meet the vigilantes

the dollar vigilante blog

Feedback Friday - May 18, 2012

Welcome to the premier edition of Feedback Friday!

We receive such great correspondence at The Dollar Vigilante, we decided to begin sharing them with our readers to encourage an open discussion of the real lives of people experiencing the end of the monetary system as we know it.

Each Friday we will select a few comments, questions or feedback and feature them here. Send any questions or comments you have to tdv@dollarvigilante.com.

Let's get straight to this week's feedback.

REAL WORLD FINANCIAL PLANNER EXPERIENCES

Dear TDV,

Your article, "Forget Retirement... and Retirement Savings" was published shortly after the annual visit by a financial firm handling investment plans for employees where I work. Those who wished to do so could meet with one of the firm's financial planners to see how things were going. My wife asked me to meet with one of the planners, so I did. She was annoyed that last year's planner advised changes to my portfolio, which then lost money, although that probably would have been still the case if nothing had changed.

I had a feeling how it would go and I wasn't disappointed. The advisor showed me how much money I had accumulated and then asked me if I had enough to retire on to live the way I would wish. By the way, I had said I have no plan to retire - ever. I think the two planners in the room with me that day thought I was kidding, but I wasn't. Doesn't everyone wish to retire at the earliest opportunity and enjoy a life of ease, with investment payoffs flowing into one pocket and Social Security into another?

Their game is always to demonstrate a wide gap between how much one has already invested and what one would hope to have upon retirement at a certain age. One then feels the need to put even more money into an IRA, etc., handled by the firm, of course. They need not prod you to fork over more money since they lead you to reach that conclusion yourself.

I told the advisor of a recent dilemma faced by my wife and how she might want some counseling on the matter, so they elevated my case up the food chain to someone else. When I spoke to my wife about it, she decided she didn't want to consult anyone at the company at this point, so when a more senior rep left a voicemail, I replied in an email that allowed me to provide more detail and express some other concerns.

One of these concerns is that the financial advice being given does not take into account some very serious considerations, such as the federal government going deeper into debt by about $150 million per hour, as illustrated by this chart:

Another link I included showed the ever-declining value of the dollar due to the creation of more money to cover the feds' spending. There are many other factors I could include, but I noted that no matter how much money I might set aside, it would all be for naught if its value is being diluted, to say nothing of the fact that the feds' spiking expenses could very well lead them to gobble up any investments I might have in order to keep going for a little while longer. (I'm sure this would be to ensure "fairness" and "national security" and it would be done "for the greater good" or some other blather.)

The investment advice given by the company, however, pretends that none of this is going on. If feds had a balanced budget, if they weren't facing financial crisis, if they weren't creating so much new money, I don't see how the investment advice would be any different than what they're putting out now because it doesn't take into account any of what's happening outside the meeting room. It's as if none of these severe problems exists and all will be well when one reaches the nirvana of retirement.

My email also included a link to your "Forget Retirement" column and, to no surprise, I've yet to receive a response. What can they say when you so ably point out the king has no clothes?

TTB

Northern Virginia, not far from Mordor on the Potomac

TDV'S RESPONSE:

Thank's for the email TTB. It is always interesting for us to hear about people testing the crazy babble we talk about here at TDV out in real life. The response of your registered financial advisor is as we expected: complete silence. They have no response to this line of questioning (ie. fact-based). You might as well have written them in Chinese... it would have registered the same amount of comprehension on their end. They, like most people in the USSA today, are trained to regurgitate memorized propaganda. When you go outside of their "comfort zone" and ask about the real issues facing American serfs today, their brain melts just a little bit... then they delete your email and hope you never call again.

All the more reason to never use government registered financial advisors, unless you can find the one in a million who thinks freely... and, obviously, they would never suggest you close down your IRA or that you move it into a self-directed IRA and move the assets outside of the country... there's nothing in it for them if you do that.

Whereas, us nutjobs here at TDV come up with all manner of crazy ideas... just today, in fact, we were batting ideas around the office when we realized that someone with an IRA over $100,000 could easily turn it into a self-directed IRA, sell out of the losing mutual funds they are invested in, buy real estate in Dominica with the funds (still in the IRA) and be eligible for an immediate passport in Dominica. If you are interested in that, call James Guzman at our office (+1-347-480-1584).

