Dubstepforum.com

Holy fuck the stupid in this thread

i understood Central Banking as having a National Bank such as Bank of England or the Fed Reserve?? if its wrong context please do go on Borrowed... are you a Parson troll account?

noam wrote:i understood Central Banking as having a National Bank such as Bank of England or the Fed Reserve?? if its wrong context please do go on Borrowed... are you a Parson troll account?

What? Also, no.

noam wrote:how is Central Banking a communist invention???

It isn't, Genevieve just doesn't see that state intervention is not mutually exclusive from capitalism or indeed that capitalism requires a strong state in the first place.

noam wrote:how is Central Banking a communist invention???

Should've specified, my bad. A central banking system that is a regulatory force of the market is more or less a communist invention. Karl Marx outlined a demand for "centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly" in his Communist Manifesto.

This is exactly what the Federal Reserve does and it goes against the core principles of free-market capitalism.

I'm for a free-market where individuals take personal responsibility for their actions. A central bank controls the money supply, thus, the market isn't free. Corporations are defined as:

1. A body that is granted a charter recognizing it as a separate legal entity having its own rights, privileges, and liabilities distinct from those of its members.
2. Such a body created for purposes of government. Also called body corporate.
3. A group of people combined into or acting as one body.

Which renders personal, fiscal and moral liability as pretty much non-existing.

The problem isn't the existence of the ownership of capital, but the combination of corporations and a regulated money supply. By a central bank that was actually founded by large corporations in 1913, to help them control the market.

A cental bank was established before, in the USA, to help fund the civil war (funny how that goes), but was abolished soon after due to the problems it posed to allowing governments to control the money supply and thus the market.

the acid never lies wrote:

noam wrote:how is Central Banking a communist invention???

It isn't, Genevieve just doesn't see that state intervention is not mutually exclusive from capitalism

I say things and back them up. You claim things and just say 'that's the way it is, you are wrong if you don't get it'. One Parson is enough on this forum.

I also said that capitalism changes in meaning depending on the context it is used in. Yes, capitalism with government intervention exists. Do tell me where I didn't say that? I also said that excessive government intervention leads to corporatism, which is not something I am about. Nor is any libertarian.

Instead of going around assuming things about my belief, it's much healthier to ask me what I believe.

the acid never lies wrote:or indeed that capitalism requires a strong state in the first place.

Define 'strong'. Don't be arbitrary. There is a difference between 'strong' and 'large and 'intrusive'. Yes, we need government to protect and secure individual rights and to avoid harm to the individual/capital from another indivudual or from another company. I never claimed to be an anarcho-capitalist and I agree with small scale government intervention to help uphold the corner stones of libertarian philosophy.

You harm people, you're punished. You infringe on people's rights, you're punished. You commit fraud, you're punished. You break someone's stuff, you're punished.

If anything, you dont'seem to understand that libertarianism does not equal capitalism. You need to learn the difference.

I though libertarianism was the basis of capitalism? That's the impression I got from the philosophical and critical psychology module I did last year Not saying I got the right end of the stick, I only got 52% on the essay (all-nighter in the library, not the best way to get things done) but that is meant to show I got a decent handle on the subject without making anything out of it!

I think it would be appreciated (by me, at least) if you referenced some material that outlines the concepts and how they work.

test recordings wrote:I though libertarianism was the basis of capitalism? That's the impression I got from the philosophical and critical psychology module I did last year Not saying I got the right end of the stick, I only got 52% on the essay (all-nighter in the library, not the best way to get things done) but that is meant to show I got a decent handle on the subject without making anything out of it!

I think it would be appreciated (by me, at least) if you referenced some material that outlines the concepts and how they work.

I'll try, all my knowledge on this is like... based on years of experience. I hate to say it, but check out the Wiki article.

It starts out with:

Libertarianism is the advocacy of individual liberty, especially freedom of expression and action. Libertarianism includes diverse philosophies and organizations; all advocate either minimization or elimination of the state, and a goal of maximizing individual liberty and freedom.

This is libertarianism in a nutshell and yeah, upholding that, lots of people are libertarian. The capitalist input of libertarianism didn't really come into play until around the mid 20th century. Before that, libertarianism was more closely related to non-capitalist anarchistm. Regardless, there are also lots of capitalist anarchists, of course.

I think the current 'layman's definition' of libertarianism came into existence so that old school, free-market liberals could distance themselves from the 'new' definition of 'liberal' and because the core philosophy of libertarianism can be applied to free-market capitalist, classical liberal philosophy.

Capitalism isn't the basis of libertarianism, it's viewed as a tool for propertarian libertarians to keep the government out of people's lives. I myself am a propertarian.