Silk Road forums
Discussion => Newbie discussion => Topic started by: SirNomDePlum on June 29, 2013, 05:54 am
-
On the Federal Reserve:[/font]
[/font][/font]
“The Federal Reserve system relies on the force of government to maintain its monopoly power on the issuance of money. This is how all central banks maintain their control. Without the state’s involvement, people would be free to use whatever currency they like. Historically this was gold. If the founders of the fed tried to do what they did w/o the Federal Reserve Act legislation, and later the Brenton Woods agreement, they would have failed miserably. No one would have bought into their system.[/font]
[/font]
In fact, this is the beauty of libertarianism. The people are free to choose what system they want. No need for one size fits all government solutions. If you want to use a debt based inflationary monetary system, go right ahead, doesn’t affect me so long as you don’t try to force me to use it as well.”
[/font]
(http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion.to/index.php?topic=105694.msg777025#msg777025)[/font]
On the movie V for Vendetta, which was suggested watching material for a Dread Pirate Roberts “movie night”:[/font]
[/font][/font]
“What a flick! I got so engrossed I forgot to chat with you guys while I was watching. Loved the part where the talk-show host guy made fun of the chancellor. Loved the moment the crowd passed the front line of the guards. Many inspiring moments reminding me how powerful we are.”
[/font]
(http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion.to/index.php?topic=69283.msg600018#msg600018)[/font]
On the framers of the Constitution:[/font]
[/font][/font]
“I have a pet theory about where the framers went wrong. First off, I can’t applaud them enough for what they accomplished given the circumstances. It’s easy to critique centuries later, supported by the wealth their system allowed to emerge. But I wonder how things would have happened differently had the constitution been 100% voluntary. As in, here are the rules our members live by and how those rules are amended. If you want to be in the club, you must pay your dues and follow the rules, but if you want to go it alone, or join a different club, we won’t bother you unless you bother us, and you are free to go at any time.”
[/font]
(http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion.to/index.php?topic=53169.msg526867#msg526867)[/font]
On Ron Paul:[/font]
[/font][/font]
“A mighty hero in my book.”
[/font]
(http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion.to/index.php?topic=72130.msg592403#msg592403)[/font]
On whether Silk Road’s users are really free market believers or only serving their own needs:[/font]
[/font][/font]
“Anything you do that is outside the control of the state is agorist, so in some sense we are all agorists whether we know it or not. Some people just take those actions because of the personal gain they can obtain, which is perfectly fine, but some do it as a conscientious objection and act of rebellion against the state as well.[/font]
[/font]
I’m out to turn unconscious agorists into conscious active ones. :)”
[/font]
(http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion.to/index.php?topic=47420.msg502456#msg502456)[/font]
On war: (in response to another commenter who argues for the economic benefits of the military)[/font]
[/font][/font]
“There is an important point you are overlooking in your assessment of the positive benefits of warfare, and that is the costs, both seen and unseen. The seen costs are obvious: death and destruction. However, the unseen costs alone make the benefits you mentioned not worthwhile. That unseen cost is lost demand in the private sector. It’s simple: the resources used in warfare are unavailable to private individuals. We have no idea what people would’ve done with the trillions of dollars worth of resources that have gone into blowing people and things up, not to mention the resources that were directly destroyed. Considering the efficiency with which people competing in the market operate, and the inefficiency of the military bureaucracy, I suspect that the innovation and wealth produced by a world without war would make any advances the military has made look negligible.”
[/font]
(http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion.to/index.php?topic=48176.msg517423#msg517423)[/font]
On the TSA and airline security:[/font]
[/font][/font]
“Here’s a market solution for ya: hold airlines accountable for any destruction that comes about as a result of misuse of their planes or other property. They would then insure against it and actuaries would be able to put a price on this potential cost and the risk reduction of security measures in airports so airlines could make economic decisions about what measures to take. Customers would also get a say as they choose their airlines based on cost vs. security measures taken.”
[/font]
(http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion.to/index.php?topic=48176.msg517423#msg517423)[/font]
On child labor and labor conditions:[/font]
[/font][/font]
“If the options available to a person are work or starve, why would you take away the work option? If people are voluntarily choosing to work in a factory under terrible conditions, it means the alternatives available to them are even worse. That work is an opportunity for them to better themselves. Child labour regulations only hampered the development and expansion of the industries that were providing these opportunities.[/font]
[/font]
Had they been allowed to develop freely, only under the constraints of supply, demand and property rights, they would have had to provide a safe work environment for their employees, if that’s what the employees wanted. Let me give you a quick example. Nike and Reebok both have shoe factories in the same city. All of their resources and external conditions are effectively identical. The only thing they can vary is the quality of the work environment for their employees. Nike chooses to spend $1 per man-hour maintaining an improved work environment for its employees, while Reebok keeps that dollar as profit. Reebok will quickly find itself unable to attract the employee base it needs to produce its shoes as Nike takes its employees and market share. So, Reebok, instead of improving the work conditions, simply passes the extra $1 per hour on to their employees. Now we are seeing the market at work. Employees are now faced with the option of a safe work environment, or an extra dollar per hour. Some will choose safety while others will choose the extra pay.[/font]
[/font]
And this is exactly what has happened eventually, where now employers do all they can to attract good employees away from their competitors.”[/font]
###
End Part VI, cont'd Part VII
(http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion.to/index.php?topic=46460.msg499753#msg499753)[/font]