While your government registered financial advisor or company hired IRA consultant tries to get you to invest more into a system that is on its deathbed, we are some of the only people on Earth working to help you get away from it.

READER DISSENT ON THE BENEFITS OF PUBLIC INDOCTIRNATION

IN RESPONSE TO "SENDING YOUR KIDS TO PUBLIC SCHOOL IS CHILD ABUSE"

Hey, sorry school was awful for you. It is for many. But to try to take your story, a couple other random anecdotes, and pretend that you're diagnosing a real systemic problem is going too far. Just so everyone knows, I'm a small government guy who supports Ron Paul, buys precious metals, and knows that the welfare state we live in based on fiat currency is destined for disaster.

I have also been in public and private education throughout my whole life. I have been in the student's desk and the teacher's desk. I've come away knowing that there are good teachers and bad ones. There are good principals and bad ones. And there are good and bad students, too.

Public education, as we know it, is a very complicated and flawed idea. But for a lot of kids, it's the best thing that ever happened to them. I've seen kids with nothing good in their home life... actually pure neglect and/or abuse in their home life...I've seen those kids come to a good classroom (mine and other teachers') and find success, develop critical thinking skills, and learn how to live and thrive in the world.

I'm guessing for you, you had a very strong mind growing up. You probably had parents who cared a lot about you. If so, that's great. Or maybe you have had horrible parents and you single-handedly overcame both them AND a crappy school experience. I don't know.

But don't make your story THE story for everyone. You have to put a lot more thought into this if you're going to try to diagnose the problem with public education and prescribe the country something better. Yeah, I've heard how we should just scrap the whole idea. Maybe that's what you want, but you have to prove that with more than a lousy personal story. You have to prove why that's the best possible option. You have to show how all those kids with crappy home lives and parents who despise their existence are going to be better off.

Jakob J.

TDV'S RESPONSE:

Unfortunately you missed the point, Jakob. That's ok... you used to be a public school teacher so you are used to skimming over things and not really paying much attention. Our point wasn't that just because "we" had a bad experience in school that it is bad. We brought up all the reasons why it is a downright despicable place to send any child... irrespective of our own personal experiences.

Today we just happened upon one of the best descriptions of government schooling by doc_sprayberry. Here are some selected comments from his excellent article, "The Truth About School":

One constant among all aspects of government is the illusion of its legitimacy. It is readily apparent that masses of people are psychologically manipulated so as to create the illusion that the actions of government are legitimate, with regards to justice. One of the many methods by which the government engages in this psychological manipulation, is school.

School, in its most simple terms, is a statist process of psychological manipulation, achieved though intimidation. The result of the manipulation is the subordination of the masses to the power of government. This, in turn, leads the manipulated to acquiesce and renounce their money to the government as taxes.

The government disguises this process of psychological manipulation as a system of education. The government then uses the positive implications of education to add the illusion of legitimacy to any laws that would coerce people to attend its institution. The true, hidden purpose of these laws is to maximize the time the young generation will spend being psychologically manipulated, and to minimize the time the young generation has to spend on anything else. The government, as a means to accomplish its goal, logically illegalized and prohibited the absence of any children from the government institution by the name of “school”. This would add something like seven to eight hours of psychological manipulation to the days of children. To minimize time out of school, the institution is keen to assign lengthy homework assignments, so that the child must spend his or her time completing those assignments, as opposed to any other things that might induce the child to express any negative opinions on government. To reduce time out of school even further, as well as for other reasons going to be illustrated in a minute, the government then moves to preclude any children from having a work life, again, by force. The employment of children would introduce a completely new psychological state to the lives of children, and this would greatly decrease the effectiveness of the psychological manipulation that the government is trying to implement. The government logically concocts laws that inhibit the employment of children until the some arbitrary age, such as 16 (by the time they would already be done with his/her brain). The government then silences any dissenters by giving these laws the usual illusion of legitimacy, through alluding to the unsanitary and unsafe conditions of factories, as well as the negative connotations of child labor, and such. Regardless, the result is that the only psychological state that the children are accustomed to, now, is that which the institution of psychological manipulation exerts.

