The Fallacy of Collectivism - Ludwig von Mises

Pejeu
It should have dawned on me earlier I'm talking to a randroid...

Wow, have I found a tactic that shuts your lie hole?

Maybe some quotes from one of your intellectual forebears will clarify...


"A lie told often enough becomes the truth."

"One man with a gun can control 100 without one."

"There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel."

"The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation."

"When there is state there can be no freedom, but when there is freedom there will be no state."

-Vladimir Lenin


Are these misquotes or do they not represent your point of view?

reply to post by greencmp


Talking to you is like talking to a wall.

A more than vaguely unstable one at that.

reply to post by Pejeu


Randroid is a hilarious term, and I actually lol'd. I shall wear that badge proudly.

Call me any other name you like, but I for one believe that emotion should be left out of policy decisions. Your dream world may come to be some day, but not if the world sacrifices progress for the sake of kindness.

OpenMindedRealist
reply to post by Pejeu

 

Randroid is a hilarious term, and I actually lol'd. I shall wear that badge proudly.

You don't say. I think I know why that might be.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.

You and greencmp and navydoc over there seem like textbook examples.

Pejeu
Fraud is intrinsic to the system, no incidental.

If you believe that government can accomplish all of the things you'd like it to, then why don't you think proper oversight could be instituted by said government? If the US simplified our tax code, we could employ the thousands of IRS workers to audit banks. Fraud would still exist, but banks would not get away with creating digital dollars.

And I meant to say I agreed with Greencmp on banking, not Crim. Though Crim has given me some details to consider. Also, you are still the only one who thinks banks should be shut down altogether.

The last thing I want to do is give a socialist recruiting tips, but your arguments would be better received if you were not so quick insult the intelligence of those who are only trying to make sense of you.

reply to post by OpenMindedRealist


Talking to him is tough he goes into every argument thinking he is intellectually superior to you because he is a Socialist. He seems to believe that all educated people naturally gravitate towards Socialism and that if you are against him you are arguing from ignorance. I know because I've had an argument with him along the same lines as you guys have on another thread. Also keep in mind he isn't even American, but believes he can tell us how to run our country.

OpenMindedRealist

Pejeu
Fraud is intrinsic to the system, no incidental.

If you believe that government can accomplish all of the things you'd like it to, then why don't you think proper oversight could be instituted by said government?

Dude, what's your problem?

Why do you keep making this about the government?

If the US simplified our tax code, we could employ the thousands of IRS workers to audit banks.

Banking is inherently fraudulent, you plank.

Banking is legalised counterfeiting. All banking is that.

Fraud is not incidental to banking.

It is its very operating principle. Its core business model.

Fraud would still exist, but banks would not get away with creating digital dollars.

Of course fraud would still exist as long as you allow banks to exist.

Banking is legalised fraud/counterfeiting.

And I meant to say I agreed with Greencmp on banking, not Crim. Though Crim has given me some details to consider.

She has agreed with me on every point worth note.

Also, you are still the only one who thinks banks should be shut down altogether.

That is untrue.

Crim and me are in agreement on that point as well.

The last thing I want to do is give a socialist recruiting tips, but your arguments would be better received if you were not so quick insult the intelligence of those who are only trying to make sense of you.

If you were in my position, knowing and understanding what I do and seeing what folly people like spew obstinately, you'd be at most as polite as I am.

Krazysh0t
He seems to believe that all educated people naturally gravitate towards Socialism and that if you are against him you are arguing from ignorance.

You read me very well on that point.

I do strongly believe that all morally decent and intelligent folk naturally ascribe to leftist, socialist worldviews.

This is corroborated empirically.

Pejeu

OpenMindedRealist
No one in this thread has denied the fact that fraudulent banking is a bad thing, yet you speak as if that were the topic at hand. Maybe it is the language barrier.

All banking is by definition fraudulent.

