?

I hadn't really thought of it that way, but -- yeah -- in context, that's the case.

If you value what's mine enough to take it as yours, to steal it, then you voluntarily risk your life, your liberty, or your property.


age: You quote the "american heritage dictionary", as though that should be one the WHOLE population of earth looks at, listen to, and follows

Fair point. So, which dictionary did you use to look up forfeit?


age: NO one PURPOSES 'loses' ANY thing like their life, liberty, NOR 'property".

If you mean to say no one purposely loses anything like their life, liberty, or property, you're partially right. No one gambles with the intent of losing, but only an idiot gambles not understanding he may very well lose. The skydiver voluntarily risks his life, the stockcar driver voluntarily risks his life, the climber of a vertical rock face voluntarily risks his life, the thief voluntarily risks his life.

Hell, for most folks, just gettin' out of bed in the mornin' entails risk and the possibility of loss.

[Belinda]

If someone takes someone else's rightful possessions by force then they should be made to give them back.

Much wealth in the UK comes from the Atlantic slave trade, and from slave economies such as Southern States of the US as were. Those of us in the UK who can pay back what is owed to the descendants of slaves, should be made to do so.

[Immanuel Can]

If someone takes someone else's rightful possessions by force then they should be made to give them back.

Much wealth in the UK comes from the Atlantic slave trade, and from slave economies such as Southern States of the US as were. Those of us in the UK who can pay back what is owed to the descendants of slaves, should be made to do so.

Let's suppose that's true. But here's a true fact: 100% of the slave owners were Democrats. The Republicans were in the industrial north, and fought to abolish slavery. They died doing it, in the bloodiest war ever fought on American soil.

So let's make the Democrats pay everybody for what they did. They've got lots of money: let's have it, then.

But that, too would be unjust. For whatever the ancient Democrats did, their children's children's children had no part in. Still, the Left would say we have to accuse them all of "systemic racism," and "historical guilt," and "white privilege," and "complicity in oppression." And we must forever bludgeon their innocent progeny, and make them feel horrible for the legacy of a slavery their great great grandparents caused, and in which they never could even participate at all.

From either side, Democrat or Republican, or just from common sense, that's just lunacy. But if anybody gets reparations, let it be the direct ancestors of the slaves themselves, and also the Republicans and northerners who defeated the Democrats and freed the slaves, and died in such huge numbers to do it.