To reiterate the absurdity of one of my main points, the government gives its laws (the ones that coerce masses of children to attend school) an illusion of legitimacy, by claiming that if these children were not to attend the institution, they would be greatly deficient in mental capabilities (in short, uneducated). This is absurd, as I say, because what the institution actually accomplishes is the reduction in the mental capabilities of its attendants. It is basic psychology, that if you force a man to do something, he is not likely to take it well. More specifically, the man will probably not appreciate the nature of what it is he is being forced to do.

After he is “graduated” from this system of manipulation (and, somehow, being a dumbass for going through with the whole charade is supposed to be a good thing), he is fully brainwashed into believing the necessity of the government, his own robbers. Basically, the government just created a vulnerable victim of extortion and theft. This psychological activism on the part of government drastically reduces the extent to which the government must use bald force in order to obtain their plunder, taxes, although they will certainly resort to it if the psychological manipulation does not work (which it almost always does).

After reading that, Jakob shows, that he while he thinks he is a free thinker, he is actually still brainwashed into the necessity of violently stealing money from people (taxes) and using it to put kids into brainwashing camps. What is his main argument? Many kids get abused at home, so it is better that they have a criminally funded enterprise to go to so they can get abused at school instead.

That's quite the argument... and one spawned from a lifetime of being brainwashed. Jakob can't even imagine a world where perhaps there were other options for kids. For example, child labor laws all but ensure that abused kids have no other options. A 12 year old who is abused could just run away from home, get a job, and try to make a life for himself... except for the government. The government forces them into extra-familial abuse instead. And Jakob thinks that is the best we can do as humanity?

That's the other sad part about statism, everything seems so hopeless. Once you free your mind and free yourself you realize anything is possible. Not just a choice of where to be abused.

ELEVATOR TO HELL

IN RESPONSE TO "CHARLES SCHUMER TELLS AMERICANS THEY CAN'T LEAVE SO EASILY"

The one-time exit tax already exists (unfairly already). What they are proposing is that you must pay tax on any capital gains earned *in the future* even after renouncing! In other words, renounce today and you'll still be liable for what you earn tomorrow even though you don't live in the US and are not a US citizen! Makes me sick to my stomach. This country is dead today. Something so outrageous should never even be proposed in a 'free country.'

This is going to keep so many talented, potential entrepreneurs from ever coming to the US, lest they too then become owned by the US for life. And current, natural-born Americans, this to me, is "the wake up call", "slap across the face", "cold bucket of water" sobering realization that NOW is the time to GTFO b/c it will only get worse and worse and less free. I don't understand how these politicians can be SO DUMB as to not understand that this will be *harmful* to our economic future. Savrin created jobs and wealth in America. For that they should be thankful. This the the only fair article on Savrin in the MSM (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/05/renouncing-citizenship).

The US should be aiming to *be* one of those countries that attracts entrepreneurs and the businesses, wealth and jobs they create.

This is sickening. So horribly, horribly sickening.

And they plan to make it retroactive 10 years to apply to anyone who renounced in the last 10 years. Changing the rules even after the fact for those individuals. So if you are under the asset and income thresholds presently, as I am, the day has come.

Michael

TDV'S RESPONSE

We are glad that you see the seriousness of what Chuck Schumer is proposing, Michael. The US Government, which always tries to hide how evil it is showed its bloody fangs this week. Thanks to public school indoctrination and propaganda they've managed to brainwash the majority of US citizens into thinking they are free and live under a benevolent government. When Facebook's Saverin tried to leave they showed their true colors. But, unlike in Cindy Lauper's classic, the true colors weren't good. They were very, very bad.

The reaction of the majority of US citizens who have been systematically impoverished for decades was not surprising. Get 'im! We suggest if you have any significant assets you get out now before these bills pass... and do it a little more quietly than Saverin did.

CAN'T AFFORD TO LEAVE, CAN'T AFFORD TO STAY

IN RESPONSE TO "CHARLES SCHUMER TELLS AMERICANS THEY CAN'T LEAVE SO EASILY"

We've passed the transition point between "can't afford to leave" and "can't afford to stay."

It will be interesting to see how many people lose everything because they were afraid of the little bit they might lose by springing for that second passport, buying foreign property, or having precious metals held overseas (but they charge a 3% storage fee!!!).