Still off topic, but In my opinion you are talking about throwing out the baby with the bath water. I think NavyDoc pointed out that banking has been vital to expanding economies for centuries. The presence of fraud within the system does not make the system worthless.

Fraud is intrinsic to the system, no incidental.

That being said, I agree with the entirety of Crim's stance on banking.

My stance is the same as hers: abolish the damn thing altogether.

It's a little disconcerting you failed that awesomely at following and understanding our discussion.

Very clever.

By exposing the bank fraud system and *agreeing* it's no good....

You seem to be attempting to mask your *agreement* with the agenda itself.

You are using the old trick of making the enemy feel comfortable.

Then you continue the attack under the cloak of darkness .

Very clever indeed.

Your schooling has been successful

reply to post by Pejeu


Hah, and there's no possible way that description could apply to you. But I find the "science" of post-Freudian psychology to be largely a waste of time.

I will accept the title "Randroid" because I agree with most of her philosophy, and have always taken a certain pride in unemotional decision making.

Pejeu

Make no mistake, I actually really am a statist and a socialist.
.

edit on 2013/10/17 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)

So were these guys:


Actually, your rhetoric is frighteningly similar. Obviously you have not learned from the past and espouse things that harmed countless of millions "for their own good."

“The struggle against international finance capital and loan capital has become one of the most important points in the program...2.Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, 124

“THE COMMON INTEREST BEFORE SELF-THE SPIRIT OF THE PROGRAM ABOLITION OF THE THRALLDOM OF INTEREST – THE CORE OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM.” “Once these two points are achieved, it means a victory of their approaching universalist ordering of society in the true state over the present-day separation of state, nation and economics under the corrupting influence of the individualist theory of society as now constructed. The sham state of today, oppressing the working classes and protecting the pirated gains of bankers and stock exchange speculators, is the area for reckless private enrichment and for the lowest political profiteering; it gives no thought to its people, and provides no high moral bond of union. The power of money, most ruthless of all powers, holds absolute control, and exercises corrupting, destroying influence on state, nation, society, morals, drama, literature and on all matters of morality, less easy to estimate.(6)

“Break down the thralldom of interest” is our war cry.(7) What do we mean by thralldom of interest? The landowner is under this thralldom, who has to raise loans to finance his farming operations, loans at such high interest as almost to eat up the results of his labor, or who is forced to make debts and to drag the mortgages after him like so much weight of lead.

So is the worker, producing in shops and factories for a pittance, whilst the shareholder draws dividends and bonuses which he has not worked for. So is the earning middle class, whose work goes almost entirely to pay the interest on bank overdrafts.(8)

Thralldom of interest is the real expression for the antagonisms, capital versus labor, blood versus money, creative work versus exploitation. The necessity of breaking this thralldom is of such vast importance for our nation and our race, that on it alone depends our nation’s hope of rising up from its shame and slavery; in fact, the hope of recovering happiness, prosperity and civilization throughout the world. It is the pivot on which everything turns; it is far more than a mere necessity of financial policy. Whilst its principles and consequences bite deep into political and economic life, it is a leading question for economic study, and thus affects every single individual and demands a decision from each one: Service to the nation or unlimited private enrichment. It means a solution of the Social Question.(9)

Our financial principle: Finance shall exist for the benefit of the state; the financial magnates shall not form a state within the state. Hence our aim to break the thralldom of interest.

Relief of the state, and hence of the nation, from its indebtedness to the great financial houses, which lend on interest.

Nationalization of the Reichsbank and the issuing houses, which lend on interest.

Provision of money for all great public objects (waterpower, railroads etc), not by means of loans, but by granting non-interest bearing state bonds or without using ready money.

Introduction of a fixed standard of currency on a secured basis.

Creation of a national bank of business development (currency reform) for granting non-interest bearing loans.

