<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://mises.org/Community/utility/FeedStylesheets/atom.xsl" media="screen"?><feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en"><title type="html">atrickpay</title><subtitle type="html">Pro-private property, pro-natural rights, Articles of Confederation&amp;gt;Constitution, anti minimal-statism.</subtitle><id>http://mises.org/Community/blogs/atrickpay/atom.aspx</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://mises.org/Community/blogs/atrickpay/default.aspx" /><link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://mises.org/Community/blogs/atrickpay/atom.aspx" /><generator uri="http://communityserver.org" version="4.1.40407.4157">Community Server</generator><updated>2008-10-21T15:27:00Z</updated><entry><title>What's with the hostility towards collectivism? Some instances of it are perfectly fine...</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="/Community/blogs/atrickpay/archive/2008/12/05/what-s-with-the-hostility-towards-collectivism-some-instances-of-it-are-perfectly-fine.aspx" /><id>/Community/blogs/atrickpay/archive/2008/12/05/what-s-with-the-hostility-towards-collectivism-some-instances-of-it-are-perfectly-fine.aspx</id><published>2008-12-05T21:05:00Z</published><updated>2008-12-05T21:05:00Z</updated><content type="html">&lt;p&gt;Definition of &lt;i&gt;collective&lt;/i&gt;: a grouping of individuals.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Definition of &lt;i&gt;collectivism&lt;/i&gt;: having to do with a collective.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Conclusion&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;1. Voluntary collectivism is fine. E.g. being part of a baseball team, joining a hippie-commune, etc.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;2. The initiation of coercive collectivism is &lt;i&gt;not&lt;/i&gt; OK. E.g. being bound by physical force (or threat thereof) to: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="padding-left:30px;"&gt;a) join a street-gang; b) fund a government national defense force; etc.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;3. Coercive collectivism is OK if used in self-defense. E.g. a group of individuals use physical force to subdue a violent thug.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Remember, precision with terms is very important.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://mises.org/Community/aggbug.aspx?PostID=69500" width="1" height="1"&gt;</content><author><name>atrickpay</name><uri>http://mises.org/Community/members/atrickpay/default.aspx</uri></author></entry><entry><title>In defense of fractional-reserve banking</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="/Community/blogs/atrickpay/archive/2008/10/21/in-defense-of-fractional-reserve-banking.aspx" /><id>/Community/blogs/atrickpay/archive/2008/10/21/in-defense-of-fractional-reserve-banking.aspx</id><published>2008-10-21T20:27:00Z</published><updated>2008-10-21T20:27:00Z</updated><content type="html">&lt;p&gt;A lot of pro-liberty people think that fractional-reserve banking is a nefarious thing that should be made illegal.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Why do they think this? Because:
    &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;1. They believe that it is inherently fraudulent. &lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;2. It increases the money supply and thus decreases the value of the money (assuming of course that the demand for money has not increased to match the increased supply). &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I will address both of these points:
    &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;1. It is not true that it is inherently fraudulent. This example proves it:
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p style="padding-left:30px;"&gt;-I go the bank to make a deposit and &lt;i&gt;specifically&lt;/i&gt; request that they keep only a fraction of it on reserve.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="padding-left:30px;"&gt;-I also stipulate that I want to be able to withdraw a sum equivalent to what I put in at any time.
    &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="padding-left:30px;"&gt;So, as long as both parties consent to it being done, how can it be considered fraud?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="padding-left:30px;"&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;2. They are correct here that it does decrease the value of the money (with the assumption I noted above).&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p style="padding-left:30px;"&gt;However, they are not justified in using physical force (ie. making it illegal) to stop me from decreasing the value of the money via my engaging in a fractional-reserve deposit. Why? &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="padding-left:30px;"&gt;Because you &lt;i&gt;don&amp;#39;t&lt;/i&gt; have a natural right to the value of your property. You only have a right to the property &lt;i&gt;itself&lt;/i&gt;. For example, say my house declined in price from $200,000 to $150,000. I do not have a right to apply coercion on my neighbor to make him buy it at its previous price of $200,000. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style="text-decoration:underline;"&gt;&lt;b&gt;Conclusion&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, both of their objections do not give sufficient justification to make it illegal. Long live fractional-reserve banking!&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="padding-left:30px;"&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="padding-left:30px;"&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="padding-left:30px;"&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="padding-left:30px;"&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="padding-left:30px;"&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="padding-left:30px;"&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="padding-left:30px;"&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://mises.org/Community/aggbug.aspx?PostID=59595" width="1" height="1"&gt;</content><author><name>atrickpay</name><uri>http://mises.org/Community/members/atrickpay/default.aspx</uri></author></entry></feed>