David Giessel (see David on a recent Anarchast from Acapulco)

TDV Correspondent

TDV'S RESPONSE:

We agree, David. Schumer's blood-thirstiness has tipped the scales dramatically towards "can't afford to stay".

Heck, when the statist conformist rag, the Wall Street Journal, is asking, "Should You Renounce Your Citizenship?", it almost makes us feel like we aren't so cutting edge anymore. We remember when we said the US dollar would collapse and people were aghast. Now people just nod their heads and say, "Ya, of course". And we used to say that productive people need to get out of the US and most western countries and people thought we were crazy. Now it's in the Wall Street Journal.

Maybe we are getting old. We don't feel like the new, cool thing anymore.

That's all from Feedback Friday this week. Until next week, stay free.

Comments (32)

neko (not verified) - 48 weeks 6 days ago

Wanted to make sure people are aware of typo in this blog. It is ST KITTS-NEVIS in which real estate purchase counts thru passport. Good idea to point out that retirement funds could be a source which many people are unaware of and requires changing to a Self Directed IRA. Dominica is ONLY cash contribution (70K individual, 100K family) TDV, keep up the great work on educating us to protect our freedom and wealth!****Whereas, us nutjobs here at TDV come up with all manner of crazy ideas... just today, in fact, we were batting ideas around the office when we realized that someone with an IRA over $100,000 could easily turn it into a self-directed IRA, sell out of the losing mutual funds they are invested in, buy real estate in Dominica with the funds (still in the IRA) and be eligible for an immediate passport in Dominica. If you are interested in that, call James Guzman at our office (+1-347-480-1584).

Claymore (not verified) - 51 weeks 6 days ago

@EdI can't really comment Native American history since I don't know much about it (I'm not Native American). But I can also contradict your example with this Portuguese discoveries Anyway, from your statement (and I'm not saying it's wrong), it seems that after 150 years of development (like you stated) the system transformed itself into a collectivism/centralized system and you claim it was done by those who stood to profit greatly by doing so! How is this different from someone who would want to destroy a competitor within an free-market economic system, in order to profit?our great leader -> What leader?The 10 men system is still a centralized system... It's 10 "wise" men who decide what happens... When this system gets corrupted (and the possibility exists), it gets useless and stops working... What happens then, is what I would like to know. (this is actually a question)Like you said, people end up screaming GIVE US A KING so I ask, is this not the individual right working? If a group of people scream for a King, isn't that their free-will working? Aren't they deciding what they want?I also say, let people decide what they want! Let them use their individual right to decide!Thanks Ed for your point of view, it was much appreciated! :)@mavaMava, you completly took Fukushima out of context... I was using as an example of how an accident caused by the corruption of an individual or group of individuals, can easily cause a massive economic problem with epic proportions... If you want to press the "goverment is bad because of fukushima" button, go ahead, speak for yourself...But one thing I would like to comment and this almost threw me out of my chair by laughing so hard!<nuclear science is not needed, is evil>...... Are You Lunatic??? Do you even understand your statement??Do you even know what are you talking about??? Do you even know what is Nuclear Science??? Are you suggesting that every single technological achievement that came from Nuclear Science should not exist???Did I understood it well??? I'm must be delusional because it seems that from your statement, we should disregard simple things like micro-waves or a bit more complex things the Maxwell

mava (not verified) - 51 weeks 6 days ago

Excuse me, Claymore, but Fuckushima is a creation of a violent gang called GOVERNMENT, was it not?Wasn't the technology that made the disaster possible, a complete evil plot, made possible by "scientists"? Yes, those scientists that do the "necessary work that the private markets are not willing to pay for". The work that is so evil, that no one wants to pay for it, and the government violently collects the funds it then lavishly throws at those scientists?It appears to me that I have already expressed this, and I think it was even addressed to you, that EVERYTHING that comes from violence is evil?And now, you are asking me how are you supposed to survive in freedom, if the evil government builds an evil reactor next to you? And supposedly, this is your proof of necessity of government?Did you follow the Fukushima story? Do you not see that people do not matter to the government of Japan? How many instances we have already found out where the government of Japan made the situation worse only to save it's face, and intentionally paid with people's lives for that? And TEPCO, the so-called flagship of private business, but somehow always in bed with the government?This is what I am trying to show you, that all your fears are based on the horrors that only the governments can commit. Yes, a private individual can do that too, in principle, but he would not have any protection that the government enjoys. And so if this was a private plant, it may not even be there in the first place, it would be built differently, it would be dealt with responsibly, and there would be no possibility for this individual to go on if such had happened.Next thing I expect you to say is "but we need the nuclear power, since only government can afford to have such a disasters and yet keep going on murdering more (oops.... I meant researching), then we need government".If there is anything we need, then we are willing to pay for it. << the golden rule of economicsThe fact that we are not willing to pay for nuclear science, tells me, that nuclear science is not needed, is evil. This is what I call the scientific proof for those who are not capable to understand that simply by looking at the achievements of nuclear physics , such as Chernobyl, Fukushima, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc.