Fundamental remodeling of the system of taxation on social-economic principles. Relief of the consumer from the burden of indirect taxation, and of the producer from crippling taxation (fiscal reform and relief from taxation).(10)

Wanton printing of bank notes, without creating new values, means inflation. We all lived through it. But the correct conclusion is that an issue of non-interest bearing bonds by the state cannot produce inflation if new values are at the same time created.

The fact that today great economic enterprises cannot be set on foot without recourse to loans is sheer lunacy. Here is where reasonable use of the state’s right to produce money which might produce most beneficial results.”(11)

OpenMindedRealist
Hah, and there's no possible way that description could apply to you. But I find the "science" of post-Freudian psychology to be largely a waste of time.

Why? Do you opine I'm not morally decent or that I'm not intelligent? Or both?

And to answer your previous question: I think government should outlaw banking for the fraud it is.

I will accept the title "Randroid" because I agree with most of her philosophy, and have always taken a certain pride in unemotional decision making.

Oh, really?

How do you know what your goals in life are without emotional decision making?

Logic is useful in pursuing set goals.

It completely fails at choosing wholesome and worthy goals to pursue in life.

Something for you to ponder.

Pejeu

OpenMindedRealist

Pejeu
Fraud is intrinsic to the system, no incidental.

If you believe that government can accomplish all of the things you'd like it to, then why don't you think proper oversight could be instituted by said government?

Dude, what's your problem?

Why do you keep making this about the government?

If the US simplified our tax code, we could employ the thousands of IRS workers to audit banks.

Banking is inherently fraudulent, you plank.

Banking is legalised counterfeiting. All banking is that.

Fraud is not incidental to banking.

It is its very operating principle. Its core business model.

Fraud would still exist, but banks would not get away with creating digital dollars.

Of course fraud would still exist as long as you allow banks to exist.

Banking is legalised fraud/counterfeiting.

And I meant to say I agreed with Greencmp on banking, not Crim. Though Crim has given me some details to consider.

She has agreed with me on every point worth note.

Also, you are still the only one who thinks banks should be shut down altogether.

That is untrue.

Crim and me are in agreement on that point as well.

The last thing I want to do is give a socialist recruiting tips, but your arguments would be better received if you were not so quick insult the intelligence of those who are only trying to make sense of you.

If you were in my position, knowing and understanding what I do and seeing what folly people like spew obstinately, you'd be at most as polite as I am.

Krazysh0t
He seems to believe that all educated people naturally gravitate towards Socialism and that if you are against him you are arguing from ignorance.

You read me very well on that point.

I do strongly believe that all morally decent and intelligent folk naturally ascribe to leftist, socialist worldviews.

This is corroborated empirically.

edit on 2013/10/17 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)

You are quite wrong. Banking, in and of itself is not fraud. If you require capital to expand your factory and a bank lends you the money at an agreed upon interest, no fraud is done and both the banker who earns interest and the business who otherwise could not have expanded without the capital win.

You keep stating an untruth, over and over, that regular banks create money. They do not. We recognize that the Fed does create money and should have nothing to do with it, but your neighborhood savings and loan does not.

NavyDoc
Actually, your rhetoric is frighteningly similar. Obviously you have not learned from the past and espouse things that harmed countless of millions "for their own good."

It seems the whole circus is in town.

Well, you have me pretty much surrounded.

You may begin the siege at your leisure.

Without me to throw a spanner in the works this thread would be a complete right wing circle...

jerk.

Pejeu

OpenMindedRealist
Hah, and there's no possible way that description could apply to you. But I find the "science" of post-Freudian psychology to be largely a waste of time.

Why? Do you opine I'm not morally decent or that I'm not intelligent? Or both?

And to answer your previous question: I think government should outlaw banking for the fraud it is.

I will accept the title "Randroid" because I agree with most of her philosophy, and have always taken a certain pride in unemotional decision making.

Oh, really?

How do you know what your goals in life are without emotional decision making?

Logic is useful in pursuing set goals.

It completely fails at choosing wholesome and worthy goals to pursue in life.