Jeff Berwick (not verified) - 51 weeks 6 days ago

@ClaymoreYou still seem to be under the misconception that there would be no rules or laws within a free, voluntary society.I don't quite understand how you equate the "Non agression principle" with "living without regulatory systems"And then you say"it's pure blind faith in mankind."In fact under a private law system that operates under the non-aggression principle as it's basis, it is exactly the opposite - individuals are punished for their transgressions against person or property. The current system is far closer to "blind faith in mankind" - the idea that bureaucrats in Washington DC can "regulate" society for its benefit is ludicrous and is exactly what you are describing.Again you have it backwards.You need to do some more readingCheck out these videoshttp://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDDB98C9E761B8400

Ed (not verified) - 51 weeks 6 days ago

It matters not what experiment one wishes to perform, there is no end to the opinions about why it will not and cannot work. All real progress has occurred in spite of such assistance. For 150 years much of North America prospered with local control and loose confederation. Then it was collectivized and centralized by those who stood to profit greatly by so doing and the individual was marginalized by collectivist toadies. We now live with the result.According to the bible story of the exodus from Egypt, our great leader was annoyed by the people coming to him daily to settle their trivial complaints with their neighbors and was beside himself. His father-in-law suggested a non coercive solution called captains of 10. A group of 10 men (adults today) would choose the one perceived as the wisest among them to arbitrate any disputes between them they were incapable of resolving without 3rd party intervention. The captains had no additional authority in the cell. This was grass roots republicanism if ever was such a thing. I have always thought this was the finest means of organizing and social structure as ever devised by the mind of man and it would work in a business model as well. So tell me. Did this work? How long before the people appointed men to judge them? Next, they asked for a king to be like other "nation states". They were warned that such would lead to their oppression and their request became a demand. GIVE US A KING. Aaah yes. Democracy was at work. So look around and tell me how that's working 3,000 years later.So now that we know a fraction of what might go wrong with self regulated liberty, let's give it a real test for a change and say no to centralized power, commercial, political and social. When it goes wrong as all seems to do, we can try again after learning our lessons. This we know beyond a shadow of a doubt, centralized power and authority NEVER ends well.

Claymore (not verified) - 51 weeks 6 days ago

@JeffJeff, the Fukushima example was just example how one event, occurring far far away from your investments could destroy someone's investments, due to negligence or lack of inspections or even worse, bribery.With the "dump site" example, I was trying to demonstrate how a competitor that wishes to destroy your own business in Acapulco in order to boost is own profit. I also was trying to demonstrate how an Investment by someone, in a certain area, could from a individual point of view be a good investment, but from a more general perspective, for example, a town economy, be a very bad investment, and for that I gave the example of the "water quality" for which if in Acapulco someone decided to build a chemical factory just because it would be cheaper and more profitable, they could just start dumping chemical wastes into the ocean, killing all local (and probably even far away from Acapulco) investments (Hotels, Bars, Fishery, etc). This is a very possible scenario which you seem to refute by using the "non aggression principle" justification, but for which history showed several times, that they fail at critical moments.By your account, we should all be living next to landfills and chemical plants, and obviously we are not.Not by my account, but then again, there are regulations that prevent these actions. So, should we take into account that maybe, it's because of these regulations that we aren't all living next to dump sites and nuclear power plants.The closer we come to private ownership of all land, and the application of the non aggression principle, the less chance there is that the problems that you bring up will occur.Assuming that every private owner will choose that non aggression principle. That actually remembers me when Stalin signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler and we all know what happen after that...And yes Jeff, you are absolutely right when you say "shit happens"... In order to die, there is only one thing that is needed and that is, to be alive.But then again... survival instincts always come up, to change that. Worst-case scenario, remember?I'm not saying that it is not possible to live without regulatory systems, I'm just presenting scenarios were the lack of regulations, can pretty much change the way the system works and I'm sorry to say that justifying everything with a "Non Aggression Principle" for me it's pure blind faith in mankind.

Claymore (not verified) - 51 weeks 6 days ago

@mavaOk.. change the "dump site" example to a "nuclear power plant" example...Fukushima completely f..ked up everything around it in a 100km radius...By your line of thought, I would need to buy the freaking world just to protect a piece of land. I'm talking about protecting my land from foreign aggression were such aggression can take many forms, from the direct one (military) or a more disguised one (polluting the land, poisoning the soil, etc)btw, your explanation went completely out of topic when you statedSecondly, have you considered the rights of a person owning the dump? Why should he be looking somewhere else? Does he have any obligation to promote my business?He doesn't have to promote your business but he also doesn't have the right to take an aggressive stance against your own business just to promote his business... One's freedom start's were other's freedom ends.

Jeff Berwick (not verified) - 51 weeks 6 days ago

Claymore, you are hilarious.You'll note that the nuclear industry around the world is highly regulated and in some cases outright controlled by the government. I have my doubts about the fear mongering surrounding Fukushima, and you'll note that the absolute worst nuclear disaster occurred in the soviet union, where the state owned EVERYTHING.By your account, we should all be living next to landfills and chemical plants, and obviously we are not.The closer we come to private ownership of all land, and the application of the non aggression principle, the less chance there is that the problems that you bring up will occur. That being said, shit happens. There are no guarantees in this world. Every time you step out the front door of your house, you take your life into your hands.

mava (not verified) - 52 weeks 1 hour ago

Claymore,Let me deal with your question.Let us assume that I have purchased a swat of land and built a beautiful hotel there. Then, someone else who owns a piece of land next to mine, had built a garbage dump. You say that this would harm my investment.I say no such thing. How so?Well, first of all, when I purchased the property for the hotel, I had considered such a possibility, which is why I bought more land than the footprint of my hotel. The reason I did not buy the property where now is the dump, was because I didn't think that whatever could be built on it, could damage my investment. And if I have miscalculated, then this is where I must take the losses, because it was only my own fault. There is no such thing as business without risk, and in this case, (if it really affected my business), then I have miscalculated and my profits may not materialize.Secondly, have you considered the rights of a person owning the dump? Why should he be looking somewhere else? Does he have any obligation to promote my business? Thirdly, how do you know which of the two were actually needed by the people? No one can tell! Only after we allow for some time both enterprises to operate, we can see which need was more urgent, and which one was not so urgent, or may-be even completely unnecessary. The mistake in your argument here is that you have assumed that the hotel is needed by the public. In case of a condo it is essentially the same thing as it is for sale or rent, but as far as a private residence, then all talk about "value" is a talk of pure speculation.Fourthly, typically, this is the nightmare of a socialist. Real estate prices would normally dictate that the garbage dump can not be built with profit on that land, because the land prices around beautiful hotels are prohibitively expensive for dump owners. They could arguably be approachable around nasty, cockroach motels, in which case the argument of the dump harming the business prospects of a roach motel becomes nil.You are consistently missing this point, - all land and water and streams, and mountains, and forests, - all should be privately owned. If there is any value to that natural beauty, then the people will pay to visit, accordingly. If they are not willing, then there is no value, but the invented, supposed value. Your horror visions steam from missing the point that if something is needed, it is not bad, and that only things that are not needed by anyone are bad, even if they look beautiful. In case you are the only one that understands the beauty of, say, a snowy mountain top, and everyone else just need a spacecraft launch pad, then you are free to buy it, if your desire is strong enough, and if you have contributed enough benefit to the people (which gets recorded in money system), so that you are willing and able to afford the going price.