Something for you to ponder.

"It seems to me that socialists today can preserve their position in academic economics merely by the pretense that the differences are entirely moral questions about which science cannot decide."

-Friedrich Hayek

Walked right into that one...

reply to post by Pejeu


Not my fault that you espouse the same fascist and economic principles of one of the greatest mass murderers in the 20th Century. He put people in camps "for their own good" just like you said you would.

Pejeu

Krazysh0t
He seems to believe that all educated people naturally gravitate towards Socialism and that if you are against him you are arguing from ignorance.

You read me very well on that point.

I do strongly believe that all morally decent and intelligent folk naturally ascribe to leftist, socialist worldviews.

This is corroborated empirically.

edit on 2013/10/17 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)

Of course because get this, I'M INTELLIGENT and know how to interpret other people's opinions. But hey what's this, I'm NOT a socialist? Well now that should throw your "theory" right our the window now shouldn't it?

I'm going to amend your theory with what is actually correct. People who like others telling them what to do naturally ascribe to leftist, socialist worldviews. People with an aversion to authority tend to go in other directions. Luckily for me as a student of history, I've seen how socialist societies have developed in the past and how they've led to more human rights violations than non-socialist societies. But according to you, I'm unintelligent because I'm not a Socialist, so whatever. Go back to Romania or wherever you are from. We don't want you in America, the place founded on freedom and doing what you want, not what someone else tells you to do.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


I could see that Pejeu was probably entrenched in his own mind from page one of the thread, but I couldn't let Green, Doc, and Crim go up against his nonsense alone. This argument is surely as old as government itself, and the socialist movement has shown that it will not rest. If even a few people read this thread and see the truth, it has been worth my time.

At this point, though, it's like he is on repeat. Like I said in an earlier post, he makes accusations about being close-minded or not comprehending, and then demonstrates exactly that behavior. I am no good with kids, so maybe it's best if I find another thread. My positions are already well-represented in this one.

NavyDoc
You are quite wrong. Banking, in and of itself is not fraud.

Why? Because you say so?

I supported my assertion with evidence, explanations.

You just have your lonely arbitrary claim.

If you require capital to expand your factory and a bank lends you the money at an agreed upon interest, no fraud is done and both the banker who earns interest and the business who otherwise could not have expanded without the capital win.

You should go about obtaining said capital by issuing stock in your venture.

From selling stock to venture capitalists and individual investors.

Who voluntary partake in the cost and risk and also share in the profit.

I should not be forced to support your private endeavour through inflation, without participation in the possible profits that might come of it.

You keep stating an untruth, over and over, that regular banks create money. They do not.

They do.

It was thoroughly explained why and how they do it.

You've been provided scientific papers that support this claim as well as testimonies of bankers, central bankers, economists, libertarian economists, nobel prize winning libertarian economists such as Murray Rothbard etc.

That you choose to believe and perpetuate a bold faced lie is on you.

We recognize that the Fed does create money and should have nothing to do with it, but your neighborhood savings and loan does not.

Yes it does.

Krazysh0t
Of course because get this, I'M INTELLIGENT and know how to interpret other people's opinions. But hey what's this, I'm NOT a socialist? Well now that should throw your "theory" right our the window now shouldn't it?

Not really, no. It's far more likely you're lacking in the moral fibre dept.

reply to post by Pejeu


“Stealing from capitalism is not like stealing out of our own pockets. Marx and Lenin have taught us that anything is ethical, so long as it is in the interest of the proletarian class and its world revolution.”

-Nicolae Ceauşescu

Pejeu

Krazysh0t
Of course because get this, I'M INTELLIGENT and know how to interpret other people's opinions. But hey what's this, I'm NOT a socialist? Well now that should throw your "theory" right our the window now shouldn't it?

Not really, no. It's far more likely you're lacking in the moral fibre dept.

edit on 2013/10/17 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)

And with the ad hominem attack I am out.