Claymore (not verified) - 1 year 3 hours ago

@JeffFirst of all, thanks for your point of view!It's normal that even within the Anarch-Capitalist system, it's followers have different opinions among themselves, but in my opinion, that's actually good :) Diversity!I'm a bit of a "worst case scenario" person. Since I'm an engineer, I'm always inclined to predict worst-case scenarios when I'm working in the field of autonomic systems. Some people call it pessimistic view, I call it realistic and a possible view.That's why I'm always reluctant in these kind of distributed self-managed systems. It's easy for things to crumble into pieces if things do not have a correct pre-established architecture.Again, thanks for your opinion.

Jeff Berwick (not verified) - 1 year 3 hours ago

Well claymore, that is exactly why freedom works.Each individual is unique and contributes their own skills and pov into building society. Capitalism and the free market is built on cooperation.As an engineer, you understand that when designing a system, it must be built on the correct principles. For example, an airplane would not fly if it were not built on the properly understood and applied laws of nature and physics.Human society is no different IMO.

Claymore (not verified) - 1 year 6 hours ago

@jeffI just saw the video from you tube that you posted and Walter Block actually justifies the existence and need of a Government as a regulatory system in order to protect individual rights. He also explained what happens when such Government gets corrupted but always having in mind that the Government should go back to protecting individual rights. (when I say Government, I say it in a general way)Anyway, it seems that Walter Block position (from that interview) is that a Government is necessary for individual property rights protection and your position Jeff (as far as I know), is that Governments should not even exist.So from your point of view and making it a simple question, how can individual property rights be protected without the existence of a Government?From mine point of view, without a regulatory Government, companies or entrepreneurs, will always have the incentive to produce or manufacture goods from the cheapest point of view, even if for that, the environment ends up being sacrificed.

Jeff Berwick (not verified) - 1 year 6 hours ago

Well Claymore, Walter block is an Anarcho-capitalist, so his definition of "government" and the need for it is pretty much the same as mine.Humans naturally self organize, if a group form and come to some sort of agreement to voluntarily manage their affairs by ceding some decision making to another person, then that would be a "government" but a voluntary one. As opposed to the systems we currently live under.Many people get confused and seem to think that anarchy means "no rules". In fact there would be all sorts of rules in a voluntary society. Starting with the non aggression principle. (NAP)And if there is pollution that damages your person or property, that is a violation of the NAP. So it would be addressed in a private law/voluntary society.

Jeff Berwick (not verified) - 1 year 6 hours ago

Read Stephan Kinsella on law http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/08/rich-people-murder-sprees-in-a-sy...

Jeff Berwick (not verified) - 1 year 12 hours ago

Google free market environmentalism and Walter block and do some research.

Claymore (not verified) - 1 year 6 hours ago

Jeff Berwick (not verified) - 1 year 13 hours ago

You can hyperlink the text here and then close the codehttp://www.hyperlinkcode.com/make-hyperlink.php

Jeff Berwick (not verified) - 1 year 13 hours ago

Claymore, you have everything as backwards as the previous commentator, entrepreneurs succeed DESPITE the regulations thrown up in the way of economic and social progress. If you want more wealth and a higher quality of life, you need LESS government interference(aka regulation) not more.

Claymore (not verified) - 1 year 13 hours ago

@JeffBut Jeff, I gave you a very good example were the lack of a regulatory system, will actually destroy your wealth and kill your quality of life. Image if someone decided to build a dump site near your condos in Acapulco, what would you do? It would probably be profitable for the owner of the dump site but your investment would be completely destroyed... I'm talking about a preventive system... We could even discuss the placement of a factory that would start dumping into the ocean, large amounts of toxins, destroying the water quality of the beaches in Acapulco, and consequently destroying every single investment along the coastline...It happen before, this is no novelty...

Jeff Berwick (not verified) - 1 year 12 hours ago

Actually claymore, private property is the best way to protect environmental quality - the absolute worst environmental damage EVER occurred in the Eastern Bloc socialist/communist countries.In a world where bodies of water are owned by governments or by no-one, it is not surprising that pollution is an issue.Walter block has done great work on the environment. Check out this video on YouTube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrTsaSUFfpo&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Menno Troyer (not verified) - 1 year 1 day ago

I was playing around with the post trying to figure out how to create a hyperlink. Apparently, this site won't accept HTML code from youtube. Anyway, here is the url for the interview where the above quote was taken from:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=madU172f6zI&feature=related

Claymore (not verified) - 1 year 16 hours ago

Man, that guy has it completely backwards. Economic freedom created the quality of life we have enjoyed up until this point.Show me in which country, such economic freedom exists and I will believe it... otherwise, it's pure fiction.Even your success Jeff, was the result of a regulated economy. The laws that protected you first entrepreneur adventure (the StockHouse) or the condos that you own in Acapulco where laws prevent idiots to build dumps fields right next to your investments, helping to maintain their land value. Even the USD's which you use everyday, are a direct result of every single law designed by a political system which you are against, but yet, you have actually profited from it. I agree that High taxes when not used correctly, should be considered parasitical but I also agree that taxes prevent money accumulation at one side of the society.Right Wing politics supporters usually defend that the rich people are the ones responsible for job creation which is completely false... Entrepeneurs do not need to be rich in order to create a business. In my opinion, its the Middle Class that not only creates jobs, but also are the ones that maintain those jobs and their sustainability.

Claymore (not verified) - 1 year 2 days ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bBx2Y5HhplI#!

Ed (not verified) - 1 year 2 days ago

Nick Hanauer - Just one more government educated, delusional moron who is certain government would make better investments if it took more money from the people. After all, we don't have enough war and policing yet for full employment. Government IS the middle class.

Menno Troyer (not verified) - 1 year 1 day ago

"Delusional moron" might be putting it kindly:

Jeff Berwick (not verified) - 1 year 1 day ago

Man, that guy has it completely backwards. Economic freedom created the quality of life we have enjoyed up until this point. High taxes and the parasitical growth of government is slowly undermining our quality of life and freedom.

Chris Horlacher (not verified) - 1 year 2 days ago

Funny how Jakob leads off by saying anecdotes prove nothing, then uses an anecdote to try to prove his own point :P

DL (not verified) - 1 year 2 days ago

In response to READER DISSENT ON THE BENEFITS OF PUBLIC INDOCTIRNATIONI couldn't have responded to Jacobs view better myself TDV! Sorry Jacob. You are a perfect example of what the school prison system in this country produces. A brainwashed tax slave who does what you are told without question. You have not the slightest clue. Through years of observation, I have realized that this is what a large percentage of the population in this country actually want and need! They don't want to have to think for themselves or make decisions. This has been bred into us. Scary. The best decision i ever made in my life was to leave the school prison system as soon as i was old enough to do so. It was 10 years of absolute hell.

Ed (not verified) - 1 year 2 days ago

Chuckie Cheese is running a psy-op. Trying to make people think there is really no point in leaving and it might cost them even more money than staying. I don't believe the bill will pass and I don't believe they would be able to enforce it if it did. Yet your readers are acting like the clowns are all powerful and the individual just can't win. That's ass backwards. The collective can't win and things are looking better for real individuals all the time.

ralph (not verified) - 1 year 2 days ago

TDV youre not "tired" or "out of date". Just last week Greeks started taking hundreds of millions of Euros out of Greek banks. Last fucking week!!! Ive known Greek banks were insolvent for over 2 years, and Im not Greek. This solidifies for me the power of MSM and financial propoganda to utterly brainwash entire populations of people into TRUSTING banks and Government with their life savings. The writing is on the wall and the few smart ones are getting out now. Unfortunately the masses dont figure it out until its too late. Just thank God youre safe in Acapulco and embracing life. Here in USSA its getting more evil by the day. Just this week cameras were installed at all the traffic lights in my hometown to keep us safe? or to ticket the people and steal their wealth. This place sucks

Shane (not verified) - 1 year 3 days ago

Jakob needs to head over to SchoolSucks...created by former teacher Brett Veinotte:http://schoolsucks.podomatic.com/

Menno Troyer (not verified) - 1 year 3 days ago

Wow, I did not realize the "ex-patriot" bill would be retroactive 10 years. If it can be believed, this provision is even more vile and presumptious than the government continuing to claim jurisdiction over someone who has renounced citizenship and left the country. At least those who consider renouncing after the bill goes into effect, will be able to make an informed decision based on the despotic new rules. But now it turns out they are so downright dishonorable as to try to change the rules after the fact for those whose expatriation has already been finalized with the blessing of the US government.This is getting as surreal as an Ayn Rand novel. If this bill passes, it will be shrug time for America's entrepreneurs.